To think this is a real possibility in the future? (State pension)

[TheOtherBoleynSister]

I am 34 and ever since I started working people have said don’t rely on there being a state pension. So I’m pretty pessimistic about it.

I honestly believe that for people under 40, the universal state pension (paid regardless of income or capital to those who have paid NI for a certain number of years) won’t exist. That there will be no qualifying ‘age’, and instead older people will be the same as the rest of the population when it comes to benefit eligibility ie. Have to be certified as too ill or physically unable to work, and get UC if income is low and savings are below £16k. In other words, being a certain age won’t entitle us to any benefit like it does now.

In this awful very bleak future, older people who can no longer work, who have savings/money above the threshold or private pensions, will need to rely solely on the money they have unless or until they get to the point where they now qualify for benefits.

Of course I don’t want this to happen, but with all the stories about the cost of pensions and the rising number of older people it feels inevitable. But the reality is many people’s private pensions won’t be nearly enough to last (but maybe they will be forced to spend them before any help), and there’s also talk in the press of some wanting to do away with ‘generous’ public sector pensions (which are not as generous as they used to be, albeit they are better than a lot of private schemes).

I am quite aware of pensions due to older relatives and friends who are of that age, but many people my age haven’t a clue about them or how they work. I do think we will be seeing a real disaster in less than 30 years, but people don’t care as it’s someone else’s/ tomorrow’s problem.

So what are you suggesting?

How many times do I need to say I don’t know, not my job.

Ok so don’t just keep saying it has to go. There is a reason we have state pensions. They’re very much needed and an alternative isn’t workable hence most of the world having them.

Back in those days, you COULD get decent jobs with O levels and A levels - now even entry level jobs specify a degree requirement. Things have changed massively.

The wealthy only pay a percentage. They'd be paying tax on other income whether they got state pension or not. The state pension is icing on the cake for them, even if they have to pay income tax on it - they're still considerably better off than if they didn't receive state pension.

At no point have I said it has to go. I’m saying it has to change. I’ve said look at Australia, look at Canada - other countries have other ideas. And changes need to be announced decades in advance so we need to think 30+ years down the road.

I would like someone more informed than me to come up with a sustainable funding model for not just pensions but the NHS and elderly care too. Rather than propping up the pyramid scheme for another parliamentary term because pretending the system is sustainable is an easy vote winner.

Demographics have completely shifted since 1946 but the funding model hasn’t really. Doesn’t take a genius to figure out that doesn’t make sense.

Other countries vary massively to us in many ways, you can’t just cherry pick.

Define wealthy

Wtf are you talking about? I said they have ideas. We can look at them and redesign our system so it’s sustainable for future generations.

Or just bury our heads in the sand and pretend everything will be fine.

Canada operates its pensions in exactly the way the UK does. Canadians can claim theirs at 60, while 65 is standard.

Irrelevant as the same applies at all points on an income scale. They'll ALWAYS be better off due to receiving state pension whether they have other income of £10k, £100k or a £1million.

Canada havn't opened their borders to take in millions of extra people, many of whom aren't contributing. They've got far better controls over working immigrants. Therefore, their population are more likely to be workers and more likely to be contributors, therefore their tax take will be higher, thus more able to pay state pensions etc.

That there aren't enough of them, but there are lots of Uni graduates not working...

It was suggested we emulate Canada. For the reasons you point out that’s a ridiculous suggestion.

That makes zero sense

It’s bollocks. If someone’s in the tax bracket where they lose their personal allowance they’ll obviously be worse off regardless of where the money comes from.

They will still be very well off indeed.
But you know that.

Of course they will, that was never in question.

It’s really irritating isn’t it, posters saying pensions can’t continue, we can’t afford it, ad nauseam while providing no evidence whatsoever for these claims.

Yet we are constantly being told particularly on here that we need immigration at the level it is to pay pensions………so either immigration is the cause of the desperate financial situation we are apparently in or it’s the solution but it can’t be both.

Im now 60 and I remember being told by a financial advisor type person in 2002 that the state pension would would be means tested by the time I was eligible for it.

As if you’ll read it anyway….

https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/Fiscal-risks-and-sustainability-report-July-2025.pdf

Interested to see your evidence that the current state pension system is sustainable and doesn’t need to be reformed.

Well that was a load of crap, obviously. Did he tell you to take out an endowment mortgage as well?

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/dec/29/most-europeans-think-state-pensions-will-become-unaffordable-polling-shows

Interesting to see views across Europe

Across all six countries, more people (28% to 55%) felt retirees with higher-than-average pension incomes should bear more responsibility for funding more generous state pensions for low-income retirees, rather than younger generations (15% to 31%).

Shouldn't be linked to pension income, should be linked to overall wealth - wealth tax would help across all age groups.