David Hearne, CFP™

I am a qualified, regulated and practicing financial planner. You can find me... On @TheFCA register register.fca.org.uk/s/individual?i… The @CISI members directory cisi.org/cisiweb2/cisi-… And the @pfsconf members directory thepfs.org/membership/mem…

@RedCircleFP They have paid their dues after all

@dontdelay No doubt they also want that to be tax free

Grok estimated that this would cost an extra £431,000,000,000 a year I wonder if the person who made the petition had any idea?

@MauriceMudd @Helen_Whately @TorstenBell Taking the money from? It’s my money. I’ve saved it.

@dontdelay @Helen_Whately @TorstenBell I find it difficult to understand that an investment company shouldn’t have to invest a certain % of there equity in the country they are taking the money from Say 20%

The Lords have voted mandation out of the pensions bill. Robustly. It’s a dangerous power no government should wield. Take note @TorstenBell. Let’s keep it out.

Sense prevails

@MauriceMudd @Helen_Whately @TorstenBell No. I do. I choose to. I’m just saying people shouldn’t be made to. If a company knows it’s going to gain investment because the government has passed a law forcing pension companies to invest in them, then they have less need to make themselves an attractive investment.

@dontdelay @Helen_Whately @TorstenBell So are you saying that investing in the U.K. isn’t a good thing todo ?

@MauriceMudd @Helen_Whately @TorstenBell Because I expect the people investing my pension money to seek the best risk rated returns with it. Otherwise I will have to save more or retire later.

@dontdelay @Helen_Whately @TorstenBell Why?

@bsazzled Let's do the maths right now £31,724 x 18,000,000 over 60s = £571 billion Current spending on state pension c. £140 billion Difference £431 billion Or maybe there's only 16,000,000 over 60s, and we currently spend more at £150 billion. Still an extra £357,000,000,000

@dontdelay Any idea if Grok is a reliable source? I’m sure they know it’s not

The current level. Because it shouldn't ever be decreased. People have planned on the current number. And we cant afford (or justify) a one off increase. We are where we are. It's how it (the amount paid and when it's paid) increases from here that matters. And I think slowing the increase in the amount, to reduce the pressure on increasing the age it's paid. Is the best outcome overall.

@dontdelay @d_peter17473 At what level of comfort do you think the universal amount should be set?

The triple lock does not produce 'a miserly pension' But isn't it precisely because we have such high amounts of (government subsidised) private pension savings, that our pensioners are (on average) our wealthiest generation, and (on average) less likely to be in poverty, despite our state pensions being lower than other European countries?

@MauriceMudd @Helen_Whately @TorstenBell No one's stopping them. Just that no one should be making them.

@Helen_Whately @TorstenBell On ya bike Helen Any help in the uk would be fantastic after 14.5 years of Tory shambles Industry in the uk is on its knees after being privatised and sold off to foreign investors Please explain why Britain pension funds Shouldn’t invest in the UK ?

Sorry, replied to your first post before seeing this. I think universal provision of state pension must be retained. It's fundamental to retirement planning to know what you will get and when. But triple lock makes the 'what' uncertain, and the increasing cost of it, increases the risk of the 'when' being delayed.

@dontdelay @d_peter17473 Support from those who pay for everything is increasingly tenuous and dismantling universal provision is incredibly corrosive to ongoing support. How do you propose incentivising pension saving if universal entitlement is removed? And why would we reward those who fail to /

@RGRV101 @d_peter17473 I'm not suggesting state pensions shouldn't be on the basis of age. And I don't think state pensions should be means tested. I just think we should abolish the triple lock, and that state pensions should increase with inflation, the same as other benefits do.

