capaDATA
  • PERFORMANCE
    • Younger saver, 30 years to retirement – 5-year annualised returns
      • Line chart
      • Bar chart
    • Younger saver, 30 years to retirement – 3-year annualised returns
      • Line chart
      • Bar chart
    • Younger saver, 30 years to retirement – 1-year annualised returns
      • Line chart
      • Bar chart
    • Older saver, 5 years to retirement – 5-year annualised returns
      • Line chart
      • Bar chart
    • Older saver, 5 years to retirement – 3-year annualised returns
      • Line chart
      • Bar chart
    • Older saver, 5 years to retirement – 1-year annualised returns
      • Line chart
      • Bar chart
  • RISK/RETURN
    • Risk/Return – Younger saver, 30 years from retirement, 5-year annualised
    • Risk/Return – Younger saver, 30 years from retirement, 3-year annualised
    • Risk/Return – Younger saver, 30 years from retirement, 1-year annualised
    • Risk/Return – Older saver, 5 years from retirement, 5-year annualised
    • Risk/Return – Older saver, 5 years from retirement, 3-year annualised
    • Risk/Return – Older saver, 5 years from retirement, 1-year annualised
  • PROVIDERS
    • Aegon Master Trust
    • Aon Master Trust
    • Atlas Master Trust
    • Aviva Master Trust
    • The Bluesky Pension Scheme
    • Ensign Retirement Plan
    • Fidelity Master Trust
    • Legal & General Investment Management – WorkSave Pension Mastertrust
    • LifeSight (Willis Towers Watson)
    • Mercer Master Trust
    • National Employment Savings Trust (NEST)
    • Now: Pensions
    • The People’s Pension
    • Salvus Master Trust
    • Scottish Widows Master Trust
    • Smart Pension
    • Standard Life DC Master Trust
    • SuperTrust UK Master Trust
    • TPT Retirement Solutions
    • Welplan Pensions
  • Research
    • ADVISERS
      • Pension provider selection factors
      • Switching
      • Diversification
      • Illiquids
      • ESG
      • Green
      • Digital
      • Consolidation
    • PROVIDERS
      • Master Trusts by number of members
      • Master Trust defaults by assets and number of employers
      • Member charges
      • Employer charges
      • Master trust investment advisers
      • Equity exposure
      • Derisking
      • Asset managers used
  • NEWS
  • MORE
    • About
    • Advertise
    • Contact us
    • Privacy policy
    • Content syndication
    • Terms & Conditions
CAPA
No Result
View All Result

Altmann: Ditch triple lock? A reformed double lock would be fairer

15 May 2020
Ros Altmann: Pensions lifeline
Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on LinkedIn

The Triple Lock on State Pensions was introduced in 2011 to protect pensioner incomes. Over many years, the Basic State Pension had fallen significantly behind general increases in income for the whole population and the Coalition Government committed to increasing State Pensions each year by the highest of earnings inflation, price inflation or 2.5%, which resulted in a welcome reduction in pensioner poverty over time.

The triple lock itself is a political construct, rather than an effective social policy tool. Unfortunately, it has become a totemic symbol of Government commitment to look after pensioners. This seems, to some degree, to have turned the ‘triple lock’ into a short-hand measure of policy for pensioner wellbeing.

However, the reality is that this policy has serious shortcomings. It fails to protect the poorest and oldest pensioners, while offering top protection to those who are still in their 60s, who reached pension age since April 2016. Indeed, the introduction of the new State Pension at that time has made the impact of the triple lock even less justifiable. If our aim is to protect pensioners, then surely national resources should be focussed on the poorest. But that is not how the triple lock works.

The triple lock only applies to the £134.25 old Basic State Pension.  This is received by those who reached state pension age before April 2016, i.e. the oldest ones who are already over age 70. The old state pension system paid two elements – a basic flat rate amount, plus additional earnings-related elements including State Second Pension (S2P) and the State Earnings Related Pension Scheme (SERPS). The full Basic State Pension is £134.25 and only that part is covered by the triple lock. The additional S2P and SERPS only increase in line with price inflation.

In contrast, the triple lock covers full £175.20 New State Pension.  The new State Pension, introduced in April 2016, joins together the old Basic and Additional Pensions into one payment. So, those reaching pension age since April 2016 can get a New State Pension of £175.20 which is fully covered by the triple lock. So, the youngest pensioners have £175.20 of their State Pension triple locked, but older pensioners only have £134.25 protected in this way – over £40 a week less protection.

