Do you think the new Labour government will mean test the State Pension?

[caringcarer]

I have been reading about an advisor to Rachel Reeves who is already advising her this is a good way to cut paying State Pension to many. I'm 4 years away from claiming my State Pension. I have 40 years NIC's paid in. I was expecting to get a full pension. I have a private Teachers Pension and a few investments. Do you think if the means test came in they would have to give 7 years notice? That is why Waspi women have a claim because they were not given sufficient time to make alternative arrangements. With just 4 years to go I don't think I can make this £11,500 pa up.

* Or without too many rich, skilled people such as doctors just buggering off to Australia to escape this country.*

Young doctors have been going to Oz under the Tories because they are tired of wage depression & house prices. I actually think unless we do more to help the young more skilled ones will leave.

No but I think they could well freeze it and then more folk will be on Pension Credit. Bit sneaky but I think that's more likely. than means testing it.

I think benefits will be tackled first.

No need for benefits to be a cash value anymore. I am not saying vouchers but maybe a debit card credit system. Most people don't need cash now and we need to stop benefits being stashed as cash and spent or sent abroad.

State pension will change but for those early on or not in the system yet.

So, an electronic voucher system?

Have you been on benefits yourself?

Just in passing, there's a YouTube channel around at the moment posting crap every other day called "Senior Updates". To me looks a bunch of geriatrics who like the sound of their own collective voice.They're saying we're all due terrific rises in State Pension next year under Labour, I think they're talking through their arses.Anybody seen it?

And under Blair/Brown before that, don't forget!

The source doesn't say Labour intend to do this, it says one person has suggested Labour should do this.

FullFact have refuted it.

old age pensions are already unfair! why should someone who has contributed 40 odd years in NI contributions receive the same as someone who has not worked a day in their life?? pensions have always paid for the pensions above. my ni contributions paid for the pensions when i was younger. the problem is that there are not enough people working nowadays and too many of them are on every benefit they can get!

Now it looks like Conservatives wants to do it.

But if a person rents a property out they pay tax on that income. If they are on new state pension and rent out several properties they already pay 40 percent tax. Also many LL's don't rent to people on benefits.

When I got married I could have paid a smaller married woman's NIC. They used to make married women choose whether to pay a smaller stamp and claim pension from their dh's stamp or pay the full stamp to be able to claim their own state pension. I paid the full amount because I wanted to claim pension for my own stamps not my dh's. In this sense some of my NIC payments were voluntary because I paid more than I had to. Married women used to be able to pay less than half if they elected to.

Isn't it you who owns eleven buy to let properties and you are worried about losing state pension? Forgive me for pointing this out if I have the wrong person.