@dontdelay @d_peter17473 Going to disagree with you for a change. The country relies far too heavily on a very small number of high earners to fund state expenditure. Access to healthcare is on the basis of illness, education on the basis of age, pensions on the basis of age, child benefit should be same

A calling to the most ultra of ultra runners bbc.co.uk/news/articles/…

What spite? If someone has to survive on the state pension alone, then I think we should help them more than we help a pensioner who is a millionaire or has a higher income. When we help children in poverty no one suggests giving wealthy parents increased benefits too. But with the triple lock we do. Let's help those in poverty whatever their age. But let's not use the difficulties of some pensioners in poverty to campaign for ever increasing state benefits for those pensioners who are far from poverty.

@dontdelay The old have always been "the wealthiest generation" b/c they've had the longest to accrue wealth If you don't think it's miserly you try surviving on the state pension alone It's pitiful the spite that the old attract in this country. And frankly weird

@davideWH @UKLabour But state pensions are (a very large) part of our Welfare bill. And state pensions have always been taxable income. Just because they are paid gross, doesn't mean they aren't taxable.

@UKLabour Yes & greatly increased the cost of our Welfare bill. Our taxes will have to keep rising in order to fund Benefits Street. Now REEVES has plans to tax pensioners on their state pension. The difference a Liebour Government makes is blatantly obvious.

This Labour Government has lifted the two child limit because every child the best start in life.

@ebullienteddie Won't somebody think about the 59 year olds.

@dontdelay That's approximately the cost of abolishing all other welfare, totally abandoning the NHS, and raising the basic rate of income tax to 28p

@d_peter17473 @ArthurHayw34890 Who's function?

@dontdelay @ArthurHayw34890 His function in life is to be a fluffer for the very wealthy So they look for every form of state spending to attack from "welfare" to the state pension Odd how bank bailouts, "defence" spending, the £282 bn spent on outsourcing never comes under scrutiny

I post a lot about the triple lock (with apologies to followers) But I've increasingly realised the worst thing about it, is the competing generational incentives. Not just about how much is one generation paying to another. But how the mechanism for triple lock pension increases, actually incentivises economic instability. Workers, who are often paying for mortgages, or raising children, crave stability and gentle progress (to be able plan, to be at less risk of redundancy, to not have to wait a year for a pay rise after inflation has already increased their living costs etc.) But if earnings and inflation grew steadily and stably at 2.5% a year, then state pension would only go up by inflation each year. There would be no more 'real' gains for pensioners as they have beneffited from since 2011 And yet, if there was a recession, and inflation and earnings fell below 2.0%, pensioners would see a real terms increase to their state pension If inflation soared one year, and wages caught up the next year, again, pensioners would see real terms increases to their state pensions. That doesn't feel right.

Easy. The triple lock is a terrible way to help those with the shortest lifespans or those living on the lowest incomes. There would be more money available, to not have to increase the state pension age, or to help those on low incomes, if triple lock didn't increase the state pensions of everyone, including those who will live longer, and the millions who are millionaires.

@Jakey876757 Raising the retirement age hurts working class people the most with the shortest lifespans. How can you argue against triple lock when we have the least generous state pension in Europe?

People born in 1966 are Gen X not boomers. Idk why neoliberal Gen Z think that people's age is fixed, also that lowering pension age is actually pro youth while raising it helps protect the rate for the elderly of today but harder to reach for the pensioners of tomorrow (us).

@jeremyhead I use that phrase all the time with new clients

@dontdelay Unknown unknowns

Only a third? 🤣 I guess most people don’t know what they don’t know

No meandering just diving deeper as each of your replies needed a further response Triple lock is not predictable. Either for individuals personal planning or for governments long term budgeting If your concern is the state pension is insufficient, then make the case to increase it (and say who pays for it) But the triple lock is a poor way to do it. Since stability can mean pensioner incomes wouldn’t increase (in real terms) at all. But add in instability, Covid, Ukraine etc, and pensioners have seen significant real terms increases

@dontdelay Your issue meandered from a “cake and eat it” objection to pension rises, to difficulty doing personal financial planning, to uncertainty over when people might claim a pension in future. An issue for sure, but one which minor tinkering on the triple lock won’t solve at all.