Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Tories and Labour mooting possible means testing of State Pension

578 replies

Turmerictolly · 17/01/2025 20:58

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?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
14
TheMoment · 18/01/2025 12:13

ArtTheClown · 17/01/2025 21:56

I can log into my government gateway account, and it tells me how many more years i need to pay NI, how much my pension would be, and when I am to receive it

I mean it even gives you the option to pay top-up contributions to ensure you receive the full amount.
Imagine paying those and then getting told sorry, we're pulling the whole thing. Money you could have put into a private pension.

I am sure I read if they were to “pull” the state pension then any voluntary overpayments would be given back to whoever had chosen to do that undo what would be legacy rules. It wouldn’t be that expensive for the gment to do that at all (as not many do overpayments in grand scheme of things and it’s a drop in the ocean) and they would save billions pulling the state pension.

suburburban · 18/01/2025 12:26

Coldanddamp · 18/01/2025 11:45

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?

The other poster said they had been here for 5 years'

What about the people who have managed to get their elderly relatives from abroad, no doubt they manage to get something as well.

It's not really working

Skipthisbit · 18/01/2025 12:26

EmmaMaria · 18/01/2025 11:44

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.

This ….. absolutely this.

suburburban · 18/01/2025 12:27

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

Munchyseeds2 · 18/01/2025 12:27

FlipYouCouldBeMe · 17/01/2025 22:33

But how will they test? I am not a high earner but DH and I have a home worth 600k. That seems a lot but we r in an area of the country where house prices are high. We hope to have paid off the mortgage by the time we retire (if we can ever retire). But I bet the means test will be based on assets so.instrad of being able to stay in the home we've worked hard for and receiev our state pension, we will no doubt now have to sell our home and live off that money instead. Which is not fair

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

bigvig · 18/01/2025 12:28

Coldanddamp · 18/01/2025 11:46

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.

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.

Skipthisbit · 18/01/2025 12:30

Coldanddamp · 18/01/2025 11:46

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.

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

D23456789 · 18/01/2025 12:31

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.

Ramblingnamechanger · 18/01/2025 12:34

PointySnoot · 17/01/2025 21:30

It's difficult because clearly the currently model is not sustainable. I realise that my contributions are currently funding the pensions being paid out at the moment.

But when you log on to your Govt gateway account, it literally gives you your state pension forecast based on your current contributions. Another 5 years to go and then I'll have my full 30 years stamp paid. So I think I can be forgiven if I feel a bit aggrieved if the rules were to change and I end up getting nothing in return for that.

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.

cakeorwine · 18/01/2025 12:35

Skipthisbit · 18/01/2025 12:30

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 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?

Unpaidviewer · 18/01/2025 12:35

bigvig · 18/01/2025 12:28

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 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.

GutsyShark · 18/01/2025 12:37

D23456789 · 18/01/2025 12:31

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.

Edited

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?

cakeorwine · 18/01/2025 12:39

GutsyShark · 18/01/2025 12:37

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?

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.

MrsSunshine2b · 18/01/2025 12:41

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?

cakeorwine · 18/01/2025 12:44

MrsSunshine2b · 18/01/2025 12:41

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?

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.

Badenoch’s pensions triple lock remarks prompt alarm among Tory colleagues

Leader urged to clarify suggestion lock could be means-tested amid fears party will lose support among older voters

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

GutsyShark · 18/01/2025 12:47

cakeorwine · 18/01/2025 12:39

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 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.

PointySnoot · 18/01/2025 12:47

Ramblingnamechanger · 18/01/2025 12:34

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

DecemberTulips · 18/01/2025 12:48

Skipthisbit · 18/01/2025 12:30

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

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)

Thelnebriati · 18/01/2025 12:54

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.

AKettleOfDifferentFish · 18/01/2025 12:56

GutsyShark · 18/01/2025 12:47

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.

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".

cakeorwine · 18/01/2025 12:57

Thelnebriati · 18/01/2025 12:54

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.

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

GutsyShark · 18/01/2025 12:59

AKettleOfDifferentFish · 18/01/2025 12:56

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".

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

GrouachMacbeth · 18/01/2025 13:01

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.

MrsSunshine2b · 18/01/2025 13:09

DecemberTulips · 18/01/2025 12:48

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)

Edited

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.

DecemberTulips · 18/01/2025 13:12

MrsSunshine2b · 18/01/2025 13:09

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.

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?

Swipe left for the next trending thread