https://fullfact.org/online/rachel-reeves-pension-quote-false/

No evidence Rachel Reeves said pensions ‘can no longer be an entitlement for all’
9 July 2024
What was claimed
Chancellor Rachel Reeves announces new pension rules by saying “the State Pension is a benefit, it can no longer be an entitlement for all”.
Our verdict
There’s no evidence Ms Reeves has said this or that she has announced any changes to the pension system since becoming chancellor.
Posts circulating on social media claim the new Chancellor of the Exchequer Rachel Reeves MP said: “the State Pension is a benefit, it can no longer be an entitlement for all’, while announcing “new pension rules” whereby those earning £30,000 or more, who pay into a work-based or private pension for 30 years, will no longer qualify for a state pension.
But Full Fact could find no evidence Ms Reeves made any such comment, or that she has announced these plans for pensions since becoming the UK’s chancellor on Friday 5 July.
The posts, which appear on both X (formerly Twitter) and Facebook, have almost identical text, saying: “UK Chancellor Rachel Reeves announces new Pension rules by saying ‘The State Pension is a benefit, it can no longer be an entitlement for all’ Under the plan those earning £30,000 or more, and paying into a work-based or private pension for 30 years or more will no longer qualify.”
One post adds: “Only took Labour 72 hours to decide to rob the pensioners,” while another says: “To all of you who vote Labour, I hope you have made provisions for your retirement”. Some posts appear to suggest this is being reported by the BBC, sharing an image of its logo.
Ms Reeves did not reference pensions in a speech to Treasury staff on 5 July, and she also did not announce any plans to change the qualifying criteria for state pension in a speech on 8 July. She did say: “And we will turn our attention to the pensions system, to drive investment in homegrown businesses and deliver greater returns to pension savers.”
No such plans to set a threshold on pensions have been announced on her social media platforms, or in press releases published by the Treasury. Neither have there been any media reports of this alleged announcement.
Labour’s manifesto committed to maintaining the pension ‘triple lock’, which means the state pension increases each year in line with either average earnings, inflation or by 2.5%—whichever is the highest. It said: “Labour will retain the triple lock for the state pension. We will also adopt reforms to workplace pensions to deliver better outcomes for UK savers and pensioners. Our pensions review will consider what further steps are needed to improve security in retirement, as well as to increase productive investment in the UK economy.”
It also says in government the party would “undertake a review of the pensions landscape to consider what further steps are needed to improve pension outcomes and increase investment in UK markets”.
It’s not entirely clear where the claim came from, but one post featuring the claim also included a collage of images that accompanied a GB News article published on 5 July. This article had the headline: “State pension could be means-tested under Labour, admit senior Keir Starmer advisor” and was based on comments made by Sir Edward Troup, reportedly a tax adviser to Ms Reeves, during an interview on LBC. Concerning Mr Troup’s comments, a spokesperson for Labour said: “These are not Labour Party policies”.
The GB News article did not claim Ms Reeves had announced any changes to pensions, and didn’t include the quote attributed to her in the social media posts.
This is not the first time we’ve seen quotes being falsely attributed to politicians or public figures including now-Prime Minister Keir Starmer, Labour MP Diane Abbott, former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and Pope Francis.
We’ve contacted Ms Reeves, the Treasury and Labour party for comment, and will update our article if we receive a response.

I do own btl properties but that has nothing to do with my state pension. I already pay 40 percent tax on private pensions and btl properties.

They won't, but I think it needs to be done. The aging population is a real concern economically and the current level of universal pension is unsustainable.

Pension is a benefit just like any other and other benefits have been under huge reviews over the last few years to make them more economically viable. This notion of having "paid in" has become the mantra, but state pension isn't a saving scheme - as a decent society we "pay in" to protect the vulnerable, not so we see returns. People who are privileged enough to have large private pensions should not be receiving the same from the state as those who have worked low wage jobs their whole lives and have never had the means to pay into private pensions.

It's compulsory for working people to pay National Insurance which pays towards the NHS and the National Insurance Fund. You aren't paying into a pension, you are paying into a benefits fund which funds the benefits bill (one of which is pensions). The welfare state isn't a saving scheme, no one is owed anything.

Ok Tory bots.

You are hardly going to be struggling to put food on your table in your pensioner years are you ! Baffling that you'd start a thread saying you are worrying about managing without a state pension when you have eleven BTL properties.

Why did you start this thread @caringcarer when it so obviously isn't going to impact you?

Stirring?

I think they might introduce legislation to make this happen but it would be unlikely to affect people within several decades of retirement and unlikely to affect people whose retirement income is under a high level.

True. But most people can’t grasp this. Similarly, most people don’t grasp the high level of health and income that’s required to be a net contributor to the NHS.

I can see it rising to 70 by the time by DCs retire and possibly to 75 eventually.

I would be entirely unsurprised to see it going to 70 by the time I retire (I'm 54). But I think 75 would be impossible to expect people to work to.

Of course it will impact me. It won't impact those who get means tested benefits.

I’ve already lost 7 years due to the increase in the pension age for women since I started work. I’m fully paid up but have years to wait. I don’t think they will means test it but I do think the age at which you will receive it will continue to increase. The source quoted is a former SpAd.

I can foresee maybe a system like the child benefit one where those with a high income have to repay some/all of their State pension.
If you have a DB of £50k or DC pension worth £1 million then you really don’t need a State pension. With a huge pension pot you’ve no doubt been getting 40% tax relief on contributions too.
I wouldn’t be opposed to that and those with huge DC pots couldn’t wriggle out of it by not taking an income as they could be treated as if they had, just like other benefits.