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?

It's not a pension, it's a benefit. Governments of all hues are very keen to make people forget it's a benefit, though!

If this ever happened I can see major riots.

Yes but the review criticised the way those later changes were announced and the publicity around them, whereas it concluded that the original changes from 60 to 65 were well publicised and a long time in advance, so I do have a bit of sympathy with the women affected by later changes. Also because the lead in time wasn't the 15 yrs recommended for pension changes.

https://fullfact.org/online/rachel-reeves-pension-quote-false/

No evidence Rachel Reeves said pensions ‘can no longer be an entitlement for all’
9 July 2024
What was claimed
Chancellor Rachel Reeves announces new pension rules by saying “the State Pension is a benefit, it can no longer be an entitlement for all”.
Our verdict
There’s no evidence Ms Reeves has said this or that she has announced any changes to the pension system since becoming chancellor.
Posts circulating on social media claim the new Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves MP said: “the State Pension is a benefit, it can no longer be an entitlement for all’, while announcing “new pension rules” whereby those earning £30,000 or more, who pay into a work-based or private pension for 30 years, will no longer qualify for a state pension.
But Full Fact could find no evidence Ms Reeves made any such comment, or that she has announced these plans for pensions since becoming the UK’s chancellor on Friday 5 July.
The posts, which appear on both X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook, have almost identical text, saying: “UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves announces new Pension rules by saying ‘The State Pension is a benefit, it can no longer be an entitlement for all’ Under the plan those earning £30,000 or more, and paying into a work-based or private pension for 30 years or more will no longer qualify.”
One post adds: “Only took Labour 72 hours to decide to rob the pensioners,” while another says: “To all of you who vote Labour, I hope you have made provisions for your retirement”. Some posts appear to suggest this is being reported by the BBC, sharing an image of its logo.
Ms Reeves did not reference pensions in a speech to Treasury staff on 5 July, and she also did not announce any plans to change the qualifying criteria for state pension in a speech on 8 July. She did say: “And we will turn our attention to the pensions system, to drive investment in homegrown businesses and deliver greater returns to pension savers.”
No such plans to set a threshold on pensions have been announced on her social media platforms, or in press releases published by the Treasury. Neither have there been any media reports of this alleged announcement.
Labour’s manifesto committed to maintaining the pension ‘triple lock’, which means the state pension increases each year in line with either average earnings, inflation or by 2.5%—whichever is the highest. It said: “Labour will retain the triple lock for the state pension. We will also adopt reforms to workplace pensions to deliver better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners. Our pensions review will consider what further steps are needed to improve security in retirement, as well as to increase productive investment in the UK economy.”
It also says in government the party would “undertake a review of the pensions landscape to consider what further steps are needed to improve pension outcomes and increase investment in UK markets”.
It’s not entirely clear where the claim came from, but one post featuring the claim also included a collage of images that accompanied a GB News article published on 5 July. This article had the headline: “State pension could be means-tested under Labour, admit senior Keir Starmer advisor” and was based on comments made by Sir Edward Troup, reportedly a tax adviser to Ms Reeves, during an interview on LBC. Concerning Mr Troup’s comments, a spokesperson for Labour said: “These are not Labour Party policies”.
The GB News article did not claim Ms Reeves had announced any changes to pensions, and didn’t include the quote attributed to her in the social media posts.
This is not the first time we’ve seen quotes being falsely attributed to politicians or public figures including now-Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Labour MP Diane Abbott, former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and Pope Francis.
We’ve contacted Ms Reeves, the Treasury and Labour party for comment, and will update our article if we receive a response.

It seems to me sometimes that there is no point working in this country because the more you work, the more you pay for everyone else and if the pension is removed then what exactly has been the point in working when I'd have been better off in a council house having other people pay for my existence my whole working life and then when I retire.

Completely disagree. You say you hate the Tories but that's a really Tory attitude. The vast, vast majority are materially better off in work than out of it.

I don't see a situation where the average person that has been able and willing to work hard all their life is ever going to be worse off than someone who has spent their life on benefits.

