Tories and Labour mooting possible means testing of State Pension

[Turmerictolly]

www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/17/kemi-badenoch-pensions-triple-lock-means-test-alarm-tories

I would be so gutted if this happened but there's noise from both parties about this recently. I think it might be inevitable. What will happen to those of us nearing 60 who have made plans that include the full state pension we've paid contributions for?

Only if you had no NI contributions before 2016. Anyone working and paying NI before 2016 will have had a calculation done to determine how many years they need
Some will be less than 35 years some will be more depending on their individual circumstances in the years tbey paid NI before 2016.

With falling birth rates and a growing elderly demographic, there are two choices to make.

Either we increase the number of people in the workforce by increasing immigration (eg by rejoining the single market).

Or we become selective in who gets a state pension benefit.

It seems like older people are tending to prefer lower immigration and vote for eg Conservative or Reform, older people were also more inclined to leave the EU and stop freedom of movement. Therefore they are driving the need for selective state pension benefits.

This is the kind of debate and conversations we should see politicians having.

Not soundbites and "Protect the triple lock"

The reality is that the pensions bill, adult social care and an ageing population but not necessarily a healthy ageing population is something that society needs to think about.

Fewer younger people. A divide with people who are asset rich and maybe financially rich as well - you can have a house worth £1 million but not have much cash. Generations who will be inheriting a lot and people who won't be inheriting much. Pensioners with great pensions and pensioners with little income.

Maybe we need to think really differently about old age.

When it stops and I believe it is when not if, they will have to do something like you get the amount for the years you paid in before it stopped. So Sandra who paid in 38 years, then retired 12 years after it became means tested with would get 76% of a state pension and be expected to have built up private pension for the 12 years she knew it had become means tested. Ben who paid in 2 years before it became means tested would only get 4% and be expected to foot the rest, until no one being born was ever expecting to get it. It will take DECADES to fully eradicate:

Reform and Lib Dems say they will protect the triple lock and not means test State Pensions. - so they need to be asked in detail, how they would pay for it ?

This is the kind of debate and conversations we should see politicians having.

tbh, this is the one of the more sensible threads I’ve seen about the issues. Normally they go off on tangents about ageism, benefit bashing, boat people etc.

Changing demographics are a fact & will impact the country socially, culturally & financially. We can’t plan for it if we don’t acknowledge it.

Agree. Plus the fact we have more renters who will be living a long time into retirement. Society will have to pay their rent, we should be building suitable housing for these people. Our village has about 10 one bed bungalows, speciafically built for pensioners in the 70s. We need a lot more of this.

I think lots of people anticipating an inheritance are in for a shock. Care home fees are eye watering and will wipe out all wealth for lots of people.

Unless people are in a financial position to gift money while they are still alive (which I think governments will have to clamp down on) in many cases there will be nothing left for people to inherit.

One of many reasons I have no desire to live until care home age.

And when people are retired, they are going to want to be able to buy food, go to the hospital, hope their children and grand children are ok, have a house, can get an education etc.

All very difficult if the younger generation are struggling and are tempted to go elsewhere to a country that has thought about older age.

This makes more sense.

I can see the headlines now

"We'll protect inheritance tax", "Hands off our inheritance", "Keep the triple lock"

All easy soundbites.

"But I've paid into it for 40 years" won't help, it didn't with women who were expecting their pension at 60. You may think you have a contract with the government, but that just doesn't apply any more.

That won't work at all because a lot of those who've paid in nothing or barely anything are the ones who need it most.

Care home fees are eye watering but not everyone needs a care home. I forget what the stats are but it's lower than you'd think. In my own family we've lost 5 elderly relatives in the last 8 years, only one of them spent time in a care home and that was only for the last 6 months of her life so the costs didn't make much of a dent in her estate.

How much do I regret a typo and putting 30 instead of 35.... Yes it's 35. I currently have 30 so 5 more years.

We need to be more selective abut the immigrants coming in. This week I have had two clients who have come to live here in the past five years in their early 50's. Both entered low paid jobs. Both now too ill to work and able to claim PIP, Universal credit etc to the tune of well over 1k a month. It may sound harsh and I do understand that illness/ accident can happen to anyone at any age but obviously more likely as people get into their 50's. One came here to work as a live in carer, now cannot work due to ill health and has lost the home that came with the job and now needs housing, PIP and other benefits. How are we letting this happen. One person makes low tax and NI contributions for a few years and now will need to be supported for potentially the next 30 years. Madness.

That's so true about renters.

The housing crisis is yet another thing we need to think about and have a sensible discussion about. Not just soundbites.

Housing
Health
How do we as a society ensure we are meeting the needs of others - we can look out for ourselves but we need to meet others needs to ensure we can meet our needs.

Yes so they would get it based on means testing. That’s the whole point. I was covering the people who won’t be eligible but Had already contributed something in. Sorry if not clear

I agree with this too and would actually be happy to pay more tax to keep a state pension but it seems there is no appetite for this generally. We can't have everything for nothing. It's the timing for me personally which grates (although I appreciate nothing has happened yet).

I can't see it becoming means tested due to the cost involved. It's far more likely that the triple lock would be scrapped and it would become worth far less due to inflation. Then pension credit would top up those who haven't made adequate provisions. I think the amount that pensioners receive should be inline with those on unemployment benefits. It should meet the basic requirements and nothing more.

🤦

Right. But you won't be a working person for the 20, 30+ years you're expecting the workforce of that time to pay you for, whether you actually need it or not.

And even if you carried on working until you drop dead whilst you claim your pension as well, if we don't protect the workforce at a population level, they can't pay. Simple as that.

Care home fees are eye watering but not everyone needs a care home

But care in the home which is more common will need to be funded and as yet house value isn’t taken into account for that. I think that will change or it will happen by stealth. You need care? Well the local authority doesn’t have any who can do more than 1 day a week so you need to find and fund private careers.

We need to be more selective abut the immigrants coming in

But how do we attract the “better immigrants” in the future? Bring your skills here but you won’t earn as much as X country and will pay more for housing. And we do have thousands of carers jobs available which will only increase.

Totally agree.

Agreed. People on here are forever banging on about us all needing to pay for care homes. As if it was a given that everyone is going to need care.The reality is a very small percentage less than 5% of people over 65 live in care homes in the UK
Even with an aging population the percentage won't increase that much. Some may need care at various points but not necessarily the eyewatering care home fees that we see talked about. Most manage perfectly well, some have a small.amount of care at home. The majority of elderly people live at home until they die, often with minimal care needs.

I think the amount that pensioners receive should be inline with those on unemployment benefits. It should meet the basic requirements and nothing more.

Disagree. Unemployment benefits are set at a level that assumes it will be a temporary stop gap until the person finds a job. For pensioners is not a stop gap so it needs to be set at a level that people can live on long term.

But care in the home which is more common will need to be funded and as yet house value isn’t taken into account for that. I think that will change or it will happen by stealth. You need care? Well the local authority doesn’t have any who can do more than 1 day a week so you need to find and fund private careers.

Agree, but again not everyone needs carers in the home. Only 1 of the 5 relatives I mentioned needed care of any kind.