Blog

Pensioner power

George Osborne’s conference speech earlier this week brought back memories of a paper that was published by the IEA back in 2011 called Sharing the Burden which caused something of a storm. The paper proposed both cuts in pensioner benefits and long-term reform to pension systems. It pointed out that though there had been quite significant cuts to benefits to people of working age, older people had seen benefits increased in real terms. The most obvious example of this is the ‘triple lock’ on pensions which raises pensions by the higher of wage increase, price increases and 2.5 per cent. This paper produced quite a reaction – dozens (if not hundreds of letters), a substantial amount of abuse and even one death threat. However, its basic messages were sound. If public finances are to be brought under control, the benefit bill to older people cannot be ignored; long-term reform of pensions systems is desirable in any case; and the government has created a benefits and pensions systems which is a complete mess and economically incoherent.

In his party conference speech, George Osborne once again exempted older people from proposals for further benefit cuts. Occasionally, one hears objections from people (in all parties) who argue that benefits for richer people must be ‘examined’. However, removing the winter-fuel allowance from the top 10 per cent of the population will achieve little (other than increasing the complexity of the system further). More radical action is needed, including:

- The replacement of the state pension system with funded provision, phased in over a generation or two. This was Conservative Party policy in the 1997 and 2001 general elections. Whilst the state pension remains in place, increases in its value should be limited to increases in an appropriate prices index.

- The replacement of all other pensioner benefits by a single cash benefit which is subject to similar restraint as that applied to benefits paid to people of working age.

- Reform of the planning system in order to reduce housing costs and therefore reduce living costs for pensioners as well as reducing the housing benefit bill.

Unfortunately, none of this is likely to happen. The Conservative Party may be imprudent when it comes to the nation’s finances but they are not the stupid party. A very important graph necessary to understand the current political debate was published in a paper in the IEA’s journal Economic Affairs in 2008. The paper explains much of what is important about the current political debate and the difficulty of deficit reduction.

 

 

Assuming no migration (and migrants tend to be reluctant to vote in the first generation) and adjusting for the propensity of older and younger people to vote, over 50 per cent of voters will soon be within ten years of state pension age. The Conservative Party are simply the most extreme example amongst all the political parties of trying to attract a group of voters who have relatively coherent preferences (that is, there are a relatively small number of issues that affect older voters’ welfare).

The title of this article was The Young Held to Ransom and a sister article published in an IEA monograph was called The Impossibility of Progress. And this is the problem. When the majority of welfare spending is on pensioners, how are the public finances put in order when it is very difficult for governments to obtain a majority without popular support amongst older voters?

There is (a narrow) way out of this problem. Indeed, economic theory predicts exactly the policy the government is following. Governments in this situation will raise the state pension age. They will be able to ‘get away’ with this because the pensioner voters will not be affected. If the move is phased in, other older voters will not be affected either and younger people (if they vote) will regard the prospect as so far distant that they will not care.

So, the most politically viable strategy to put the public finances in order is to raise state pension age much more rapidly than currently planned to 70 (currently, the plan is to raise state pension age less rapidly than life expectation over the next few decades) and thereafter immediately adopt the policy of tying state pension age to life expectation (as proposed in Sharing the Burden and now adopted as an aspiration by the government). In other words, the government’s proposals on raising state pension age must be strengthened.

But, at the same time, the government really should not shy away from doing what is necessary to reduce spending on the older population. Most obviously, it should remove the triple lock on pension increases which is a policy that has no justification other than that of vote harvesting. It should also re-find its radical edge and develop proposals to move towards a funded pension system over the coming generations.

Comments (0)

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
Type the characters you see in this picture. (verify using audio)
Type the characters you see in the picture above; if you can't read them, submit the form and a new image will be generated. Not case sensitive.

As in all IEA publications, the views expressed in this blog are those of the authors and not those of the Institute (which has no corporate view), its managing trustees, Academic Advisory Council or senior staff.

