Is living on the state pension really that bad?

[cateringday]

I mean, if you own your home then you’re getting around £250 a week just for bills and spends.
i have a tiny pension and DH has none. I am always worrying about this but then realised that we will have no rent or mortgage to pay.
im just wondering if it would be as awful as people make out? I hear stuff saying you need £300000 in pension pot to have a comfortable retirement, why would you need that much?

Why are you being so pedantic?

You know that that posters wife is disabled.
The wording they use is irrelevant.

There is no such thing as 'registered disabled'. There is fuck all wrong with pointing that out.

This has been an interesting topic - so many different ideas of what constitutes a good retirement.
We never had a great deal of money coming in - we were lucky that inheritance from my parents enabled us to install new heating, double glazing and a bathroom suitable for me as I have arthritis and my mobility isn't good. We had a few good years when we were both retired - now it is just me I don't have much money left over. However, I have a warm, comfortable house, enough to pay the bills and enjoy a modest social life. I count myself lucky compared to many others.

Please give it a rest !

The state pension was introduced in the early 20th century when most people snuffed it by 70, so the state funded you for 5 years. Average life expectancy for men is now 80 and 84 for women. Hence the gradual increases in pension age.
A 66 year old woman is going to cost the state around £200k at today’s prices.

You are giving politicians ideas on how to tighten controls on any benefits claimants. Good thinking.

A lot of money. BUT then multiply the cost of someone who claims benefits from 18 onwards as well. There is were the cuts need to be made. The able bodied need to be financially accountable. Full stop.

Not an 80 year old who worked all her life in low paid work and then receives a state pension in her more vulnerable years. She deserves it!

Its pretty clear that in the future there wont be a state pension for the masses, just benefits for those who havent worked enough to accrue a private pension through work; but seen as though a lot of employers didnt offer this for a large chunk of the now retireds working lives (especially in lower paid jobs) it would be pretty harsh to move the goalposts and expect them to live off of nothing.

@CashmereclothingAn 80 year old will have had the state pension for 15 years though. Plus they haven’t paid for it. Today’s tax payers are doing that. Of course tax payers can be the elderly too.

We will probably need to reduce pensions but pension payments are now mandatory. Until we get economic growth, we need to understand all benefits are mostly paid for by tax payers and borrowing. Borrowing is a major problem for younger people who are working. We have far too many not working but until we have a bouyant economy, we don’t have enough money to pay for everything. The government needs to get on with reforms.

That would do the opposite of encourage work, especially for the lower paid. Even now the lower paid are seeng those working the system have a better lifestyle.

Working age benefits need to be cut to the bare minimum to make work pay.

Well yes, but when has that stopped them making these decisions? Pensioners who didnt earn all their stamps get more via pension credit and the further support this triggers than those who have them all, so not working already pays more which is crazy.

An 80 year old will have had the state pension for 15 years though. Plus they haven’t paid for it. Today’s tax payers are doing that.

Yes, but when they worked they funded the earlier generation. So it would be totally unfair to implant an immediate change i.e moving the goalposts in later life.

If changes are to take place they need to be introduced to 18 year olds so they have a lifetime of planning ahead. The NI contributions they would have paid should be partly diverted to their private pension..

People complain that some state pensioners take more than they have paid in but what about lifetime benefit claimants all they do is take. Tackle that in the first instance.

Which is OK. But simple life could also include other things which don't involve exotic holidays. I would want to continue my hobbies and they are not massively expensive but probably require at least £150-200 outlay every month (sport, art and reading). I would also like some holidays like a short city break in Europe or even a walking holiday in the UK. That costs surprisingly a lot of money.
But even if we imagine a quiet life with infrequent socialising and an odd theatre trip, I'm still not entirely sure how one would handle things like washing machine breaking down or roof leaking if you only have £250 surplus a month after regular outgoings.

Pension credit should be stopped. This is the problem not state pension.

Reasonably healthy 18 year olds should be informed of this so they have time. Before someone says but what about x y and z. Well the most extreme cases will be catered for everyone else it will be down to personal responsibility.

This is the only way to stop the decline.

I dont agree with stopping state pension to be clear, but it was obvious the day it became a legal obligation for an employer to offer a private pension what the intent was.

