Is living on the state pension really that bad?

Someone upthread hasn't worked in 8 years due to their MH issues and just lives of UC..

This. There are large number of ( mainly) women who have barely worked. In my job role I am seeing many who are currently coming up to retirement age who have barely worked and looking to see what benefits there are to top up their very small state pension as you only have to have looked after kids and claimed child benefit for 10 years to get a very basic state pension.
they then go on to claim pension credit sometimes for 30+ years, all rent and council tax paid. If they start to claim a disability benefit they get an additional disability premium on pension credit on top of the actual disability benefit. The costs are huge. So many who have barely paid anything in yet taking huge amounts out. It's completely unsustainable.
The numbers of people now on long term disability benefits ( I understand some on PIP do work), or not able to work due to caring responsibilities, so many SEN children whose parents can't work, so many older people needing care whose adult kids give up work to care for them. So few people actually working and contributing. It's a ticking timebomb that no-one wants to address.

The fact you've paid off your mortgage makes a huge difference. You've got that asset now, which, psychologically makes your life easier and more doable. Good for you. What else do you need but that comfort factor and your dog!

What jobs? Did you quote the wrong person?

There's a legal minimum employer contribution of 3%. Even if you are on NMW you can learn to budget and put some away. Don't plan to stay in NNW forever, learn some marketable skills to get a better job.

There's plenty of practical qualifications to do for those who don't even have GCSEs.

I think the state pension needs to be phased out where people get a lump equivalent to what they "paid in" via NI. Ultimately resulting in a world of personal responsibility.

It's not £250 for anyone, someone has just rounded up to an approximate figure and everyone has rolled with it. The amount depends on what year you retire because the rules are changing and different people are in different situations because of that.

It also depends on how much NI you've paid. If someone hasn't paid the full amount of NI qualifying years, they might only get a 3/4 or 1/2 of the full pension amount. The only way to know what you, personally, are in line to get is to look at your state pension forecast.

You go to the GP and say you are depressed and have anxiety and how can that be disproved?

My neighbour supposedly has such bad anxiety that he cannot leave his house so therefore cannot work. He in fact leaves his house almost every day, often multiple times. He goes shopping, walks his dogs, sees his girlfriend and, best of all, works cash in hand sometimes 5 days a week!

Not contributing though. And then a 'burden in the state' when they 'retire' not that they ARE actually retiring if they didn't work anyway!

Surely some proof of the condition would have to be backed up by medical evidence.

Lots of employers don't put anything into the pension scheme even if they offer one, it's just the employee putting in. Lots of people on minimum wage or thereabouts can't afford to put in anyway. They need the money for their daily living expenses. Even if they do put in the recommended 10% of their salary, they'd have a pension pot by the time they retire but it wouldn't be huge.

Especially for anyone working part time or taking career breaks to bring up children - which isn't a luxury in many cases, it's the only way they can do it, since the people providing childcare are also entitled to be paid minimum wage. UK is a tolerant country so I can't see them bringing in forced abortions or forced adoptions for people struggling financially. Nobody would vote for a party who tried to do that except total dickheads. It would be political suicide. They want more children born anyway to provide the next generation of tax payers.

The government could start means testing the state pension but they're not going to be able to cut it out altogether because there will always be people who haven't paid enough into a private pension to exist in old age without financial assistance.

There are rules about who can claim income related benefits, but there's no rules about having to work full time if a person has some other means of supporting themselves and isn't claiming income related benefits.

Unless they've changed those rules, it's not compulsory to pay into the employer's pension scheme either. The employer has to offer one now, but the employee can choose to opt out and I imagine a great many of those struggling do.

Where is it 250, that would be fine but when I looked on gov website it said £176 per week and that is a big difference. I could love on 250 a week 176 I couldn't.

Why can't the NEETs do the jobs?

Stop the bullying!

My main thing is barring extenuating circumstances and health issues isn't the onus on an individual to put away a pension? Whilst you work you put some away, the company matches a certain percentage?

