Tories and Labour mooting possible means testing of State Pension

We can’t go from current universal state pension to means-testing overnight and I really take issue with Australia comparisons. In Australia, everyone pays minimum 15% contribution (split between employer and employee) into a DC fund. People have their own named account - it’s their money that gets invested. So with this system the means-tested state pension is effectively an equivalent of pension credit in the UK, intended for those who haven’t worked sufficiently or at all to have a sizeable pension account. So if we introduce this here, fair enough , but you can’t just take “means testing” without the other part which is not getting g mentioned at all by the advocates of means testing. The whole pension system in the UK is fucked - gold-plated unfunded public sectors pensions are the biggest problem of all and will keep growing. A lot of problems with public finances can be fixed by moving to insurance style solutions for healthcare, unemployment, social care etc similar to majority of our European peers like Germany, Netherlands, Scandinavia, France.

I beg to differ. Until 2016, NI was payable at 2 different rates. The people who paid the higher rate paid the difference into SERPS ( later S2P. ) In the 1990s the Conservative government allowed people to take their SERPS contributions out and put the money with a private pension fund. A few people, including my husband did this. After advice from a FA he later rejoined the SERPS scheme.
Today this pension is worth a very significant amount.
As Baroness Altmann says, if people are going to be means tested on their savings, what is the incentive to save?
I personally, think now that the pension is at a decent level, we do not need the triple lock. Most people would settle for keeping place with inflation.

Same for ageism in the work place.

If we need the economy to grow and to reduce the impact on public spending, then there needs to be a push to look at the modern workplace and employment practices so people who want to work aren't facing barriers to employment.

You realise that your disability and other people's disabilities are different.

So, if you're disabled but able to work.. let's judge EVERY disabled person you.
How do you think would be? So anyone who is disabled that can't walk, see, hear, speak etc is now held up and compared to you and your situation, or they get no financial help.

Is that Fair? Do you think?
Or ridiculous?

Is the statement:
"I can work, so ALL disabled people can"
Truthful or no?

You say "let's get the disabled to work!" like it's a bad thing. I am disabled and am able to work from home. It massively limits my options, because so many companies are now forcing staff "back to the office" for no reason. I'm lucky that my employer lets me WFH for now but I am stuck in a low-paid role.

Many sick and disabled people would like to work but can't find a role which accommodates them.

We could reduce the number of people on benefits by having more employers who find ways for them to work.

I wonder if the issue with means testing is that the current model is based on being on gateway benefits so only the poorest get anything. I appreciate this is the easiest and cheapest way for the DWP to gauge "who needs fre money" but raising the bar from absolute poverty to an income or capital of x or under y might be more acceptable.

I think it was based on a new car every few years, 1 foreign holiday a year. So more than scraping by, yes.

As Sir Humphrey would say, it would be a courageous decision

I remember the report referring to £40k as "comfortable ". Trouble is it was interpreted differently by different people. I think in the original report it was a euphemism for wealthy, not comfortable as in "not living in a bin and surviving on something a bit nicer than beans on toast".

As soon as it becomes means tested it will also become a State benefit, and people will moan about those who qualify. You can see that attitude is already in place with people moaning abut who has paid in and how much.

It’s the same as the ridiculous arguement (sic) that unemployment benefit is “only” 1B.

If you're looking to save expenditure, are you cutting the £390 a month the unemployed get to save some of £1b
Or are you looking at trying to save a portion of £137bn

They aren’t pay in.
Unemployed people buy things, those things are taxed.

I can not understand why there is all this effort to demonize the elderly and take from them
I can not understand THE YEARS of demonizing the poor, sick and disabled in this country and the push to cut the money they get...

Why aren’t we concentrating on getting more people paying in as the solution rather than who we can take from?
Good idea.
Let's force the disabled to work.. or cut their money.
Let's force the sick to work.. or cut their money..
Let's look at the long term unemployed... There's millions of them.. right? (There aren't)

I've been @ a number of times for this, so yes, I'm aware, thank you.

I mean that varies from person to person depending on the lifestyle you want. But there was an article recently suggesting a couple need £40k a year for a comfortable retirement I think.

Using the 4% a year withdrawal rate as a rule of thumb means I need to aim to have a pension pot of £1m between me and DP. Which isn’t as hard as it sounds given enough time (I’m talking decades).

But I think a lot of people will see £1m and think that’s an impossible goal. It’s not if you start early enough and I think we need much more education around pensions and to strongly encourage people to start as early as possible.

This obviously assumes people have some spare income to invest which some people don’t. Hence the need for a state pension.

That’s my problem with the government charging IHT on pensions — I think the message should be pensions pensions pensions.

That Tory was the Opposition Leader

Badenoch’s pensions triple lock remarks prompt alarm among Tory colleagues | Conservatives | The Guardian

But I don't know why the title says Labour as well.

So according to the article you posted, one Tory suggested it then very quickly distanced herself from the comments whilst the rest of the Tory party pretended she hadn't said it, and Labour roundly condemned the idea.

How does that equate to both parties "mooting" it?

How much money is "enough to live?"

It does pose some really interesting questions about the society we live in, the society we want to live in, how we treat others in our society and the role of Government.

I don’t know that anyone is advocating for scrapping state pension. Just targeting the money at the people who need it rather than it being universal regardless of other circumstances.

If (and it’s a big if) I am able to put enough money into a pension that I can live without state pension then wouldn’t it be more sensible for people like yourself and others to receive that money instead?

That's really not true. DH and I are both council estate kids. We have worked hard, got qualifications along the way and now have a lovely home and a decent amount of savings. We can afford good food, a car, holidays, days out and to give our DC the childhood we never experienced.

On the other hand we both have family members who live in council houses and claim benefits. I wouldn't trade my lovely life with them. Years of poor diet and inactivity really takes it toll.

I don't think the elderly are being demonised.

There are simply a lot of people who have retired / coming up to retirement who are on a triple locked, non means tested pension.

They are likely to have paid NI contributions - which paid for the previous generation of pensioners.

People who are paying tax / NI now are contributing towards the pot of the current State Pension.

Who will pay for the triple lock, non means tested pension of future generations - and how?

I think you are mistaken. I thought I had paid in for 30 years as we were told that it would be sufficient. Turns out the whole thing was changed it it was not enough for full state pension. Many others in the WASPI group were affected too. Advise you to check again. Nothing is guaranteed these days.
I would like to see the sums on how much means testing would cost. In the old days when we studied social policy it was generally reckoned to be more costly than the savings made.

I'd be devastated by this. Having being a carer for a long while, I haven't really got a private pension but have made enough contributions to get a SP. It makes me wonder whether I've now made the right decision about caring; perhaps I should have passed my caring role onto the state and sought a higher paying job. I'm now supporting two disabled adults so any attack on me will inevitably affect them.

I have no idea if you are right but the point in they are not contributing. It’s the same as the ridiculous arguement that unemployment benefit is “only” 1B. They aren’t pay in - that’s the issue. I can not understand why there is all this effort to demonize the elderly and take from them. Why aren’t we concentrating on getting more people paying in as the solution rather than who we can take from? Oh sorry - I forgot - left wing policy/ideology - the politics of envy and levelling down

I'd say they were the clever ones. Unless you have family support and connections a life time of work gets you bugger all in this country.

That's assuming you can find somewhere cheaper to move to and it will still cost in stamp duty etc

Healthcare staff - Perhaps use the people here who are trained rather than saying there are no vacancies