I dont agree with stopping state pension to be clear, but it was obvious the day it became a legal obligation for an employer to offer a private pension what the intent was.

People need to take responsibility for their own pensions.
Employers do have to contribute but so do employees.

The original idea behind a state pension was to help people live with some money for another 5 or 10 years when they stopped working- life expectancy was around 70.

Now, life expectancy is around 80, and there is an increasing number living to their 90s.

On top of this, many people over 65 are in poor health (60% of over 60s have chronic diseases and loss of 'healthy years') so there is the double whammy of expensive medical care for 20 years and the state pension.

The welfare system is going to have a massive overhaul as it's bankrupting the country and not sustainable, especially as the fewer children are being born.

PIP is being abused and is far too wide-ranging. I know someone who did the form out of interest and they could qualify because a lot of the conditions were subjective and could not be proven medically - anxiety and similar.

@OhDear111 yes today’s tax payer is paying for it now. But the pensioner has paid tax previously, when working, which paid for the ‘then pensioners’ so its abit silly to make out they haven’t contributed. The same as when we claim state pension (if there is one) todays workers will be paying for us.

@TinkerTailorLadyThinker

I don’t disagree that people are living longer, however they are not living longer in good health. Raising the state pension age is not going to change that. The government needs to look at this as in the coming years there are going to be HUGE amounts of people 60+ on some form of disability benefits as they simply cannot do their job until 67.

Predominantly front line workers; trades people, labourers, nurses, health care workers, paramedics, police, retail workers, teachers, teaching assistants etc etc. Physically and emotionally demanding jobs which require long shifts on your feet, whilst some will manage i predict the vast majority will not.

Can you imagine teaching 30 active 4-5 year olds, on your feet for 8 hours then the planning marking etc at 67. Can you imagine working 12 hour shifts including nights caring for patient who need cleaning, mobilising etc. As a nurse not only the physical aspects but being mentally switched on enough to react to the critically ill patient deteriorating, the major trauma coming through resus at 67. I think this is what the government needs to consider. In retail long shifts on your feet the vast majority of the time. Builders/labourers up and down ladders, lifting heavy materials etc.

Also most work place pensions are poor, people can’t often afford to put more in them. If your on minimum wage or just above its unlikely your going to increase your contribution higher than the 4% because the reality is you need that money to pay your current bills. Its ok saying people need to prioritise their future but unfortunately the future isn’t the here and now where rent/mortgage, food, utilities need paying. Hence people ‘worrying about it later’. I think the government are being shortsighted if they think everyone will be able to provide for themselves because they introduced the mandatory work place pension because many simply won’t have enough in it.

@Kookykoala They contributed when life expectancy was lower and many didn’t need to work to get a pension. They got one via their DHs contributions, as my DM did. Some women barely worked at all and many were part time paying little tax. Obviously not all, but housewives were the norm!

KookyKoala, I was also mainly nursing (40 years) a great deal of my colleagues without kids,paid into the NHS pension and topped up,retired by 60 at the latest. I stayed till 65, nights for 30 years. My last year I couldn't sleep at all during the day and finally felt ill..was glad to retire. DH 7 years younger,was in the motor trade,at 64 ,he couldn't cope with the heavy lifting anymore,so retired early. He had paid into a private pension for 30 years, nothing like the eye watering wages or pension pots I see on here, telling us that we baby boomers are millionaires.

That is being phased out.

Housewives were financially supported by their husbands so not a burden on the state.

My late DF had Ankylosing Spondylitis and in the 1950s was called "Registered disabled"..I have a ds with RCBPD and he is called registered disabled on his housing complex.

@Nannyfannybanny it must of been incredibly difficult for you both and thats exactly my point, the current age of 67 just isn’t viable for many. So many will give up work and go onto some form of disability benefit, there was a report recently about the amount of 55+ on disability benefits/inactive. Probably for the reasons outlined. Therefore in essence the government will be reducing one bill (pensions) and increasing another (disability). I don’t have a solution but i do know for a fact that many will not be able to do their jobs at that age, even if they go on to live until their 100.

People just don’t want to face the reality of this and what it means.

Without immigration we will have a huge shortage of young taxpayers to provide for our ageing population. Immigrants also tend to have more children which is what’s desperately needed to sustain the economy.