Who’s going to pay our pensions in 20-30years if the UK keeps its birth rate low and also restricts immigration?

That's good to hear. I'm starting a new job soon where there's a small pay cut eg 4k but my pension will go from 3% employer contribution to 17% ( its local gov) so youre making it sound like im getting a better deal.

There is huge amount of research that shows poor people have shorter life spans, its not controversial.

The vast majority of people work or have done but the problem is some people cannot work, no one would employ them, some might with job creation/training but that costs an awful lo of money, which we don't have and offers no guarantees.

I recently drove past a homeless hostel, it was a hot afternoon, large group of men and women hanging around drunk, smoking weed - i don't think you realise how far some long term unemployed are from "normal" people, MH addictions, zero skills....

Im not expecting to receive a state pension (I’m 34) and fully planning to fund my own retirement. I know many who are thinking the same. Not ideal but it’s seems like it’s where we’re heading

this problem predates immigration, there is simply not enough money.

That's not how money works.

Well it looks like your pension specialist was almost certainly wrong. I'm ten years older than you and looking to retire in seven years on the full state pension, which humble as it is has at least benefitted from the triple lock for some time now. It seems very unlikely that it's going to go from there to ZERO in the next ten years, particularly as no government authority has indicated (even tentatively, or indirectly) anything of the sort.

You seriously think that some time within the next 17 years the government is going to just suddenly announce that the next year's cohort due for their pension are not going to get one, and that'll be it?

There's a much more obvious explanation for why it would be in the interest of someone selling private pensions to convince people that the state pension won't be there for them. It's surprising it didn't occur to you.

It’s like the civil service pension was raised to 67, including prison officers. It’s not realistic to expect people in their late 60s to be working in a prison . Obviously some people will be up to it but lots wouldn’t .

When it comes to workplace pensions though it all depends on who you work for and how many years you do surely?

It's a 40 year old story, but when I worked for a pension fund in NY, my boss took a business trip on a quiet commuter flight during an airline go slow. She ended up running a meeting for all the stewards and explaining to them that the low pay was less of an issue long term than the lack of pensions. I don't really know the outcome of that specific situation, but she definitely made them aware of the value of pension rights, and I believe it was a major topic for the relevant union negotiations after that.

Of course, you may not be offered choices but I still direct the management of two pension funds (both miniscule TBH) plus my own with DH and DC. I spend several hours every week reading and thinking about the best options.

@NeedAnyHelpWithThatPaperBag I think your reaction is over the top here. I was also a specialist in pensions, but an analyst not a salesperson, in the USA and 40 years ago, and the reasons for saving into a pension hold true as much now as then. Save under your own name, save as much as you can, and just generally pay attention. Anyone who delegates the decisions to someone else is likely to end up legged over. It is not a decision (or series of decisions) to let anyone else take for you. .

"I’m sorry to disagree but I was 20 and a specialist in pensions visited and briefed everyone at my work" .

Is it really surprising though that a pension specialist, presumably pushing a private pension scheme, would tell people that the state pension won't pay out? Sounds like there is an agenda underway for pensions to be completely privatised along with the NHS as there's not much left that hasn't already been rinsed by vulture capitalists.

I have a very small occupation-related pension on top of my state pension. I get that money after tax. I also still have a tiny job, and I pay tax on that income too. And I/we have saved for 30 years or so into a SIPP, which we haven't touched yet. It owns a commercial property that is returning about 12% per annum; there's quite a lot of money in that fund after 30 years. It's owned over two generations and there are no clear rules about how inheritance tax will be split in our circumstances yet. But we are outliers to HMRC and will be among the last to get advice. So I will worry and argue later, when HMRC send the bill. But I will leave an exhaustive file briefing my heirs on where they stand.

I don't have an occupational pension so no PAYE but I get what you're saying.

My tax above my personal allowance is collected from my occupational pension via PAYE, so is my bloke’s. I thought everyone’s was.

So sorry, I misread. Very, very few people’s state pension is more than the personal allowance.

My state pension arrives, untaxed, in my bank account each month BUT, because my annual state pension is OVER my personal tax allowance, HMRC write and ask me for the tax that I owe. I'm expecting to hear any day how much I owe on last year's pension. This will be added to my savings income that is over my Personal Savings Allowance. Believe me, if your state pension is over £12,570 then they'll ask you for the tax.

