'We Used To Be Working People': Pensioners Defend Triple Lock
Outrage has erupted among readers of The Independent after a column suggested pensioners were being unfairly protected – even "mollycoddled" – by Chancellor Rachel Reeves's recent Budget announcement.
The controversy follows Wednesday's Budget statement where the Chancellor confirmed the government would maintain the triple lock on pensions, delivering a £575 annual increase to the state pension. This commitment ensures pensions rise by the highest of inflation, average earnings growth, or 2.5%.
Readers Share Stories of Financial Struggle
Many readers strongly rejected the notion that older people are living comfortably, emphasising that the UK state pension remains among the lowest in Europe and serves as the only income source for millions.
Several shared detailed accounts of their working histories, periods of unemployment, illness, and caring responsibilities to underline that today's pensioners were once "working people" who paid decades of National Insurance contributions.
One 76-year-old reader commented: "I worked all my adult life... My pension has increased over time, allegedly with inflation, but it doesn't feel like that. The increases in the state pension have proved vital for me to stay financially afloat." He added that despite owning his home and making economies, he still struggles to get by.
System Inequalities and Women's Pensions
Other readers highlighted significant inequalities within the pension system itself, noting that not all retirees benefit from generous occupational schemes.
One contributor explained the historical context: "In 1978, the government allowed those who worked for large concerns to contract out of part of the state arrangement... Those who didn't have that luxury were forced to remain with the state arrangement."
Another reader pointed out that many women face particular disadvantages: "This is particularly the case for many women, who for years often worked in low-paid, part-time jobs and never paid into occupational pensions, either because they couldn't afford to or were not permitted to."
Several argued that the triple lock represents a lifeline rather than a luxury, especially given frozen tax thresholds and rising living costs that erode pension value.
Calls for Fairness and Sustainable Solutions
Many contributors expressed frustration at what they perceived as intergenerational unfairness in the debate, while others proposed compromises for the future.
One reader questioned: "Why are pensioners a special case? Because we have worked all our lives, and now, for many of us, working to make more money is not possible."
Another suggested a potential solution: "Perhaps there's a compromise – enshrine in law that the Triple Lock will only exist until state pension rates reach the level of the actual living wage. After that, it is pegged to the actual living wage."
The overwhelming sentiment from readers was that after decades of National Insurance contributions, pensioners deserve financial security in their later years, with the triple lock playing a crucial role in protecting against poverty.
