The future of the state pension “triple lock” hangs in the balance, with Prime Minister Rishi Sunak refusing to confirm the future of the Conservative manifesto pledge until this week's Autumn Statement.
The policy, which promises to increase the state pension every April in line with the highest of the previous September’s inflation, wage growth or 2.5pc, could give state pensioners the biggest pay rise on record next year.
But Mr Sunak is on a mission to plug a growing hole in public finances and the triple lock is on the chopping block. Pulling the policy could leave thousands of retirees vulnerable to inflation – and some readers have warned that reneging on a manifesto pledge could cost the Tories the next election.
Yet not every pensioner wants the triple lock to stay in place. The Telegraph spoke to some subscribers who think the lock is "unsustainable" even though scrapping it would hurt their finances.
Vernon Stradling, a 70-year-old from Hampshire, said the triple lock was "literally unsustainable".
He said: "It was created in different times. It has only been around for 12 years, but somehow it has become sacrosanct. The truth is that we managed without it beforehand. A lot of people say ‘I’ve paid for it all my life’, but the state pension does not work like that.
"It is not a personalised savings scheme. We pay National Insurance to qualify for a lot of other benefits – it is a qualification scheme. People misunderstand the nature of the state pension and think that the triple lock is their right."
Mr Stradling added that he did not personally need the money.
"Only last week I received a Government letter which informed me that instead of a £200 winter fuel payment, I am going to get a £500 winter payment. Don’t get me wrong – I am not sending it back, but there are people who are reasonably well off who do not need this money. It should be more targeted," he said.
“The proportion of GDP we spend on health is a normal part of the national debate but we never stop to consider what is the appropriate proportion to spend on the state pension. With economic growth turning negative but pensions set to increase by 10pc next April, it will clearly be increasing significantly but what is the limit?”
Lauren Groom, a 76-year-old from Wiltshire, said times had changed and the Government needed to take a different approach, including encouraging the building up of private savings.
She said: "My main objection is that the Government is holding a fortune hostage through the triple lock. Things have changed since the policy was introduced: first we had Covid, now we have terrible inflation. At the end of the day the Government can only do what it can afford. There should be more control over the uplift.
"As far as pensions go, there should be more emphasis on encouraging personal provision. The truth is that the majority of people rely on a mix of their state pension and workplace pension in retirement."
The lifetime limit on pension savings has already been frozen by Mr Sunak when he was chancellor, and is now expected to be frozen for even longer under Jeremy Hunt.
Mrs Groom said: "We should be trying to encourage people to save towards their pensions. The real problem now is that while the Government offers tax relief to help pension contributions, if you hit the lifetime allowance limit then you are suddenly hit by punitive tax. It is counterproductive.
"There are also thousands of people my age who have saved and can manage without the state pension. We should be directing the whole provision of welfare and benefits through a means-testing system. We cannot go on handing money out left right and centre.
"I am more concerned about being in a solvent and well-run country. Many of us worry more about our children than we do ourselves."
She added that she thought inheritance tax was a more pressing concern to many pensioners.
"Getting rid of the triple lock would not affect how I voted. I think there are bigger issues at hand that are more pressing for older Conservative voters, such as the freeze on inheritance tax."
Unsurprisingly, younger readers are more likely to think the lock should be abandoned or at least made less generous.
David Lloyd, a 39-year-old from London, said: "It is unfair that the burden of the triple lock is falling on the current working population. People think that they pay into the state pension and then get what they are owed at the end of it – but that is not how it actually works. When they were working the system was not designed to support a retirement of over 30 years, it is working people who are funding it now.
“Can we really afford the triple lock as a country? Every time I turn on the television or radio, it is some group of people asking for more money. In a lot of cases, it is the taxpayer that has to pay for it.
“Very few people in the private sector are getting 10pc pay rises, in fact most people are happy with 1 or 2pc – so why should one age group expect it to be handed to them?"
Mr Lloyd warned the lock was a policy for a different time and that it was creating inter-generational tension.
He said: "I do not think getting rid of the triple lock could be classed as a ‘U-turn’. It is just reacting to events – the policy was written before Covid, before the war in Ukraine and before anyone thought inflation would be this high.
“I am a huge right-wing Tory voter, but I think the triple lock was motivated to secure the grey vote. It is creating antagonism between generations.”