Hypothetical question...

[Ossian]

Let's say I'm in receipt of a state pension and, along with the other twelve and a half million similarly entitled, receive notification that, from April next and by dint of the triple-lock, my pension is to increase by a double-figure percentage. Paid for out of the so-called 'public purse'.

Now let's also say that you are a nurse, or porter, or teaching assistant, or any of those other key workers we once applauded - if only briefly -  from our doorsteps, and you get offered, for argument's sake, 2 or 3% along with some patronising and unwelcome advice on economic reality, on account of the pressures on... well, the public purse.

Would you be justified in thinking that there was something not quite right about all of this (even allowing for the fact that our state pensions are actually pretty shit)? Something not quite right about the fact that you're actually working as a public employee but somehow entitled to less protection from the effects of inflation than someone who is dependant but not actually contributing?

[Protheroe]

Yes and Yes.

You'd also be right in thinking that it's unfair that working pensioners don't pay NI and you'll be underwriting their kid's ability to inherit their house through your taxes despite living in an expensive small rented flat yourself.

[baggy1]

One of the problems with the view is that it is an either / or - this is something that the current crooks like to play off each other. For individuals the current pension increasing by 10% adds another £100 a month to their income which isn't going to change their worlds, however en masse it does equate to a large amount which has to be funded somehow. 

Increasing public service workers by 10% would cripple the country with it's scale and is a result of years of underpay rather than one year of overpay as it is being painted. We are where we are and can now see that all austerity did was make us completely underprepared for any crisis and simply kicked all the cans down the road. The problem that has hit the Tories now is that they were the one's that kicked it down the road to themselves - they've been found out.

I agree entirely that NI should be paid on earnings over a certain limit no matter what you age is, the thought that NI was a pot for pensioners to pay into is long gone and maybe this is a precursor to restating the overly complex tax system into a simpler version now.

And Proths final point on inheritance has been discussed a thousand times on here. It's a short term measure that is again kicking the can down the road. Ask yourself this, when the funds from properties have been absorbed into the state funds through paying for care what do we do then - the inheritance won't have been passed down so we'll be in a country where home ownership is for the minority. What do we do at that point, I would suggest that you take that thought / idea and implement it now rather than squeeze the last remaining funds out of private hands.

[Protheroe]

What do we do at that point

We build more houses for the last 50 years.

Or at least we actually build more houses in future, including socially rented houses funded by just the type of bonds that pensioners / pension funds love to hold.

[baggy1]

What do we do at that point

We build more houses for the last 50 years.

Or at least we actually build more houses in future, including socially rented houses funded by just the type of bonds that pensioners / pension funds love to hold.

Things that the Tories are not going to do lets be honest

[Ossian]

What do we do at that point

We build more houses for the last 50 years.

Or at least we actually build more houses in future, including socially rented houses funded by just the type of bonds that pensioners / pension funds love to hold.

With interest rates now on the increase, albeit slowly, perhaps this would be the time (leaving aside past opportunities missed!) to be looking at issuing exactly that type of secure, risk-free, investment. 

I have no desire to be a landlord - not a point of principle, it just wouldn't suit me - but if rates reach levels where I could get, say, a solid 3.5 or 4 percent and allow somebody else to utilise those funds to eat into the housing shortfall then I'd definitely be interested.

[Protheroe]

With interest rates now on the increase, albeit slowly, perhaps this would be the time (leaving aside past opportunities missed!) to be looking at issuing exactly that type of secure, risk-free, investment. 

I have no desire to be a landlord - not a point of principle, it just wouldn't suit me - but if rates reach levels where I could get, say, a solid 3.5 or 4 percent and allow somebody else to utilise those funds to eat into the housing shortfall then I'd definitely be interested.

It is the most obvious solution there is for social housing. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Tories are against private capital funding housing associations in this way.