steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 2hDB pensions becoming guaranteed pensions is what made private sector DB schemes untenable for almost everyone, the final and biggest straw being insurance exit debts - people don't normally want to pay the cost of insuring their own pensions when they're decades from retirement. 000
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 09/10/2026GDP isn't higher than we thought it was. It's the same, but we now think people were working less than previous estimates, so productivity must have grown faster. 110
Reposted by @steber2.bsky.socialBenjamin Lauderdale @benlauderdale.bsky.social · 08/10/2026Exciting tax incentive for investing in solid gold toilets. 1774
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 07/10/2026I'm not a fan of the Ponzi scheme argument for unsustainable state pension increases; benefitting today's pensioners at workers' expense, in the hope that today's workers get to screw over their kids even more when they retire. Instead, put that money into saving for their own retirements. 000
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026I've not seen compelling evidence that pension contributions need to go up significantly, particularly if we had a better decumulation product (hopefully R-CDC will get us closer). The lowest earners already seem likely to be worse off before retirement than after, why exacerbate that? 000
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026Yes, in return for being taxed a second time when the pension's received. The principle being that people are taxed based on how well off they are when they receive & can spend their pension. If you break that principle, you're happy for pensions going to poor pensioners to be taxed at higher rates 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026What I found particularly interesting was that a majority are even in favour of a double lock, of inflation and 2.5%. 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026You don't care what the truth / reality is, you just want to be angry about this (good) policy? 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026Forcing them to litter pick immediately, rather than spend a bit of time finding a job which best uses their skills, is going to cut productivity. 110
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026Absolutely. What I find particularly incredible is how horrendously inaccurately the proposal has been reported, and how good the public's response still is. 110
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026That argument 's more difficult to make when unemployment's at / close to historical lows. If you try to e.g. force unemployed doctors to spend their time picking litter rather than updatimg their medical skills / applying for medical jobs, you're going to lower production. 110
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026Burnham's conference speech didn't say anything about scrapping triple locks - it explicitly said that Labour will use a triple lock from 2030 onwards. I agree that Labour's approach to trans rights in government has been horrendous and incredibly damaging. labour.org.uk/updates/stor... 200
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026The first YouGov poll question suggests majority support for a double lock of inflation + 2.5%, as a standalone policy before mentioning anything about social care. Which is the result I find particularly interesting. 210
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026No one's weakening the triple lock. We currently have a triple ratchet, not a lock - state pensions grow faster than inflation, faster than average earnings, and faster than 2.5%. Burnham's proposals are the most generous ones which could reasonably be called a triple lock. 010
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026Survation's poll suggests that the public is massively in favour of Burnham's adjustments to the triple lock, assuming it funds significant levels of social care. YouGov's poll suggests there's even majority support for a double lock of inflation and 2.5%, which is really quite something! 210
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026No one's suggested scrapping the triple lock. www.gov.uk/government/n... 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026If we want to tax the rich more, just raise their income tax rates. 000
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026Pension tax relief isn't a giveaway, it's taxing people based on how well off they are when they receive and can spend their pensions. If we want to scrap it, it means: 1. Taxing poor pensioners more, if they used to be better off; and 2. Arbitrarily tax-incentivising partial over full retirements. 210
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026It's a full triple lock - state pensions rise faster than inflation, faster than 2.5% p.a., and keep up with average earnings. It replaces the triple ratchet we have today (triple "lock" was always an intentionally deceptive name for it), which ensures state pensions rise faster than all 3 of them. 010
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026Assuming our goal is to reduce poverty, which of these groups should we prioritise first for more Government spending? 000
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 04/10/2026We have close to historic low levels of unemployment. If we can get that down further, amazing - we can then talk about how to spend the proceeds. But it seems bold to assume that Government telling people to consume more, will always cause a corresponding reduction in unemployment? 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026That seems to be our fundamental difference of views. You believe there's no limit to government spending, I believe there's finite resources and inherent trade-offs. I would absolutely love your view to be the correct one, but it seems tragically overly optimistic. 201
