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?

The majority of elderly people live at home until they die, often with minimal care needs.

Are you including health care in that minimal cost?

What care home age? It isn't an age that you get to and suddenly you end up carted off to a care home. Less than 5% of people over the age of 65 ever live in a care home.
As it happens I have a relative in a care home due to needing 24 hour nursing care. The home specialises in dementia and high needs care. The age of the patients ranges from 55 to 102. Are you saying you don't want to live past mid 50s in case you end up in a care home?

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

But you understand with an ageing population there will be more who do?

• The older population in England is getting larger. In the last 40 years, the number of people aged 50 and over has increased by over 6.8 million (a 47% increase), and the number aged 65 and over has increased by over 3.5 million (a 52% increase).
• Over 10 million people are currently aged 65 and over, making up 18% of the population.
• The number of people aged 65-79 is predicted to increase by nearly a third (30%) to over 10 million in the next 40 years, while the number of people aged 80 and over – the fastest growing segment of the population – is set to more than double to over 6 million.

@Miley1967

Exactly, so a drain rather than an asset

Probably been here a short time and made very little contribution

I’m saying I’d like to die before I need care home level of care. I obviously can’t control that though. And it’s a very personal thing. And maybe I’ll never need it.

Less than 5% is today, I think medicine will continue to extend lifespan so more and more people will end up in a care home.

@Coldanddamp yes of course the amount of older people needing care will increase but some posters on here seem to think it's inevitable for virtually everyone and that clearly isn't (and won't be) the case. It gets trotted out every time someone mentions the word "inheritance".

I expect with smaller families, more families dispersed & unsuitable housing (eg more older people renting, less bungalows etcs) more will need care in the home & care homes because it will just be harder to manage.

My parents and in-laws have put in downstairs bathrooms and my siblings and DHs siblings were all helped onto the ladder so we remained where we grew up (London). When one recently had a fall, living 20 mins away from them and the hospital made a huge difference which I didn’t appreciate before. This is harder if you don’t have secure housing.

When visiting said relative in hospital I actually fed some of the other patients because they were given their food but couldn’t reach or manipulate the utinsels & the nurses were rushed off their feet. If you can’t advocate for yourself someone else has too, it’s pretty terrifying.

But that is a very simplistic view isn’t it. 1B in unemployment but the cost is exponentially more. Unemployed people are eligible for (& if you look at the statistics in receipt of) a whole host of other benefits ….. housing, often disability benefits, free elements of health care, pension contributions, full amount of CB, free nursery etc So the cost is far far higher that the unemployment benefit. And they contribute nothing so that “cost” as it’s a nill contribution. Thats why people can and do choose not to work. And this is apparently a growing choice amongst 55+ (which I guess is explainable due to the extreme rise in house prices and often more generous pensions arrangement) and part of the whole “we hate pensioner - take their money, they don’t deserve from the left” But if they are benefiting from this, it’s likely they worked to be able to buy the house (yes at a reduced wage to house price ratio but they didn’t give them away). But the fascinating and worrying fact is the amount of 18-25 and 25 - 30 years old not working. Choosing not to work …… so it is obviously very possible to live off the benefit system and the old rhetoric of they only bet a few hundred - it’s barely anything surely needs at least examining because if so why are so many choosing not to work?

@RebelMoon I do think that any government is going to come for that housing wealth/inheritance in some form. It’s all there is left really! In the next decade things are going to look incredibly different. People will have to pay more to access healthcare as well because the waiting lists will be too long and then we will be having the conversation over who should be prioritised for waiting lists.

That in incorrect. 55% of the social security spend (£165.9 billion) goes on benefits to people of pension age, but only £137.5 billion goes on state pension - the rest is benfits paid because people on the age group are poor and entitled to other benefits like pension credit. In the same period £137.4 billion (in other words, almost the same amount as the pension) goes to benefits for people who are of working age and children. Those figures do not include benefits for the disabled and those with long term health conditions, or housing benefit. Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/benefit-expenditure-and-caseload-tables-information-and-guidance/benefit-expenditure-and-caseload-tables-information-and-guidance#:~:text=Social%20security%20spending%20in%20Great%20Britain,-In%202024%20to&text=Total%20GB%20welfare%20spending%20is,benefits%20for%20pensioners%20in%20GB%20.

It's obviously been a very long time since you looked up the figures - or perhaps you never looked them up, and just made them up?

