The state pension won’t suddenly stop, will it?

[TeapotCollection]

I’m 51. We were talking about pensions at work and someone who’s about to retire said there’d probably be no state pension when I retire

This can’t happen can it? I can imagine the government saying in a few years that anyone born after <date> won’t get it but surely it can’t suddenly stop?

No, because whoever tried to bring that in would be voted out of power by everyone between 48 and 98. Plus it would drag through the courts for decades.

The age at which it can be claimed, and the amount may change, and I suspect someone may try to make it means tested at some point, and will also promptly get voted out.

1. Pension age - the pension age was equalised at 65 because it was age discrimination. Going forward there is a schedule to increase to age 70 but this is regularly reviewed.
2. Qualifying years - This used to be 90% of 44 years for women and 49 years for men. This was reduced to 30 years then in 2016 increased to 35 years. This is regularly reviewed.
3. Amount - the new state pension was introduced in 2016 and became a single rate for new retirees. I cannot see how they can stop this as it is the most efficient way to fund the poorest in society.

There is already age discrimination built into the pension laws.

I won't get mine until I'm 68. Women older than me will get it at 65. Women who are even older still got it at 60. Based on nothing other that the year they were born.

Age discrimination won't stop a change like that.

I don't think it will stop - mostly because politics - but I do see a scenario where people will be expected to work until they physically can't anymore, and at the stage of illness or serious infirmity the state pension will kick in. Having to work until you literally drop, unless you have private pensions to tide you over. Not in the near future, but possibly our kids/grandkids generation.

I mean, I bloody hope that doesn't happen, but it's not sustainable as is and the UK economy is fucked. Obviously there would need to be a hugely efficient and cost-effective means-testing mechanism to administer it, but I don't it's outside the realm of possibility that future governments will go down that route.

I notice a lot of quite extreme ageism these days and I think a lot of it is just young people lashing out because they know they have been royally screwed over. Those feelings aren't going to go away as they age and have to pay their mortgages over a longer period than we will have to (if they're lucky enough to get one), and it's their generation that will be in charge of welfare and pensions one day.

The point is that you are expected in the UK to provide for yourself by means of a private pension. That is the expectation now. Relying on the state pension is something that you have no control over. You do have some control over your own money. Women should be making provision on that basis.

They didn't give decades of warning to all those WASPIE women who lost out to the tune of tens of thousands of pounds.

The point is that you are expected in the UK to provide for yourself by means of a private pension. That is the expectation now. Relying on the state pension is something that you have no control over. You do have some control over your own money. Women should be making provision on that basis.

And considering how many working people are still reliant on UC to make ends meet, where are they supposed to make this provision from?

There's not a lot of point in making sure you'll be provided for in 30 years time if the money you put aside to pay for it means you starve to death tomorrow.

How? DC pensions are crap and with higher rents and mortgages, even people earning well over NMW will not be able to afford to accrue a large enough private pension but what your meagre private pension will do is make sure you re not able to claim any benefits......

Perhaps thats the point?

I think my point is that relying on state provision is very insecure. These posts about benefits assume that is static too. Why?

I highly doubt it as people would have paid years of NI contributions. It would have to be reformed with a generation who have not yet entered the workforce.

I just don't think people realise how little a pension pot of £100k will give them nor how long and how much it will take them to get to it and course 100% reliant on the markets and political decisions i.e Truss, she wrecked DC pensions.

Because of this, the SP will be the safety net and it needs to keep pace with wages and inflation.

I agree. But there was a very small story today in the Telegraph about the Tories looking at inflation linking and the state pension. The idea that this stuff stays as it is, forever, is not right.

The amount of state pension I think actually puts someone at an income which is very poor. That is a significant nudge by government that people should plan for something else to support their retirement.

But it doesn't matter if we've paid years of NI contributions. It's not our own pensions that those contributions will be paying for.

The trouble is we just can't trust the government to steer the ship. Long term financial planning seems increasingly ridiculous. They could spunk the whole thing up the wall in an instant. Some mad cartoon robot makes a speech and everything goes to hell, over and over.

I still do the things - pay into my pension, pay off my mortgage, buy the insurance - but it's more like a carol service in the Church of England. It reminds me of my childhood but I don't really believe in it.

Again this isn't how it works, your contributions are to pay for those currently receiving state pension, not your own pension in years to come.

I agree with the idea that the government is to be relied upon for long term provision is a bad idea. NI isn't a hypothecated contribution.

I'm of the mind that it won't suddenly stop. But I do think they'll make it so you can't claim until later and later on in life. In chunks like. So by the time our young get there, they'll probably die before they can claim it or just get a few years out of it.

I would want my money I’ve paid into the system back if they did that!

Good luck. They can do what they like with your tax. If they wanted to allocate your NI payments to a gold plated effigy of Rishi Sunak on each street corner they could do that and lawfully reduce the state pension to bobbins. Plan accordingly

Bloody hope not, i'll be relying on it in 7 years (unless they raise the age again by then)

Your money is paying for the NHS, Education & benefits for today’s population. You aren’t building up your own state pension pot.

I’m mid 40s and I’ll be amazed if there’s a state pension when I get there. My mother in law worked full time for a grand total of 4 years her entire life and gets a full payout. Has only worked very part time (not paid tax) apart from that. My work place pension forecast is about £2000 a year if I work to 67. Of course it’s not fair. Especially for those like me who are already limited in the hours they can work due to disabilities.

The government can change the amount and the qualifying criteria for any benefit by act of parliament. By your reasoning, no benefit could ever be reduced or removed because you younger people (who didn’t get it) could claim age discrimination (because older people did get it), which is clearly madness.

They'd have to bring in a compulsory private pension (in Australia they call it superannuation) first.

When they first introduced it in Australia as compulsory requirement for countries the income percentage to be invested was low. Gradually over the years it's grown to the current 11% of income and casual/part time employees are also included. They also give tax incentives to people to add their own income to the fund.

So the number of people needing the pension is naturally going down as our pension is income and needs based, a pure benefit. So it is irrelevant how many years you have worked, but the income you have coming in (ie your super payments) will affect how much you get.

Most people with a healthy super balance will get little or no pension for at least the first 20 years of retirement.

And this super balance is an asset and can be inherited by children etc (you allocate who it goes to when you join and can change it as circumstances change rather than leaving it to someone in a will), if you die younger.

They are now looking at limiting how much can be put in as people are using it as a tax dodge and have so much in there they have no intention of using it all up, which so it's purpose.

If the UK is sensible they would look at the history of countries that have imposed this and copy the best features and naturally reduce state pension needs.

Again this isn't how it works, your contributions are to pay for those currently receiving state pension, not your own pension in years to come.

Kind of like a state-sponsored Ponzi scheme, really.

If the UK is sensible they would look at the history of countries that have imposed this and copy the best features and naturally reduce state pension needs.

But you don't magically free up a lot of extra money by forcing people to pay it.

It's effectively saying "If more people were richer, the government wouldn't need to pay for them - so, folks, just to let you know, you need to get richer!"

This will most probably result in very low earners missing meals and maybe even rent payments in order to save money that they can rub together for the future that they may never have.

It could also be another new crime that many poor people will be forced into. Imagine the government prosecuting you for buying food with your money instead of stashing it away. Still, I suppose, at least living is a lot cheaper if you're in prison, eh?