As long as the pension is linked to contributory years, then people will always see it as a pension.

And quite rightly

You're right about that, although the point is undermined by:
1 - the fact that claiming certain benefits also counts towards your NI contribution record; and
2 - the existence of pension credit.
It's therefore quite hard not to qualify for at least most of the state pension even if you have contributed nothing towards it. Sounds a bit more like a benefit, doesn't it?

Well no, as it's not a pension. They are entitled to it as per the NI rules etc, but in theory any government could move the goalposts on eligibility. Just like they did at the start, in fact, where people over 60/65 had an immediate claim to the state pension when it launched, despite not having contributed anything towards it.

”He’s wealthy enough not to need it…” I bloody wish he was,

I’m disabled, too. Other than PIP I have received nothing. When DH went to war and on other deployments it was my children who were expected to step and care for me. When we needed help we were told by adult social services that they didn’t have a budget for people of my age.

Isn’t it 35 years now to have full pension. 30 years was under the old system.

I personally think it would be a mistake. It's effectively just taking money out of the economy from middle earners. If I don't get a state pension I would probably have to double or triple my work place pension contributions. That would mean an extra 5-10% of my salary going into my pension. I would get a tax break and that money wouldn't be fed into the economy day to day.

What about government legislation on what companies are allowed to put in our food to stop the upf and sugar madness instead? Less focus on tests at school and more time for exercise (not sport) and learning how to cook and take care of yourself in the curriculum instead? Also more focus on activities that create community and improve mental health like the arts? Maybe improving the health of our population would mean less money needing to be spent on the NHS and save us the cash for state pension?

This isn't right. Pensions are about 55% of overall welfare spending.

I am certainly not banking on it
i dropping think it will eventually be means tested

@DecemberTulips
@Bejinxed is correct it’s about 55%

this may have been true at one time but the big thing that has changed is the cost of housing. Someone who has lived in social housing all their lives and worked part time, topped up by UC and potentially other benefits like PIP, is potentially going to be a lot better off than someone who has worked full time all their life but has had to pay private sector rents and never been in a position to buy..

When they make changes to pension, it usually starts with those currently 40 years or under, so wouldn't affect a current 60 year old.

I am not a lawyer but IMV the state pension is a publicly funded pension based upon a contract between the citizen and the government to pay the state pension at the current rate at the current retirement age. It is a pension NOT a benefit, and to means test it would be a total breach of contract.
Also the MPs who are considering this are all looking forward to a very generous publicly funded pension, they should IMO prove they are not entitled hypocritical c*nts by agreeing to have THEIR pensions means tested using the same rules!

What about the many who choose not to work? I assume we would still be propping them up in retirement as we've done all their lazy lives.

Inevitable discussion.

We have endless conversations about the undeserving poor and benefit scrounger taking from the system we can't afford.

The reality is they make a tiny percentage of the welfare bill. The vast majority is pensions. If you want to take away 'the drain on the state and taxpayer' all roads ultimately now lead to pensions cos there's fuck all left to strip down.

Not to mention the demographics are changing in terms of voters who hold the balance of power. As the very oldest start to die and the boomer generation shrinks they no longer have the voting majority and it rests with younger people. Many of whom have a chip on their shoulder about boomers.

It's kinda depressing.

Not a lawyer but don't let that stop you talking nonsense, eh?

All this is doing is encouraging people over 55 to retire early and take out their private pensions, not bother saving more than the minimum and people already taking their state pension spending the private pension quickly so they benefit and keep their state pension.

Yep, that would be one of the results, especially among people with relatively modest private pensions. More worryingly it could also tempt people with smallish public sector defined benefit schemes to transfer out in order to spend the lot as a lump sum before reaching state pension age.

I work in benefits and it is well known that means testing costs an absolute fortune thereby reducing any gain. The recent moves of big groups of staff to Pension Credit, following the removal of winter fuel payments, are proof of this. I have to work past pension age due to still having a mortgage but my state pension is fully taxed so I am still “paying in”