There is also one fairly significant difference between the two groups as well. The vast majority of those in receipt of pensions have worked hard all their lives and paid taxes to support the welfare state; and the majority of those with a private pension continue to pay taxes to support the welfare state. On the other hand a significant number of those of working age (8.2% according to the last census) have never worked. That comprises nearly 19% of the total unemployed. Nearly 55% of unemployed adults had not worked for more than a year.

I am not interested in bashing those who claim benefits to which they are entitled, and nor do I want to see benefits cut. But it is unsustainable to have a significant number of people of working age who are either out of work, have never worked, or are so low paid that they continue to claim state benefits.

The answer is not to pit groups of people against each other in a race to the bottom. We do need to address the complexities of low income and worklessness - and like it or not that also means addressing the small number of people who simply will not work. But suggesting that older people's entitlements are untouchable for no other reason than because they vote is inappropriate. Older peoples entitlements should be untouchable because we believe in people having decent living conditions after a lifetime of work.

Probably been here a short time and made very little contribution

But how do you know that prior?

If we have thousands of nurses & care worker vacancies & need them filled now what to you do?

But the fascinating and worrying fact is the amount of 18-25 and 25 - 30 years old not working.

I reckon most of the 18-25 yrs olds not working are being supported by parents.

We could consider, if we want (can afford) to take a measured, medium term and probably fairer approach dropping one of the three components of triple lock, or use a multi year average to smooth it as suggested by the new pensions minister (I think?). At the same time continue the freeze in the personal allowance, so bringing more income into tax but at the same time overhaul all of the higher rates, which have monumentally unhelpful cliff edges for both benefits and incentives to work more. So rather than jumping from 20 to 40% at £40k, have a more progressive 20/30/40/50% build. This would mean those with some of their own pension provision would pay increasingly more tax in the top slice of retirement income (let’s call it the state pension element) negating the need for a complex means testing regime.

At the same time roll employees NI into income tax to remove the direct link between ‘I’ve paid my NI’ and ‘that entitles me to a state pension no matter what’ mindset.

If at the same time the whole income tax regime can be simplified then fantastic. But, we really ought to stop taxing people for things that have increased just because of inflation. So bring back indexation on capital gains, and align rates to the new income tax rates. One could also just give everyone one one tax free allowance, to be used on income or capital gains, rather than the two at present.

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.

Agree. Also, for better or worse, unemployment benefits are designed to incentivise people to find a job. Are we saying we wish to incentivise elderly people to continue to try to work long after they have the capacity to because we have set the pension below the level required to survive?

The vast majority of those in receipt of pensions have worked hard all their lives and paid taxes to support the welfare state

Are there stats for this? Always the sanctimonious language.

And why is a 30 yr old who didn’t work much a problem but once they hit old age and qualify for pension credit they are deserving?

Job seekers shouldn't be below the level required to survive. Setting the state pension at a bare minimum amount would incentivise people to save for their own retirement.

Oh look you linked to similar information I posted hours before... Well done.
Good reading of the thread there whilst accusing me of not reading.. 🤣🤣

Change expectations for those aged 30 and under? Everyone knows where they stand.
Don't come after those of us who are in our 50s and worked all our lives
But I bet they will😌
Of course it won't affect the people who make the policy....

This would be a good approach.

If the person didn't work then they wouldn't qualify state pension just pension / universal credits

So that's no different to a 30 year old getting benefits

However those who have worked and paid into national insurance as there pension contributions could rightly be bloody furious if they means test it

Will they give people the option to opt out of NI payments if they don't want state pension ?

Means testing it means in effect stopping the state pension and just having pension credit for those without enough to live in

Here's a task

Provide the stats for "so many choosing not to work"

Have a look at ling term unemployment. Those who have never worked for example.

Start with a simple one..

Those unemployed for over a 12months.

Let us all know what figure you find that supports:

it’s barely anything surely needs at least examining because if so why are so many choosing not to work?

It should be very interesting..

But again, NI contributions are not put away and invested for your future pension.

It's all part of the payments for current pensioners.

So opting out of paying NI payments will mean that the Government will have less money in taxes to pay for current pensioners pensions.

Thanks you @EmmaMaria for correcting the figures on cost of benefits, and pointing out the sum expended benefits to people of working age and children is almost the same as the expenditure on state pensions

Job seekers shouldn't be below the level required to survive. Agree. But that's where we are at the moment.

No they are not physically put away because of the boot strap problem

But the logic is you pay this now and then the next gen does the same and gets the same in their turn

And it was insurance separate from tax to make that promise clear

And you take that away you start to collapse society and then you are in a downward spiral - foolish