Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

453 replies

TheOtherBoleynSister · 25/03/2026 18:37

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.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
9
Smouty84 · 29/03/2026 12:12

MarriedTwiceOneGrownUpDaughter · 29/03/2026 11:58

It's Sunday (family time) and I may have missed a few comments, but I'll just sum up a response to those I've seen: Deceased neighbour's friend is in Ireland, where the rules are that anything above 30k must be taxed at 33 % unless the recipient is the deceased's child. This woman is a friend. Another thing: the exemption for a child is 400k, not enough to buy a home in Dublin where the deceased and her friend lived. Friend doesn't want to move out of her community where she has a job, friends and family. She doesn't want to be a drain on the welfare system, which she will be when she retires because she will need welfare top up on her rent. She is lucky to have a good landlord but he's elderly too and no doubt if he passes or goes into a nursing home his family will sell the home she's renting (think it's a very small bedsit, but in Dublin it costs at least 1k+ to rent even a bedroom room in a shared house). So this woman, whose friend wanted to make her independent, will be a drain on the welfare system. She's too old to emigrate, upskill for a great new career that she can do in retirement, marry a millionaire... She's not rich. A rich person would have prepared for this well in advance, investing spare money but she has no savings to invest. She can barely pay her rent, lives a very basic life with no frills, only free hobbies (Parkrun, sea swimming) and hasn't had a holiday in years.

Well if the house is in Dublin and you can’t even buy a house for 400k then the deceaseds friend is inheriting a house worth over 400k. Even at 33% tax she’s going to inherit over £300k. That will pay her rent and living expenses for a lot of years. So she doesn’t need to worry about being a drain from next year. I think 300k+ should last more than a year.

Badbadbunny · 29/03/2026 12:45

BIossomtoes · 28/03/2026 21:44

It wasn’t the changes made in the 90s that upset us, it was the second hit when we were on the verge of retirement. The legislation that means no change can be made with less than ten years’ notice was a direct result of that.

No government is bound by laws made by a previous government. A future government (with a big enough majority!) could remove the 10 year law. Not saying they would, but they "could", especially if mandated by the IMF to do so.

BIossomtoes · 29/03/2026 15:09

Once more. The IMF can only tell a country requesting a loan to cut its expenditure, it cannot and doesn’t specify how those savings are made.

And, given the outcry (which was weaponised for political purposes) when changes were made to WFA, I very much doubt any incoming government would try to meddle with pensions without that ten years notice.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page