I am a pensioner as are most of my friends and family and we all have to pay council tax. We live in various parts of the country. I certainly do not have over £16k in savings and I only get state pension

Single pensioners get single person discount but every single person in a house or flat gets that

Agree
@Tacohill it's a problem I have come across as a lawyer. People will put requirements to be "registered disabled" in their policies and be shocked when I point out it's a meaningless term and could also trip them up as the Equality Act applies if you have a disability, theres no "registration" requirement

That is based on wanting to spend a good portion of your retirement years having fun, travelling and doing things you maybe didn't have the time or funds to do whilst working FT. However, if none if that is in your sights for whatever reason then you should be able to live well on less than that although if you are on SP alone I think it would be a frugal existence particularly if you are living in your own home mortgage free but exposed to repair costs and ever increasing utility bills.

People just don’t want to face the reality of this and what it means.

Without immigration we will have a huge shortage of young taxpayers to provide for our ageing population. Immigrants also tend to have more children which is what’s desperately needed to sustain the economy.

@Nannyfannybanny it must of been incredibly difficult for you both and thats exactly my point, the current age of 67 just isn’t viable for many. So many will give up work and go onto some form of disability benefit, there was a report recently about the amount of 55+ on disability benefits/inactive. Probably for the reasons outlined. Therefore in essence the government will be reducing one bill (pensions) and increasing another (disability). I don’t have a solution but i do know for a fact that many will not be able to do their jobs at that age, even if they go on to live until their 100.

My late DF had Ankylosing Spondylitis and in the 1950s was called "Registered disabled"..I have a ds with RCBPD and he is called registered disabled on his housing complex.

That is being phased out.

Housewives were financially supported by their husbands so not a burden on the state.

KookyKoala, I was also mainly nursing (40 years) a great deal of my colleagues without kids,paid into the NHS pension and topped up,retired by 60 at the latest. I stayed till 65, nights for 30 years. My last year I couldn't sleep at all during the day and finally felt ill..was glad to retire. DH 7 years younger,was in the motor trade,at 64 ,he couldn't cope with the heavy lifting anymore,so retired early. He had paid into a private pension for 30 years, nothing like the eye watering wages or pension pots I see on here, telling us that we baby boomers are millionaires.

@Kookykoala They contributed when life expectancy was lower and many didn’t need to work to get a pension. They got one via their DHs contributions, as my DM did. Some women barely worked at all and many were part time paying little tax. Obviously not all, but housewives were the norm!

@TinkerTailorLadyThinker

I don’t disagree that people are living longer, however they are not living longer in good health. Raising the state pension age is not going to change that. The government needs to look at this as in the coming years there are going to be HUGE amounts of people 60+ on some form of disability benefits as they simply cannot do their job until 67.

Predominantly front line workers; trades people, labourers, nurses, health care workers, paramedics, police, retail workers, teachers, teaching assistants etc etc. Physically and emotionally demanding jobs which require long shifts on your feet, whilst some will manage i predict the vast majority will not.

Can you imagine teaching 30 active 4-5 year olds, on your feet for 8 hours then the planning marking etc at 67. Can you imagine working 12 hour shifts including nights caring for patient who need cleaning, mobilising etc. As a nurse not only the physical aspects but being mentally switched on enough to react to the critically ill patient deteriorating, the major trauma coming through resus at 67. I think this is what the government needs to consider. In retail long shifts on your feet the vast majority of the time. Builders/labourers up and down ladders, lifting heavy materials etc.

Also most work place pensions are poor, people can’t often afford to put more in them. If your on minimum wage or just above its unlikely your going to increase your contribution higher than the 4% because the reality is you need that money to pay your current bills. Its ok saying people need to prioritise their future but unfortunately the future isn’t the here and now where rent/mortgage, food, utilities need paying. Hence people ‘worrying about it later’. I think the government are being shortsighted if they think everyone will be able to provide for themselves because they introduced the mandatory work place pension because many simply won’t have enough in it.

@OhDear111 yes today’s tax payer is paying for it now. But the pensioner has paid tax previously, when working, which paid for the ‘then pensioners’ so its abit silly to make out they haven’t contributed. The same as when we claim state pension (if there is one) todays workers will be paying for us.