What do you think will happen to the state pension in the future?

[Darkling1]

I’ve heard people say that it may be means tested in the future. I’m in my late 20s and wonder what the state pension will look like years from now.

I’ve recently started to invest a small amount into a SIPP each month. I can’t help but worry about the state pension, especially as the age keeps rising.

I think the age of state pension will continue to rise over time. I can see it being pushed to 75 by the time I’m eligible to claim.

What do you think will happen to it?

I think society is on the brink of significant fundemental changes around work, wages, benefits etc. AI and robotics will mean less work available and in very different jobs. Its hard to know which direction. Maybe a universal basic salary or you needs met such as housing/energy/food etc centrally for all for free and individuals only pay for luxuruies.

I read somewhere we’ve got 11 years till the system collapses due to pension triple lock/ increased costs/ aging population. I think it’ll be means tested and age will rise tbh. Isle of Man is struggling to pay its pensioners so will be an interesting test case.

I think this is the flip side of increased life expectancy. The problem with raising pension age is it disproportionately impacts poorer people. Average age of death for a manual worker is much lower than someone who sits behind desk for example.

I suspect at some point NHS will get an overhaul and lots of expensive stuff will disappear. More emergency care or at risk of life or limb. That will have knock on effect of reducing life expectancy plus assisted dying will be offered.

Don't tell them that, though - they'll just up the pension age by another 10 years, and then say that's your notice!

I’d say the average public sector worker pays 10-15% into their pension. Pretty meaningless compared to the benefit they get back.

Bin off the triple lock first. Most pensions don’t rise by this. Cap it at 3% a year.

That was the same angle that the WASPIs took, though: that you have a 'contract', or at least a firm agreement, either once you are born or the day you first start work, to get your pension at a certain age - the same age as it currently is at that point.

Not so, as we have all seen. At any rate, the actual amount you get is never set in stone. I don't know many people who would want to be guaranteed the same (unadjusted) amount of pension as pensioners get now, but starting in 65 -70 years' time!

Then again, that's sort of what has happened with the bonus you get when you reach 80. The promise was there, and it has indeed been fulfilled; but it's worthless. Similarly, the government could just as easily guarantee that everybody would get a pension at an agreed age, but that pension could end up actually being literally pennies.

Holding older generations to account for their generation poor choices just won't do, don't you know?

What poor choices? Working and paying tax and NI for over 40 years, as well as contributing to an occupational pension? Those poor choices?

I imagine it will disappear. Certainly for the people who were auto enrolled in their work place schemes from early in their careers

The problem in that is that you need people with money to live in the UK and spend money in the UK and in turn invest to grow the economy.

The country just doesn't work if you keep taking from the same people.

You end up with the same people claiming the means tested benefits throughout their lives and they are not contributing to the pot enough to prop it up, which is why we're in terminal decline.

At the moment, the state pension is the small glimmer if phope that many people feel that they "get back" from the state that they pay in to. Otherwise why pay in at all? If people pay for private pensions, health and dental care, and are net contributors, what do they actually get back?

I'm spending my money when I reach pension age. If the government want to seek a criminal case and jail me for depivation of assets, they can knock themselves out. It'll cost them more than my pension to do it. And with millions of people fed up and doing the same, they can't afford to do it at all because councils, which pursue these cases, are bankrupt.

David Gauke was talking about this on TV this morning. He said government would have to decide what percentage of average wages pensions should be and decide pension levels annually on that basis. This would mean moving away from the triple lock but was unlikely to happen in this parliament. He confirmed that it was unaffordable to maintain it.

Yep. I think universal basic income is the way forward to balance the impact of AI. I believe it was piloted in Wales for care leavers.

Isn't the triple lock unaffordable in a few years?

It simply won’t exist. Everyone will need to provide their own personal pension.
That time isn’t too far off either.

People need to make provision for themselves . There aren’t enough people earning to pay the tax for those not earning . Britain has become a sick and sorry demographic and if nothing drastic happens we’ll be bankrupt . I think the whole business model of industry has to change . If you can’t pay your employees a decent livable wage without state top ups then it’s the wrong model . Prices may go up but that’s the price you pay for workers earning a decent fair salary .

The problem in that is that you need people with money to live in the UK and spend money in the UK and in turn invest to grow the economy.

We need to look after young people, they are far more likely to leave than a pensioner for one.

The country just doesn't work if you keep taking from the same people.

The country isn't working because we never recovered from 08. housing takes up to much of peoples income and the government hasn't invested in young people. Plus an ageing population.

In that case why would you save for a private one

At the moment, the state pension is the small glimmer if phope that many people feel that they "get back" from the state that they pay in to. Otherwise why pay in at all? If people pay for private pensions, health and dental care, and are net contributors, what do they actually get back?

The vast majority of people and pensioners aren't net contributors. This isn't new, what is new is the changing demographics

Laughing at 'pitiful'
I paid 15% of my salary into my NHS pension.

In that case why would you save for a private one

Why not? Not everything thinks like the above.

How will that work? " Universal" as in everyone receives it and some top up with other income or private means.

No add on benefits?

I think there should be more of an expectation that you release equity from your house in your retirement, and they need to look at ways of making this more straightforward and fairer, rather than some of the terrible equity release schemes that have been around. That would help support people's pensions so that the state pension can be kept at a slightly lower level and the triple lock etc can be removed.

We need to get rid of this expectation that you should be able to pass your house onto your children/grandchildren. Yes, it's nice to leave some money behind but tax payers shouldn't be asked to protect people's inheritances. If I live as long as my grandparents, my children wouldn't inherit until they are in their 60s anyway.

52.6% of Britain in 2023 are taking more than they contribute.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincome/financialyearending2023

The proportion of people living in households receiving more in benefits than they paid in taxes was 53.6%.
How is this sustainable?

Getting people to save for years - often on lower pay than the private sector - and then slashing their public sector pension at the end would be wrong , immoral and unlikely to win any votes

totally hammering a state pension that again people have contributed towards all their working lives would also be rather stupid

peolple here are right that housing in particular is a disaster for younger people

so the logic would be inheritance tax because it’s feuled the housing market ( enough people are getting a big enough inheritance that house prices are propped up at silly levels ) , and because it’s mostly wealth that hasn’t been earned or taxed - because it’s housing wealth . And since some lose it all for care fees and to me it seems fairer than any other money raising option

but this seems to alienate the vast majority or the population - even those who will never recieve a penny inheritance

we will never be a meritocracy whilst half the population benefits from inheritance and the other half don’t

what will probably happen is pensions slashed and people will be signing their homes to companies who give them sone cash to live on and the make a huge profit when they die thus pushing that lovely inheritance into the hands of the already super rich -

in other words your choice is support inheritance taxes ( and see sone inheritance, plus improved services) or slash pensions and see fuck all

The dividend credit might be an excuse, but it is not a reason. Pension growth in the long term is so large, that the tax credit that is a small proportion of a small element is hardly detectable among the daily noise of valuation fluctuation. And, back in those days, high and concealed commissions, costs and charges.