Even more concerning, triple lock does not cover Pension Credit. Pension Credit is the payment which ensures those pensioners who are at most risk of poverty, can claim means-tested Pension Credit which tops up any State Pension or other income they are receiving to £173.75 a week. But this is not covered by the triple lock. Pension Credit only has to rise in line with earnings inflation, therefore excluding the poorest pensioners from triple lock top protection. If prices rise by more than earnings and if both are below 2.5%, Pension Credit for the poorest pensioners may fall behind other pensioners and the rest of society.

Of course we must protect pensioners, but is this triple lock the appropriate policy? Providing less protection to the least well off does not seem logical – and the 2.5% element does not have economic or societal logic. The rationale seems to have become entirely political. Of course it is vital to protect pensioners and I would hate to see any return to the widespread pensioner poverty that we have worked hard to overcome. However, with the introduction of the new State Pension, and after the latest crisis, it seems time to move on.

Government can consider a double lock to increase by highest of earnings or price inflation. A double lock would seem more justifiable in policy terms, ensuring state pensions rise in line each year with the best of earnings or price inflation. And this needs to apply to Pension Credit too.

The costs of the triple lock, in terms of the long-term budget forecasts, are significant. The triple lock adds significantly to the long-term cost estimates for state pensions. It may also lead to  further upward pressure on State Pension Age, which again can be detrimental to the poorest and least healthy older people in our society. If both earnings and prices increase by less than 2.5%, the costs of pensioner support add extra strain on our already over-extended public finances and there is clearly a trade-off between triple lock costs and pressure to save money by increasing State Pension age.

Will the latest crisis help reduce political attachment to this totemic policy? We absolutely must protect pensioners, who cannot increase their future earnings to make up for crisis periods. However, all policy decisions are likely to be revisited in light of this latest health and economic crisis.  It is important not to rush to hasty conclusions, but I do hope the political class and media commentators will consider the way the triple lock actually works and objectively assess whether it may have run its course.

The following is a summary of the current system for single pensioners:

Basic State Pension        = £134.25 a week – all pensioners reaching pension age before 2016 only have £134.25 of their State Pension protected by the triple lock. These are the oldest pensioners. They will normally have a Basic State Pension and also an additional state pension, related to their past earnings. These state pension payments beyond the Basic State Pension only have to increase in line with prices, so they are not protected by the triple lock.

Full New State Pension = £175.20 a week – only pensioners reaching state pension age after April 2016 can claim the new State Pension which is fully protected by the triple lock and, as you can see, means they have much more protection than the older pensions.

Pension Credit  = £173.75 a week – this is the income that the poorest pensioners will live on. If they don’t have other State Pension, or their state pension is below this level and they have no other income, then this is what they receive, but Pension Credit only has to rise in line with earnings, not the triple lock.

Government must commit to ongoing protection but is a double lock fairer all round? A double lock, which increases State Pensions and Pension Credit by the best of price inflation or earnings inflation, might be part of the answer.

 

 

 

The post Altmann: Ditch triple lock? A reformed double lock would be fairer appeared first on Corporate Adviser.

TweetShareShare
Previous Post

Half of young adults saving more through lockdown

Next Post

Employers see benefits of supporting mental health: Grid

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy

Category

  • By Provider
  • News
  • Not for search
  • Provider page archive
  • Uncategorized
  • video
CAPA data

© 2019 Definite Article Media Limited. Design by Bedazzled Media Limited.

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact us
  • Privacy policy
  • Syndication

Follow us

No Result
View All Result
  • About
  • Advertise
  • Contact us
  • Privacy policy
  • Syndication

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish.AcceptReject Read More
Privacy & Cookies Policy

Privacy Overview

This website uses cookies to improve your experience while you navigate through the website. Out of these, the cookies that are categorized as necessary are stored on your browser as they are essential for the working of basic functionalities of the website. We also use third-party cookies that help us analyze and understand how you use this website. These cookies will be stored in your browser only with your consent. You also have the option to opt-out of these cookies. But opting out of some of these cookies may affect your browsing experience.
Necessary
Always Enabled
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Non-necessary
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.
SAVE & ACCEPT