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…

How? I don’t want to cut anyone’s income I still want to see state pensions go up in line with the cost of living (inflation) or in line with the wages (earnings) of the people who pay for state pensions Just not the best of both In fact what I advocate for would reduce pensioner poverty. Because I would take the savings from not paying triple lock increases to the pensioners who don’t need it, and spend it increasing the incomes of those pensioners who are in poverty

@dontdelay @InstituteGC Make young people now look forward to living in poverty when they are old, that's what I'm hearing.

Pension spending must be contained, and that means the triple lock cannot continue after the next Election. But that should only be the first step. Real reform must also build a better system: one that is fairer, more flexible, and designed for how people live today.

@warleybaggie @InstituteGC It hasn’t risen as fast as life expectancy though. That’s another reason why it’s costing today’s workers even more than previous ones

@dontdelay @InstituteGC Also this fails to account for the fact the women used to get the pension at 60 and men at 65. Now it is 67 for men and women, and in the future that age will rise further.

@warleybaggie @InstituteGC Give us more. You can just take more from your kids later. That’s what I’m hearing.

@dontdelay @InstituteGC Future young people will pay more to current young people, that's how it works. The idea this is an unbearable amount is a myth. The UK is well below the OECD & EU average, none of whom have gone into crisis. State pension is not high, you should try living on £241-30 a week.

@warleybaggie @InstituteGC But current pensioners paid much lower pensions to past pensioners, that’s literally why the triple lock was introduced It means current and future workers are paying much more to current pensioners

@dontdelay @InstituteGC No. The two are separate. The second makes sense so that young people now can have a good retirement. The former is a question of perspective, after all the current pensioners or those nearer retirement were paying for those older than them that have now passed away.

@warleybaggie @InstituteGC Wouldn’t that mean younger workers have to pay more current pensioners state pensions AND more for their own workplace pensions ?

@InstituteGC An electoral pact to do this in 2029 is electoral suicide. State pensions are already behind all of our European neighbours. Any retrospective changes would be manifestly unjust. Instead increase stakeholder/company pensions to a minimum contribution 7% employee + 7% employer.

@Arthur_Paneal I try to make that point to everyone who’s response to 5% interest rates is ‘well we had 15% interest rates’ that it’s much better to start higher and go lower than start lower and go higher

@dontdelay The same argument can be made about boomers buying houses in high interest env, and paying their mortgages in a much lower interest env (and millennials now doing the opposite) In both cases the only reason that house prices rise considerably is because supply is so constrained

This is it. This is the primary driver behind intergenerational financial differences Boomers saw the gains from two incomes Millennials only see the strains (I’m Gen X observing from the middle)

I wish local elections were just that, local Seen Green candidates campaigning for Palestine And now Reform acting like it’s a General Election

What is fair pay? Only the employer and employee can decide that. What is a fair price? Only the supplier and the consumer can decide that. The market decides. If the supplier charges too much, they don't make sales, and go out of business. If the employers pay too little, they lose staff and don't attract new ones, and go out of business.

@dontdelay @PeterMcCormack @EmanuelSchucha1 Ah so you have literally no plans to stop predatory employers then 😂 Or do you think out of 1.5 million UK businesses that EVERY SINGLE ONE will treat and pay their staff fairly? Do you blatantly choose to ignore historic evidence or just pretend you live in a utopia

Thanks Harry. Anyway, how about answering the question, it is really simple, why not set the minimum wage at £20? I'll be waiting.

I earn more the minimum wage. Most people do. Why? Are all our employers not predatory? My reasons for abolishing it, are that I think people should be able to be able to contract freely with each other. If I'm offered a job that's next door to my house, and I can leave whenever I want to help my children, I may be willing to accept a lower rate of pay for the extra benefits it gives me, compared to another job the other side of town with inflexible hours. It might be a job that isn't worth the employer paying £15 an hour for, but is worth them paying £10 an hour for. That job exists for me at £10, but wont for anyone at £15.

