It's actually the younger generation who'll feel most pain from the end of the triple lock: RACHEL RICKARD STRAUS

It's actually the younger generation who'll feel most pain from the end of the triple lock: RACHEL RICKARD STRAUS The triple lock has been on the chopping block for a while – now Andy Burnham has just raised the axe. From 2030 it will lose one of its limbs, so that the state pension rises every year in line with inflation or by 2.5 per cent – but not in line with average earnings. The Prime Minister pledged that the state pension will ‘hold its value relative to earnings over time’ but did not say how this would be achieved in practice. Ditching it is typically seen as an attack on older generations. And it’s true that current retirees will feel the pinch first. But if you’re some years off retirement, don’t kid yourself that this is someone else’s problem. It’s younger generations who will be worst hit. The triple lock has made great strides since it was introduced 16 years ago to improve incomes of those in retirement by guaranteeing the state pension rises every year by the highest of inflation, average wage growth or 2.5 per cent. From 2030 the triple lock will become a double lock, so that it rises every year in line with inflation or 2.5% - but not average earnings In the first few years after it is abolished, monthly state pension payments could be a few pounds lower than they would have been under the triple lock. Of course, for pensioners on a tight budget, this could make all the difference. But, while the effect is gentle at first, the real damage only fully reveals itself after several years. Investment platform AJ Bell has crunched the numbers for me to show how breaking the triple lock could affect pensioner incomes after ten, 20 and 30 years. Say the triple lock remained intact and it rose at the same pace it has since it was introduced (4.1 per cent a year on average). After ten years, it would have risen from £241.30 a week to £360.63; after 20 years it would be £538.99; and after 30 it would be £805.53. But if the triple lock is broken in 2030 and the state pension rises by inflation or 2.5 per cent from then onwards, in ten years it would be worth £338.36 a week; in 20 years it would be £454.73; and in 30 it would be £611.11. That means that someone aged 38 today would start on a state pension 24 per cent less than if the triple lock had remained intact, while a 48-year-old would start on one 16 per cent less. Over the course of their retirements, their payments would get ever stingier in comparison with if they had benefited from the triple lock. These figures assume that inflation averages at 3 per cent, as it has since the triple lock has been in place. So next time a politician, think-tank or talking head argues that the triple lock must be broken in the interests of fairness, ask yourself this: can you really argue that breaking it purely in the interests of intergenerational fairness when younger generations will suffer most? Is it really honest to say that the triple lock should take the hit to pay for social care because older people will be losing one benefit but gaining another? Generations are far more intertwined than these simplistic arguments admit. We need to move away from pitting generations against each other, which only breeds hostility, resentment and anger. We’re all in this together. rachel.rickard@dailymail.co.uk SIPPS: INVEST TO BUILD YOUR PENSION Interactive Investor Affiliate links: If you take out a product This is Money may earn a commission. These deals are chosen by our editorial team, as we think they are worth highlighting. This does not affect our editorial independence. Compare the best Sipp for you: Our full reviews