Trouble with the triple lock

I write as a person receiving the state pension. If it really does become a choice between retaining the triple lock and increasing the pension age to 68 then it is time to drop the triple lock.

A double lock with 2.5 per cent and average wages would seem a fair compromise. The thought of my adult children working till near 70 is unthinkable. It would mean a return to the Edwardian era when the Old Age Pensions Act, as it was called, was first introduced. STEPHEN TAMPLIN

BLANDFORD FORUM, DORSET

I am a pensioner. I have no private pension and am reliant on the state pension; it is therefore necessary for me to work, part-time, to supplement that. I was interested to read the article about the cost of the triple lock (i, 27 March). It doesn’t tell the whole story, however.

I will receive the raise in pension this year which will just cover rent raises, increased energy costs and increased food bills. However, in the same week as my letter from the pension office arrived, I also received notice from the tax office telling me that my taxfree allowance was being considerably reduced.

I called the tax office to ask why; the officer told me that it was on Government instruction and was to cover the triple lock raise. The increase in tax I pay will wipe out the raise from the triple lock and I will be worse off.

So, while the Government appears to be sticking to the triple lock, they are clawing the money back by other means. I’m certain that I will not be the only pensioner to be so charged. NIKKI BRISTOW

STORRINGTON, WEST SUSSEX

So current pensioners, even the millions that don’t need it, look like they are yet again getting their inflationbusting pension triple lock, whilst younger generations get to foot the bill whilst waiting ever longer for their own pensions. Can someone please explain how this is fair? SUSAN DAVIES

CARDIFF