@dontdelay @PeterMcCormack @EmanuelSchucha1 Predatory employers, you know what the benefits of minimum wage are so what are your reasons for abolishing it

@GeorgeD76304648 @PeterMcCormack @EmanuelSchucha1 Careful. I'm not that old. Protect employees from what?

@dontdelay @PeterMcCormack @EmanuelSchucha1 And when your dad started work women couldn't vote... doesn't mean it's better What would you have to protect employees?

My kids are going to struggle to get a part time job So then they're going to struggle to the build skills needed for a full time job So then they're going to struggle to save for a house So then they're less likely to feel stable enough to start a family So then...

@GeorgeD76304648 @PeterMcCormack @EmanuelSchucha1 Nothing random, I don't think we should have a minimum wage. There wasn't one when I started work.

@dontdelay @PeterMcCormack @EmanuelSchucha1 Ahaha so funny 😁 Instead if engaging in any form of intellectually honest conversation we just say random BS lol

@GeorgeD76304648 @PeterMcCormack @EmanuelSchucha1 I think it should be £0, which doubled, is...

@PeterMcCormack @EmanuelSchucha1 Worst logic ever... no matter what you believe the minimum wage should be someone can say... oh then why not double it 🙄

A minimum wage of £15 would end my coffee shop, it would have to close, as would many other businesses. I’ll explain for the economically illiterate. Staff costs are currently half our costs, a £15 minimum wage is actually more than £15 an hour for the company, because you have to add: - 12.07% holiday - Sick pay - Maternity pay if and when required - National insurance - Pension contributions These costs would mean the shop loses money because remember, energy costs are up, rates are up, regulations are up. Now you can pass these costs onto the consumer - that would mean charging a lot more for coffee, people won’t pay it. The likes of Starbucks and Costa can, because they have economies of scale. The independent doesn’t. Now the little socialist will say well this is your fault, if you can’t run a business that can afford to pay its staff properly, but the little socialist has never run a business and does not understand the dynamics. Now I could pay some staff off and fill those hours myself or reduce us to one staff member during certain periods - but this proves the point that a minimum wage costs jobs. There was a time when these jobs were done by kids, perhaps on the weekend, paid a lower wage, no holiday and no silly employment rights. Perhaps they were even paid cash. The dynamic worked and small businesses like this could operate. It was also a great first job. Sadly now it isn’t worth employing entitlement youngsters at this level of pay. So alas, I don’t need the stress, the business would close, a number of jobs would be lost. Economics is about understanding these dynamics, no vibes. The cost of living is not solved through passing on inflation to the business, it is solved by ending high inflation and creating prosperity. This is what socialists don’t understand, they can’t create prosperity, they can only destroy it.

I cannot explain the number of ways in which I think this is a terrible idea. People often don't understand even the basics about the current state pensions, such as the rules around a fixed state pension age (e.g. waspi) or how state pensions are funded (not your own NI contributions) Yet, this would create variable state pension ages, and variable NI rates🤯

You can read about their proposals here institute.global/insights/econo…

Tony Blair Institute : 'The triple lock cannot continue' Me : Very Sensible, and replace with what? Tony Blair Institute : Hold my beer....

@David_J_Robbins @PensionsDave Thanks. I just saw Steve Webb mention this on LinkedIn. Need to look in more detail

@PensionsDave @dontdelay Blair Institute today hoping that the Pensions Commission will lead to cross-party movement on the Triple Lock. Like a stopped clock, they may occasionally be right. But this looks harder today than it did when the Commission was launched.

The state pension has never been intended to be all someone lives on Which is why we spend £billions subsidising workplace and personal pensions Which is why your previous government implemented auto enrolment forcing employers (no matter how small) to contribute to employees pensions More £ from triple lock increases goes to pensioners in millionaire households than it does to pensioners living in poverty If your concern is pensioners on low incomes @KemiBadenoch then triple lock is a very expensive, untargeted way to help them

@NickDav75301704 @4brooker21 I’m not going to keep re explaining the same thing. Have a good day

@dontdelay @4brooker21 If you don't agree then you're contradicting yourself. Tax free and paying tax on 75% of your income, whether it is at the basic or higher rate, are not the same thing.