Pension promises
From Mr Alan Pavelin Sir: You justify restoring the earnings link for the state pension on the grounds that it `is in effect a contract drawn up with tax- payers decades ago' (Leading article, 30 September).
Wrong. The contract is that, in return for the National Insurance contribution, we are entitled to a pension of whatever happens to be the level at the time we receive it. The earnings link existed for only a few years in the 1970s; before 1964, in fact, there was no link of any kind, and pensioners were given occasional increases when the government felt like it (usually just before an election).
Your suggestion of raising the pension age to 70 is reasonable, particularly bearing in mind that 60- to 69-year-olds have higher average wealth than any other age-group, older or younger. More sensible, however, would be a pension rate which increased pro- gressively with age, say, £50 at 65 rising to £100 at 85. Even without any general increase, this would ensure a rising real- terms pension for the individual provided inflation remained low.
The real villains in all this are the Tories. By promising to match the Chancellor's yet- to-be-announced increase plus a bit extra, while at the same time pledging to cut the current level of taxation, they have left them- selves floundering in fantasyland. Perhaps they hope to plug the gap with Ann Widde- combe's £100 fines for cannabis possession.
Alan Pavelin
Chislehurst, Kent
Previous page