Previous blog posts

Search

Kristian Niemietz
30 September 2014
1 comment

There can be no doubt that spending on working-age benefits is out of control. Over the past decade alone, spending on Housing Benefit has increased from about £16 billion to £25 billion...
Kristian Niemietz
29 September 2014
7 comments

In a more rational world, planning reform would not be a tribal issue. It would, on the contrary, be an issue around which people from all major political camps could coalesce. Albeit for different...
Glynn Brailsford
26 September 2014
9 comments

Tax is the single biggest area of expenditure for low-income groups and indirect taxes in particular are a major cause of Britain’s cost of living crisis. Despite significantly lower rates of...
Ryan Bourne
25 September 2014
comments

Earlier this week, I outlined the red herrings that distort the debate about low pay and the cost of living. These create an environment for politicians to advocate economically damaging...
Geoffrey E. Wood
24 September 2014
1 comment

We often hear when a group of lower-paid workers goes on strike that they ‘deserve more’, that they ‘need a living wage’. There is now something called the ‘London...
Mark Littlewood
23 September 2014
1 comment

If necessity is the mother of invention, politicians of all stripes will have to be spectacularly inventive in dealing with the fallout from the Scottish referendum result. And we may yet stumble...
Ryan Bourne
22 September 2014
comments

Since the publication of Kristian Niemietz’s seminal work Redefining the Poverty Debate in 2012, many of us have been arguing for a new approach to the perceived problem of poverty and low pay...
Mark Littlewood
21 September 2014
comments

In this new video for ieaTV, IEA Director General Mark Littlewood explains how liberalising the UK’s suffocating planning laws would have a profound and beneficial effect on the cost of living...
Philip Booth
19 September 2014
1 comment

In denying the Scots the option of devo-max, David Cameron made arguably the most monumental mistake of any recent premiership. The fairly narrow ‘no’ vote could lead to the worst...
Len Shackleton
18 September 2014
5 comments

Greg Dyke, the Chairman of the Football Association, is proposing a new set of rules about the eligibility of non-EU footballers for work visas. The proposals, which would aim to reduce the...
Ryan Bourne
17 September 2014
comments

With low productivity, high inflation and terrible industrial relations, in 1977, Britain was a basket case. So that year, businessman John Hoskyns decided to dedicate substantial effort to analysing...
Christopher Snowdon
16 September 2014
1 comment

The economist Julian Simon once wrote that ‘the economic study of advertising is not deserving of great attention’, ruefully adding that ‘this is not a congenial point at which to...
Ryan Bourne
14 September 2014
comments

Most politicians and commentators think the ‘cost of living’ and its inverse ‘low pay’ are areas of serious concern for public policy. But for some, like the journalist Owen...
Ryan Bourne
12 September 2014
5 comments

Concern about ‘low pay’ and the ‘cost of living’ are two sides of the same coin. Pay is deemed ‘low’ when the prices of things we need to buy are rising...
Kristian Niemietz
11 September 2014
1 comment

In this video the IEA’s Senior Research Fellow Kristian Niemietz outlines a free-market approach to the cost of living squeeze. Building on his research in Redefining the Poverty Debate, he...
Andreas Strongolou
10 September 2014
1 comment

Planning controls constitute a significant denial of private property rights, with serious economic consequences. The most obvious is the severe housing crisis. However, businesses also suffer as...
Ryan Bourne
9 September 2014
comments

Why do politicians advocate policies which deal with the symptoms of problems rather than the underlying issues directly? In the past week we’ve seen Liberal Democrats react to expensive...
Christopher Snowdon
8 September 2014
15 comments

Owen Jones’ new book, The Establishment, promises to be more than your average left-wing polemic against austerity, banksters, globalisation and ConDems. The blurb promotes it as an expos...
Ryan Bourne
7 September 2014
2 comments

Today marks the start of the IEA’s ‘Cutting the UK's Cost of Living’ month as part of our 2020 Vision programme – an attempt to shine a light on key issues which we...