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?

Fully expect this to happen at one point and am planning accordingly.

What's the fucking point in working

I hope they do it.

The problem is there are now so many things that cost the state a lot of money. Eg cost of children and adults in private residential care for complex special needs. The cost of this for local councils is enormous. It can be hundreds of thousands a year for one adult. We either have to pay a lot more tax or this miracle of “growth” needs to happen?

It's often a brief period though. Many of these people may well have paid loads of contributions (tax, NI etc) before and after this point.

Its appalling. I've bought additional years when I was younger (and financially it was really tough to do) purely to make sure that I get the full entitlement and have some level of provision in my old age. Yet again being financially prudent and sensible is being punished.

I wouldn't mind so much if I had just been taxed. But I elected to pay more based on their requirements. If a company did this it would be false advertising; if a pension provider did this the FCA would be on them like a ton of bricks

The problem is that at an income level there's only a requirment to complete a self assement return if your income is more than £150k, which will probably exclude the vast majority of pensioners. Then there's the fact that the DWP and HMRC aren't even joined up enough to tax a state pension at source - the tax due is recovered through the penisoners tax code appplied to their private pension. So, by doing nothing (the current process) HMRC are getting 20/40/60/45% of some or all the state pension back from those with other pension income.

Politically simpler to break the link between contributions and entitlement by getting rid of NI, make people save more and gradually erode the state pension surely? With then beneidt that it gives people time to plan and doesnt leave one cohort disadvantaged.

On discouraging people from earning more, the impact is real, especially in heathcare. There are large numbers of doctors for example who actively keep their hours down so as not to trigger either the 60% bracket or the pensions trap, and because of the stress of the job I am sure. 90% of GPs work less than full time hours for example. Even if they are bit better off (though 62% tax and no child benefit make it maginal) the additional time at home is worth more.

That's mirrorred at a lower level across many other jobs and sectors as well, and probably impacts on productivity across the economy. Fewer people in work, fewer people working full time and low unemployment does not drive productivity or growth.

I agree about getting rid of NI and the idea that people have “paid into” a state pension. Because they haven’t.

And your point about healthcare is valid too, in a previous role I was advising GPs to work fewer hours for tax reasons. Their pensions are complex tho (let’s not get into a debate about DB pensions!) but yes it is true they can get heavy tax charges.

Unfortunately I don’t think our current government are interested in growth at all and I don’t think will be any help with that.

There was an interesting article in the FT the other day saying the U.K. will never achieve growth because we don’t want it enough - compared to the US where it’s prioritised. Some interesting food for thought.

At some point people who work hard and earn well are going to start getting very pissed off at paying all this tax and not seeing any benefit from it themselves. It's already like that with health provision - again and again we're guilted into not using "our" NHS, so we go private instead. We are paying twice.

If this is indeed the idea, they need to do away with National Insurance (because it insures you for precisely nothing) and reform the tax system.

This stupid plan will contribute hugely to the fracturing of society. Some things should be universal to all citizens.

I made sure I was back at work well,before then as I'm sure I read somewhere that I would be short of contributions.

They need to overhaul other systems in the Uk like subletting social housing properties and why people aren't at work and paying N.I. In the first place

It’s inevitable. I’m late forties and do not expect to get a state pension. I have not paid in my missing years NI from when I lived abroad as I think it is pointless. I don’t have a huge pot myself and am relying on DH but I can also live on very little if needed. I grew up in a non European country with no state benefits, so I don’t have the UK mindset of being somehow owed benefits. Even though I have already paid over 20 years of NI contributions.

Who is ‘guilting’ you into not using the NHS? I’ve never experienced that. Some better earners might go private rather than wait, and I agree, nobody should have to do that, but guilt?
We do get things for our tax, incidentally. Defence, roads, schools etc.
Also - everyone is talking as though this has happened. It hasn’t. Badenoch said something incomprehensible as per, it’s not Tory policy. It’s not Labour policy. It’s speculation based on Badenoch’s nonsense. Stop winding yourselves up with it.

Oh come on. Perception is everything. If you have people who have been given the impression all their working lives that paying into "National Insurance" is somehow their pot of money for their pension - whether or not it is actually accurate - they will naturally be pissed off when talk is that they don't see any of this "pot" they have allegedly been contributing to. It's high time this nonsense of "national insurance" was abolished. It's nothing of the kind.

I'm not saying that we don't get anything else from our taxation, though from where many people are standing, we are seeing nosediving services at the same time that we are paying increasing amounts of tax.

You may well have never felt "guilted" into not using NHS services, but if one thing has become clear over the last few years, it's that people in this country face enormous inequality of care. We are constantly told not to use A&E, but GP services can feel impossible to access. Standard GP responses to a worry is "come back in six weeks", and many GP receptionists seem reluctant to grant an audience with an actual doctor. YOU may not have experience of this, but plenty of people do! Waiting lists grow longer and longer, so people give up and go private, often taking on large amounts of personal debt to do so.

I can honestly say I e never felt ‘guilted’ about the NHS, and never been told not to use A&E for actual A&E worthy things. Gaps can be tricky, I agree.
Again. Nobody has said people won’t get their pension. Badenoch said something vague and incomprehensible.

True, no one in government is saying this but this thread suggests many people know that this is a conversation that needs to be had. In my opinion sooner rather than later so it can be done incrementally. Others prefer to bury their heads in the sand.

Spot on

The more they cut the welfare state so only the poorest and most irresponsible benefit, the less support they will have for it.

People work and contribute with the understanding there will be a basic state pension for all with the requisite qualifying years with the rest topped up by private pensions.

This country is only for those who take from the system. If you are a net contributor, get out while you can. You are being rinsed to line the pockets of corrupt politicians, militant unions and the out of control numbers of lazy.

🎯

Militant unions? You mean those organisations fighting for the rights of ordinary working people?

It's nowhere near 80% of the welfare bill. 55% of social security spending is spent on pensioners; that includes pensions and benefits.

You'll have people not saving, as those without a pension could be better off in certain circumstances. A friend, in social housing, worked all her life, gives advice on benefits. She's worked out that she'll be substantially better off, with only a state pension, as her rent will be paid / council tax heavily subsidised!! I can't retire without the proportion of state pension and wonder when, not if, this comes in. You want anger in society, then watch how jobs are sat in forever because of pensions, economy becomes stagnant due to lack of spending. Money rolls around but can't if it is all taken for those that never contribute to the pot!

No I mean what I said. You can read it again if unsure.

@DecemberTulips Given that those in receipt of a full pension have worked at least 35 years, providing goods and services to society and paying tax while they do it, why does it annoy you that they aren’t left to starve in older age? Would you prefer the welfare bill to skew towards non-contributors? I’m no economist but that seems like a pretty certain way to disincentivise work.

In some ways it’s best to not have assets and no savings , live in social housing so the government can’t take from you.

BUT- social or council housing is very hard to get , so people have to private rent. But private renting is more expensive than a typical mortgage, so it’s better to own.

Which is what the government want - they don’t want people living in cheaper council
housing. The right to buy and the failure to build more council houses was a deliberate act- it wasn’t the government then being nice. It’s about people owning a home so they are less likely to go on strike , more likely to want to work as they have a mortgage.

There are people who work full time and have council homes for life but these are few and far between, I know of only one family that lives like this .