Should we keep the triple lock? The readers who claim cutting back would be a disaster vs those who say we can’t afford it

• Few people think the triple lock should be done away with… but many believe it needs to be improved
• Increases based on profit growth, inflation, or 2.5%, whichever is higher.
• If income growth remains at 8.2%, the National Pension could be worth up to £11,469

No subject garners a wider range of views than the national pension. Everyone has an opinion, whether it’s the cost of providing it, whether it’s a triple lock guarantee, or government intervention.

Seven days ago, I wrote about the sustainability of the triple lock against the backdrop of a likely increase of more than 8% in the national pension from the start of the new tax year next April.

More than 1,700 comments were received online. I was inundated with emails from readers wanting to share their opinions.

Thank you very much for your comments. And a special thank you to those who have written directly to me. We want feedback. Journalists don’t have all the answers (far from the answers).

As a result, today we take the Money Mail section to the triple lock, national pension equity or whatever, and what you all have to say about its future.

Triple Rock: Too Fair or Too Generous?

Few readers think that the triple lock guarantee should be abolished. But many believe that improvements are needed.

Currently, the government has decided to increase the national pension annually based on income growth (from May to July year-on-year), inflation rate (for the year to September), or 2.5%, whichever is higher. I promise.

Earnings growth will outpace inflation (8.2% vs. 6.8%) and will be the triple-lock pay component that will be the basis for next year’s National Pension increase.

If profit growth is only 8.2% when next month’s figures are released, the top pension will increase by £869 to £11,469 a year.

Those who retired before 2016 will receive less and the full Basic National Pension will increase from £8,122 to £8,788 in the new tax year beginning 6 April.

Alan McFarland, 67, a retired Yellow Pages contract manager, believes it is a “government duty” to preserve the value of the National Pension.

“Governments need to distinguish between essential and non-essential spending,” said Alan, who lives in Reading, Berkshire, with his wife Kim.

no! A cut in the national pension would lead Britain into bankruptcy.” Lee Tucker67, Truro

“The national pension is essential and should never be watered down. It’s a luxury item.”

Another problem Alan has with public pensions is that the government tends to interfere with the rules. For example, the continuing postponement of the age at which the National Pension begins. From 2026 to 2028, the state’s retirement age will be raised from 66 to 67.

“It’s wrong to change goalposts,” he says. “We need to be able to plan with more certainty about the national pension that people can expect.”

Jim Bell, a 75-year-old former businessman from Lockerbie, Dumfries and Galloway, believes it is unrealistic to keep the triple locks in their current form. Experts estimate it will cost £10 billion in the next tax year.

“We simply can’t afford triple locks in this country,” says Jim. He believes a better way to calculate the increase is based on earnings growth, inflation and an average of 2.5%.

So if earnings growth of 8.2 percent and inflation of 6.8 percent turn out to be the relevant numbers in determining next year’s national pension, Jim’s method would result in a rise of 5.8 percent instead of 8.2 percent.

Last year, ahead of the 10.1% increase in the national pension that began in April this year, Jim wrote to local lawmakers with his ideas for triple-lock reform.

However, Conservative MP David Mundell of Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweedsdale did not respond.

“It’s a simple idea,” says Jim. “Then, without the need for the government to fund eyebrow-raising increases, or anger pensioners by shutting down the triple lock like they did last year, it’s equivalent to pensioners like me. will be given a significant increase.”

For the year starting in April 2022, the national pension increase was limited to 3.1% (increased inflation) instead of income growth (9%) as the pandemic hit government finances.

Some readers believe that there should be a cap on the increase in the National Pension. Figures of 5 percent and 6 percent are mentioned.

This applies to higher percentages of triple locks. “It’s common knowledge,” says Brian Agnew (name changed), a pensioner from Eastbourne, East Sussex.

“The prime minister should set the cap level well before the triple lock is applied each year.”

Consider freezing benefits

Some readers believe that we need to familiarize ourselves with the increase in the national pension for this year and next year.

This is because the government’s decision to freeze personal benefits (the amount you can earn before income tax starts) has caused many pensioners to pay more taxes.

Among them is Gene Nevins, 86, from Newcastle upon Tyne. Jean worked in a management computer system for a major sports brand. She now pays more income tax on her state pension and a small private pension.

“This country cannot afford to make huge increases in payments every year.” Jim Bell75, Lockerbie

This is because much of her income exceeds her personal allowance, which has been frozen at £12,570 from 2021 and will remain so until April 2028.

“I’m not particularly struggling,” says Jean. “But I have to be careful when I go out.

“The government has greatly increased the national pension this year, so I am thinking about next year, but I am not stupid. What the government gives with one hand, I receive with the other. ”

This is the same view as Don Hanley of South Woodham Ferrers, Essex.

Dong, who has worked in the textile industry for most of his career, said a 10.1% increase in the state pension this year forced him to pay income tax again as his income exceeded his personal allowance.

“I never thought I would be paying income tax again at the age of 75,” he says. “He seems neither right nor fair.”

National Pension: Stick or Twist?

Lee Tucker, 67, has no truck for people who think they can’t afford the maintenance of the National Pension (over £120bn this tax year). Some experts, such as the Adam Smith Institute think tank, have argued that a means test should be done.

“Too many experts see the national pension as just a cost to the taxpayer,” said Lee, a married man from Truro, Cornwall.

“What they forget is that £120bn is money that won’t go away easily. And, of course, tax revenue such as income tax is born. [the State Pension is taxable].

“Most of the people in Truro shops and cafes during the day are pensioners. I doubt if.”

Lee warns politicians that “if the government tries to limit and reduce the burden of the national pension, it will lead the country to financial bankruptcy.”

This is an opinion that resonates with many readers. Ruin our pensions at your own risk.

What do you think about the National Pension? Send an email to Jeff.Prestridge@dailymail.co.uk