Then you have other income that doesn’t derive from a pension. Trust me, your state pension arrives in your bank account untaxed - I know because mine does every four weeks. The money I pay tax on is my income from other sources. If you intend to work until you drop then obviously you’ll pay tax accordingly and if you earn enough to lose your personal allowance you’d be rather foolish to claim the state pension because you clearly don’t need it.

No, the state pension IS taxed - not at source but it is taxed if you earn over your personal allowance which I will so the state will take at least 40% of it from me, even 45% of it as I will work until I die. IN fact as ou probably know a lot of professional wokmen now don't get a personal tax allowance at all and every penny of their earnings are taxed at full rates.

However I agree that those who only have a state pension and no other income at all will indeed have income below the personal tax allowance and state pension then not be taxable. Sadly for my father and for me the state takes almost half of it away in tax.

(I don't have a private pension)

From a personal point of view, re having children: We have one dgc. Our dd has no plans to have any more at the moment. The cost of & the shortage of childcare is a big issue. Then there's the increased costs throughout their lives with having more than one, cost of living worries.
A lot of friends/relatives my age say their dc only plan on having one child at the most, due to cost. It seems like having dc will be the privilege of the well off.
One friend has 2 adult dc. One of them will emigrate to Austrailia with their Australian partner if they choose to have children, as they believe they will have a better life there. The other one has no desire for children due to the state of the world, bleak outlook re health care, education, lack of housing, lack of well paying jobs due to AI.
I think a lot of youngsters already have a bleak outlook of what lies ahead re the issues I've just mentioned and have no desire to bring a child into it.

No Xenia, it won’t be subject to any tax, your personal allowance covers your state pension. All your taxable income will derive from your private pension(s).

I got quite disillusioned with pensions and cashed my SIPP at age 55 ( am self employed) to give to e HMRC (a vast sum - 45% tax on 75% of the fund) and the children for housing and will work until I die. If I reach age 67 I will get about £12k a year before tax and that will be subject to my highest marginal rate of tax just as my father's was and his NHS pension - he paid loads of tax on his pensions and died at 79.

I think a lot of people are well aware of it. But they muddy the waters when they tell you how many years of NI you need to pay in order to qualify for the state pension.
They shouldn’t be telling people they can “top up their NI years” by paying (in some cases) thousands in order to get the pension and then say actually you weren’t paying that for your pension.

they don’t want us to know that our ni payments are funding pensions for previous generations

They’re not doing a great job of hiding it. I knew it when I started work - 53 years ago.

I see what you are saying, my parents were teachers ( my dad was a university lecturer) they had obviously paid in for their pensions and paid ni , what they receive now is a pittance! It really is shocking but then they missed the best time for pensions as they only retired 8 years ago!
the government are never going to take a public line because they don’t want us to know that our ni payments are funding pensions for previous generations because they are so behind.

As I said I’m not disagreeing that the state pension in its current form is unlikely to be around in 30 years. My point is that is not the OFFICIAL line. The government still say it will be around. The government are still recommending people who have gaps in their NI contributions pay THOUSANDS to top it up so they are entitled to their pension. THAT is still the official line. While you might have had great advice from an independent pensions advisor (and I agree it’s great advice) do you actually think this was a country wide thing? That someone similar visited every single workplace in the past few decades? What about self employed people? Did they visit them? What about stay at home parents or carers? Did someone visit them and tell them they wouldn’t be getting any pension?

I’m not disagreeing that people with high private pensions may not receive a state pension. But for pretty much everyone I know they will not have enough to live on without it. So whether it’s called a pension or not it doesn’t really matter. But people who are older and do not have enough private pension will receive money from the government in some way. And yes those people who earned enough to gain a good private pension will be unlikely to get anything.

My parents worked. They received a state pension. I have an aunt who never really worked. Was married at 17 and then was a housewife and then a stay at home mother for two kids then back to just a housewife. My parents paid in their full NI contributions in order to get a pension. My aunt did not have enough. My parents got their pension. My aunt gets pension credit. Whichever way you want to phrase it they all get money from the government because they are a over a certain age.

Does raising pension age cause job blocking? Young people unable to get jobs due to people having to be made to work 3-5 years longer?

Also what about those people in physical jobs - they would be fit enough (some will be) to do that physical job at 68

Not really. Why would I feel happy that some people never working or intending to ? ( I’m not talking about disabled people for example)

Wheres your evidence to support that fact? I don’t believe it’s true. You may think it is but it isn’t.