TAP Comment: Don’t Balance the Books by Putting Pensioners at Risk of Poverty.

Calls to weaken the pension triple lock miss the bigger question: if Government needs more revenue, it should look to accumulated wealth rather than weakening an important protection against pensioner hardship

London 15 September 2026:  Taxpayers Against Poverty (TAP) has urged the Government to resist calls to weaken or abolish the State Pension triple lock simply as a means of reducing public spending, arguing that doing so would run counter to the Prime Minister’s ambition to build a Preventative State.

The debate has intensified following new earnings figures which suggest the State Pension is likely to rise by around 3.9% next April under the triple lock, which guarantees an annual increase by the highest of average earnings growth, inflation or 2.5%. 

Critics argue that the mechanism is becoming increasingly expensive and unpredictable. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the triple lock has materially increased both the generosity and cost of the State Pension, while the Resolution Foundation has called for its replacement with a long-term earnings link. 

TAP accepts that the long-term structure of the State Pension should be kept under review, particularly to ensure fairness between generations. But it argues that cutting pension protection principally to save the Treasury money would be the wrong starting point.

Tom Burgess, Chief Executive of Taxpayers Against Poverty, said:

“The triple lock exists for a reason. Millions of pensioners depend heavily on the State Pension and many have very little financial flexibility when food, heating, housing and other essential costs rise. Protecting their income is an example of preventative policy. It helps stop people falling into poverty rather than waiting until they are struggling and then paying to deal with the consequences. That is exactly the principle behind the Preventative State. As TAP continually argues: it makes more sense to prevent poverty than manage it.”

The Government itself says the triple lock helps ensure pensioners’ incomes keep pace with living costs and wages. More than 12 million pensioners received an increase of up to £575 this year following the 4.8% uprating in April. 

Protect the poorest pensioners—but recognise that not every pensioner is poor

TAP believes the debate should avoid presenting all pensioners as having the same financial circumstances. Some pensioners have substantial property, investment and pension wealth. Others live almost entirely on the State Pension and associated benefits. That distinction matters.

Tom Burgess continued:

“There is a perfectly legitimate debate to be had about the long-term sustainability and design of the triple lock. But we should not confuse that with the question of whether Britain can afford to protect pensioners from poverty. If reform is considered, the first test must be whether people on low and modest retirement incomes remain properly protected. Saving money by allowing the poorest pensioners to become poorer would be a false economy.”

TAP argues that allowing pensioner incomes to fall behind essential living costs can create costs elsewhere through increased poverty, ill health, debt, housing insecurity and greater demand on public services.

That reflects TAP’s Prevention Dividend principle: government should consider not merely the immediate cost of preventing hardship, but the future public expenditure avoided, and economic and social benefits created by doing so.

If Government needs money, ask where Britain’s wealth has gone

TAP says the more fundamental issue is how Government should raise the revenue required to fund decent pensions, public services and investment without continually increasing the burden on ordinary working households. Britain is a wealthy country, but that wealth is distributed very unevenly.

TAP argues that much of today’s private wealth has not been created in isolation. Businesses depend upon employees, customers, infrastructure, education, healthcare, legal systems, public investment and the wider society in which they operate.

In other words, wealth is collectively enabled even when its ownership becomes highly concentrated.

Tom Burgess said:

“If the Treasury needs additional revenue, we should have a much bigger conversation about where that money should come from. Rather than starting with pensioners or continually taxing people’s wages, Government should look more seriously at the enormous stock of wealth that our economy and society have helped create but which is now disproportionately concentrated in the hands of a relatively small number of people.

TAP has consistently argued for taxing productive work less and accumulated wealth more fairly. That includes serious reform of the taxation of land, property and very substantial wealth.

“The objective shouldn’t be to punish people for being successful. It should be to ensure that the prosperity we collectively help create contributes fairly towards the society that made it possible.”

The wrong argument

TAP believes the debate should therefore move beyond a simplistic choice between protecting pensioners and protecting taxpayers.

Tom Burgess concluded:

“We shouldn’t set younger people against older people. Both generations are facing real economic pressures, and neither benefits from an economy in which wealth and opportunity become increasingly concentrated. The question shouldn’t simply be: how much can we save by weakening the triple lock? It should be: how do we ensure everybody can have a financially secure retirement—and how do we fund that fairly?

“A Government committed to prevention should be extremely cautious about removing something that helps prevent poverty simply because prevention appears expensive on today’s balance sheet.

Preventing poverty costs money. Allowing poverty to happen costs money too.

“That is the calculation Government needs to make.”

ENDS

For media enquiries, interviews, or comment: Tom Burgess, CEO, Taxpayers Against PovertyEmail: media@taxpayersagainstpovery.org  Website: www.taxpayersagainstpoverty.org.uk

About Taxpayers Against Poverty Taxpayers against Poverty (TAP) is an independent, non-partisan organisation campaigning for practical policies that prevent poverty, reduce inequality and unnecessary financial hardship, and create better long-term value for taxpayers. Its current policy programme includes The Prevention Dividend, tax reform, housing, transport, Green Prosperity and inclusive economic growth.

TAP was founded by the late Rev Paul Nicolson and is led by Tom Burgess, author of From Here to Prosperity, a new political agenda for a sustainable economy and greater social justice, which proposes taxing wealth more and income less. TAP is part of Real Agenda Ltd, a not-for-profit social enterprise bringing together campaigns, research, media and public engagement to tackle poverty, inequality and the barriers preventing people from thriving, this includes Compassion in Politics which seeks to bring more honesty, respect and compassion into political life as well as The Progressive Policy Unit (PPU) which develops practical, evidence-based proposals on poverty prevention, economic fairness, taxation, public services and social wellbeing.