Means testing state pension.

Sago

I think there would be a silver uprising if it were to happen.

I have my pitchfork and torch ready. It would be unconscionable if not properly phased in with decades of notice.

Because I have a teachers pension my state pension is lower than it would be if I didn’t - so it’s been means tested all along.

Call it a benefit, call it an entitlement, an insurance, a pension - I don't care. But whether or not there is a 'pot' (and the fact that there isn't an individual account or personal fund is always expressed in this way) is neither here nor there. The rhetoric feels like one of those things that is planted so that if we hear it often enough we'll believe it to be true.

People were told that if they paid in for X years they would get Y back at Z age, and have planned accordingly. The age has already shifted, causing a lot of hardship. Means-testing the pension would be political suicide, because it would be ridiculously unfair. Those who haven't paid in would still have to be provided for, so what would those who have paid be told they had paid for? We know we've paid for the generation ahead of us, but that was on the understanding that subsequent ones would pay for us.

Yes, there have been demographic shifts, but governments through the years were aware of those as they happened. It was their role to ensure that this was managed, and if they failed at that it is now their role to manage things to honour the promises of their predecessors. Not to do so would be shameful.

It may be that changes have to be made for the future, but people who are now paying NI would have to be able to claim based on their payments to date, and given plenty of time to adjust to whatever scheme replaced the current one. My work pension changed from Final Salary to Career Average, but was phased in so that those within X years of retirement stayed on the old scheme, current employees moved to a hybrid version and new starters went onto the new one. Something like that might happen, but as it would mean that it came to pass with a different government in charge I think it's possibly unlikely. Who would want the flak without the benefits? It would be a very brave move - it's possible, though.

I think there would be a silver uprising if it were to happen.

Here’s a link to a good article.

inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/pensions-and-retirement/government-means-test-state-pension-3250991?srsltid=AfmBOopVDM_VmiV0md5MK8gqAcOkm7qDF1hRcpIi8DG_QptWEa2r-mOx

It is technically a benefit. Your NI contributions did not create a pension fund from which you draw the pension. NI contributions pay the pensions of those already retired. When you retire your pension is paid by the NI contributions of those still in work. So it's a benefit just like any other benefit but most of us feel we've paid in and therefore have a moral right to a payout.

There are many that the state pension is a small part of their income, they do pay tax on it of course but there. Is no reason to give them the 60 or 70% of it, certainly not if they have a lot of other assets.

paddyann54

vampirequeen If as already pointed out the SNP challenged Labour over the black hole and were told there was none and that there would be "no austerity" maybe SStarmer and co should have checked BEFORE the election.John Swinney knew about it WHY didn't Rachel Reeves?

Swinney probably took a stab in the dark and was right, which is astounding.

The state pension is not a benefit. We’ve paid in our contributions over our working lives for it. What would people live on? Fresh air?

paddyann54

vampirequeen If as already pointed out the SNP challenged Labour over the black hole and were told there was none and that there would be "no austerity" maybe SStarmer and co should have checked BEFORE the election.John Swinney knew about it WHY didn't Rachel Reeves?

Of course they did!

vampirequeen If as already pointed out the SNP challenged Labour over the black hole and were told there was none and that there would be "no austerity" maybe SStarmer and co should have checked BEFORE the election.John Swinney knew about it WHY didn't Rachel Reeves?

A petition was submitted to stop calling the State Pension a benefit back in 2016 during Conservative Government. See the response.

petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/121267#:~:text=However%2C%20use%20of%20the%20word,the%20use%20of%20this%20term.

We can always rely in the good old DM to come up with some nonsense or another to scare their readers.
Anything to get at the LP. Who have only been in government less than 8 weeks.

Wyllow3

Allira

Wyllow3

(Its not a benefit).

Its nasty and deliberate scaremongering for a vulnerable group and they should be ashamed, there is absolutely no evidence for it.

It's called a benefit.

I know what you mean, however there is controversy around calling it a benefit as it differs fundamentally from all means tested payouts, there is nothing comparable.

It was a New Labour Pensions Minister who wrote and answered my query, assuring me it was indeed a benefit.

For those on the old State Pension, contracting out was a subtle way of means-testing the SP benefit.
After 35 years of contributions, my SP on the old system is more like £7,500 with deductions for contracting out, rather than the £11,500? on the new SP.

Allira

Wyllow3

(Its not a benefit).

Its nasty and deliberate scaremongering for a vulnerable group and they should be ashamed, there is absolutely no evidence for it.

It's called a benefit.

I know what you mean, however there is controversy around calling it a benefit as it differs fundamentally from all means tested payouts, there is nothing comparable.

Probably Tory scaremongering. I'd be very surprised and deeply shocked if Labour means tested old age pensions currently in payment. I wouldn't rule out in the future Labour raising the retirement age again or means testing for those not yet receiving the pension though I would expect that to be accompanied by a reduction in contributions.

I am indeed waiting for PM questions, the election of a new Conservative Leader, the return of parliament,

So we can get away from this silly season of gross speculation and half baked headline attacks cooked up by those fundamentally opposed to the Labour Party and anything good achieved ignored or minimised.

Wyllow3

(Its not a benefit).

Its nasty and deliberate scaremongering for a vulnerable group and they should be ashamed, there is absolutely no evidence for it.

It's called a benefit.

People who donate it, can leave it in the bank, or give it away aren't vulnerable.

Please be aware "this money co.uk" is part of the Daily Mail group.
Certainly noting like Martin Lewis' money site.

Wyllow3

(Its not a benefit).

Its nasty and deliberate scaremongering for a vulnerable group and they should be ashamed, there is absolutely no evidence for it.

Well they started well with the "vulnerable group " Stopping the winter fuel allowance was a no with Starmer,look how he blasted Sunak for even mentioning it. Now starmer stopped it.This pm is not trustworthy, certainly not on the side of British people.He always said he preferred Davos and that parliament was a shouty place. Wait till next pm questions. Think he might get his wish.

It's scaremongering. Parts of the press have been doing it since the election. Labour are going to tax the poor. Labour are going to tax the middle class. 'You whoever 'you' are, are going to have to pay out another £2000/£5000 a year. There is no evidence produced. It's all just conjecture and trouble causing.

Labour have to do something as there's a £20billion black hole that they weren't expecting when they planned for after the election.

Tbh, and I know I won't be popular for saying this, but there are people who don't need the WFP. My mam, for one, who isn't rich but is what I'd class (and I know this is just my opinion) as well off. I asked her what she did with her WFP and she said she just left it in the bank because she could pay her bills. My problem with the change is that it's an abrupt cut off point. If you get pension credit then you get WFP but if you're outside of the cut off point by only £1 then you lose £300. I think there should have been a sliding scale with the amount decreasing as incomes increased. The scale could go up to the point where the pension credit recipients would be before cutting off completely. That way the poorest would be on an even footing.

I wonder who is behind all the scaremongering and setting people against each other. There is truth in divided we fall.

Me too.
It's another thing for labour to have to manage, alongside the nitty gritty issues.