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026A very technical change: the earnings link will be applied cumulatively rather than annually. As you say, that'll mean it works more like how most people assume it already works. 200
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026I'm completely against non-pensioner benefits being cut. The less pressure there is to cut their benefits, the better. 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026That's incorrect. Pensioner benefits will be at least as generous as they are today, yes. To make that more specific: pensioner benefits will be able to buy more stuff then they can today, and they'll grow at least as fast as average earnings. 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026Amazing. Start by increasing non-pensioner benefits until they catch up with pensioner benefits, with no consequences, then we can increase all benefits further. 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026There are no savings vs today's benefits. There's a saving vs a world where we maintain the current triple "lock" ratchet for longer than Labour have ever committed to. www.gov.uk/government/p...gov.ukState Pension uprating 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026For an incorrect summary of Labour's proposals? www.gov.uk/government/n... 010
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026It's fine to argue for the state pension to become more generous, once other benefits have caught up to it. 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026Absolutely on the benefits front, at least maintain and in the short to medium term start increasing the generosity of non-pensioner benefits. 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026It's not bringing anyone down, it's literally as a bare minimum protecting what they have already. 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026No one's proposed abolishing the triple lock for state pensions, that I've heard. Labour's proposal is to keep a triple lock for state pensions. 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026I guess, in that ultimately I don't want there to be any poverty. So pensioners would have the highest poverty rates, as would every other group - 0%. 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026I am advocating for everyone, starting with those most in need. I completely understand the appeal of believing that Government can spend whatever it wants, without any limits. If that's true, I'll be delighted. Unfortunately, in the real world there's finite resources and trade offs. 210
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026They said "how it ranks against European equivalents", I said how it ranks. Somehow you're saying they was irrelevant? 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026True, it was a vague statement I was clarifying rather than a question. I'll give you that technicality. 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026It's in my comment immediately above it, which I suggested reading for context. bsky.app/profile/steb... 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026I'd invite you to read it again. That's almost a verbatim quote. bsky.app/profile/benm... 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026No one's saying that pensioners should be brought down / have their benefits cut. I'm saying prioritise other age groups for any extra money, until they've caught up, and then we can increase all benefits together. 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026The second question is literally the one I was replying to (see also my comment above it, for context). bsky.app/profile/goth... 200
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026He asked where the UK ranks among European equivalents. I'm saying, "better off than about 2/3 of it, if you're a low earner". 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026A quick Google suggests that the countries I've mentioned have a total population of about 290 million, vs about 440 million for Europe as a whole (assuming we're not counting Russia, Turkey or the UK as European). I.e. my list covers about 2/3 of Europeans. 200
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026I don't see anyone suggesting that defence spending should grow faster than GDP forever, no. Whereas the question I was answering was, why can't we keep the triple lock forever - the answer being because its cost would then grow faster than GDP forever, which isn't impossible. 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026It was a pre-planned policy, that's been stuck with since, not an ad-hoc one time adjustment. No one's suggesting to cut the state pension. The plan's to keep increasing it faster than inflation, and making sure it at least keeps up with average earnings. 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026The minimum wage changes every year, rising every time average wages do, it's set in line with 67% of median wages, a historic high. 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026Has fallen from 8% of GDP in the late 50's to less than 3% today. I'm not aware of anyone suggesting it should rise faster than GDP growth forever. 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026There's a big overlap between OECD and Europe. Looking at low earners, seemingly the focus of this discussion, countries below the UK include Lithuania, Ireland, Estonia, Poland, Switzerland, Latvia, Germany, Norway, Finland, Sweden, France and Italy. 100
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026Eg consider the following example, under the current system: Year 1: Prices rise 3%, earnings rise 5%, state pension rises 5%. Year 2: Prices rise 5%, earnings 3%, state pension 5%. Overall: Prices have risen 8%, earnings 8%, state pension's risen 10%. 200
steber2.bsky.social @steber2.bsky.social · 03/10/2026It ensures that state pensions rise faster than both inflation and average earnings. Growing faster than earnings means that it takes up an increasing share of national production, which can't continue forever as eventually we run out of national production. 200