How times change. Not long ago everyone sympathised with the plight of poor pensioners striving to make ends meet.
Now the same pensioners are vilified for having average annual incomes that are higher than that of an average worker.
The government is mostly to blame for pension incomes.
After all, the triple lock has boosted pension increases above the rate of inflation – but this was introduced by former Prime Minister David Cameron in a hunt for the grey vote.
Yes, the triple lock may not be affordable, but that’s not the fault of the pensioners who gratefully accepted the cash but were not responsible for making the rules.
Neither are they to blame for employers choosing not to increase wages.
Financial discontent
The Guardian points out that the average wage is bolstered by the impressive retirement incomes paid by gold plated final salary pensions. Alas, these pensions are no more and their impact on income statistics will wash through and disappear within a few years.
To counter the growing financial discontent of those who have yet to retire, the government is thinking about ditching the triple lock and bringing in other measures to make incomes fairer.
Ideas floating around the think tanks include an extra tax on high pension incomes and restricting pension saving for over 55s who have accessed their pots under pension freedom rules.
Look at the debacle over changing the age the state pension is paid to women.
Lowering the money purchase annual allowance (MPAA) from £10,000 to £4,000 is also on the table.
Fiddling with fairness
The MPAA restricts the amount someone who has taken money from a pension can save with tax relief each year.
Taking the allowance down to £4,000 stops savers with a decade to go to retirement from putting as much as they can into their pensions just because they may have withdrawn some money to settle debts or pay for family event, like a wedding.
Around 500,000 people aged 55 have taken pension cash and they will be joined by another 150,000 or so each year.
If the allowance is cut, they cannot reduce their hours to look after relatives, retrain or improve their work/life balance.
The problem with fiddling with fairness is the result is always unfair to someone, and that is generally the person who can afford to suffer the consequences the least.
