UK State Pension - Is it really enough?

Cossy

I absolutely don’t agree that if SP was raised to a sensible amount that anyone with a workplace/private pension should be penalised by means testing.

I do, because there would be justified claims of unfairness from working age people who would be paying higher tax to pay for higher pensions, when the income divide between them and pensioners with high private pensions as well became greater than they already are.

Btw I’m not suggesting that SP and MW are in any way linked. I’m simply pointing out that this is (presumably) linked to how much someone somewhere decided was the “minimum” required amount to live on.

Many many people working don’t have children, so using this as an example as to why we shouldn’t get a “living amount” to live on is not really relevant. (imo)

Actually, as many of you’ll be aware I actually favour getting rid of all welfare payments, including SP and paying a UBI (Universal Basic Income) of say ) £15,000 per person, irrespective of their situation from age 18-death.

If you actually total up every single benefit paid, including state pension, child benefit, YC, free school meals, pupil premium etc etc etc then it would probably cost less.

Most people, I truly believe, would choose to still work, some full time, some part time, to top that up so housing etc etc could be enhanced. It also gives those with children (and indeed without) the opportunity to retrain or attend higher education.

I’ll st back and eat my popcorn …..

Remember, only imo

I'm fine on £10, 600 per year my occupational pension.
I sell a few things on Ebay & have savings I could use till I get my state pension in 18 months time at 67.
DH works & pays our council tax & most utilities, but I buy 95%
of food & household items, pay half tradesmen's bills, pay for our holidays, run a car, pay all the vets bills.
We're in an "expensive" area. I thought I would be dipping in to my savings, but so far I seem to have enough for what I want.

I can't see the logic in the state paying people the same p.a. whether they're top earners & single, or unemployed with 2 children & additional costs associated with disability, Cossy? Is this what you meant? I might be missing something....

Shinamae

I have the old rate state Pension and I also work 18 hours a week. I usually pay about £160 a month, tax
So with my wages and state pension I have about £18,000 a year, when I read on here some peoples Pension pots I can’t believe how much they’ve go 😵‍💫I never had a workplace Pension and actually I do manage well enough(I don’t drink drive or smoke)
I was able to buy my council house outright 23 years ago so I have not got the burden of rent Or Mortgage…

I think you do extremely well.

My husband and I are both fully retired, both have new SP and very modest private pensions.

But surely the money we get in our state pension goes back into the economy anyway. Thankfully, when my marriage ended 25 years ago, my solicitor negotiated one of my husbands pensions as part of the settlement. Retirement was such a long way ahead back then and I was too stressed to even think so far ahead. The pension from my NHS job is @£80 a month and I’d been a stay at home mum prior to that. If I was on just a state pension I would not have been able to help my children with child care as I couldn’t afford to run my ancient car. Couldn’t afford to move house. Couldn’t buy anything apart from essentials. Growing up and growing older I always thought I lived in a country that would indeed look after me ‘from the cradle to the grave’.

If I had to live on just my own earned State Pension, it would not be enough, but it has increased since my husband died. Still not enough, as neither of us had complete contribution records because of time out for training / children.
So my SP would need to be topped up.

But I have my own occupational teachers’ pension, albeit from only 22 years contributions, and now half of my late husband’s occupational pension. Altogether this is more than some people earn.
I would not expect my State Pension to be increased now to the equivalent of minimum wage. The country cannot afford it and I don’t need it.

valdali

I'm fine on £10, 600 per year my occupational pension.
I sell a few things on Ebay & have savings I could use till I get my state pension in 18 months time at 67.
DH works & pays our council tax & most utilities, but I buy 95%
of food & household items, pay half tradesmen's bills, pay for our holidays, run a car, pay all the vets bills.
We're in an "expensive" area. I thought I would be dipping in to my savings, but so far I seem to have enough for what I want.

I can't see the logic in the state paying people the same p.a. whether they're top earners & single, or unemployed with 2 children & additional costs associated with disability, Cossy? Is this what you meant? I might be missing something....

If you mean my para on UBI, that’s how UBI works. Every individual is paid a flat rate and what they then choose to do to generate more income, which is taxed from the first penny earned, is up to them.

I don’t think any country has ever fully adopted it but there have been “trials”

We even trialled it here, for a year believe, but with a very small group of careleavers.

It’s clearly very innovative and entirely different from any welfare or benefits system we’ve ever had, but some agonists seem to believe it would actually work.

The UK bill for all benefits and SP in 2025 was £215 billion, so I can see how some believe this might be a better route.

If I didn’t have my ex husbands added pension my state pension is £800 per month. I don’t see how I could possibly live on that. My monthly outgoings are £200 and then there are things like car tax, mot, boiler maintenance. I wouldn’t be able to put money into my crisis fund or save up to replace my old car.

Is the UK State Pension really enough?

No, not in my opinion.

But do we want to pay more in tax as in other countries to fund an increase in SP?

Cossy. I think you are starting from a faulty assumption:

[ Quote] I am assuming minimum wage is calculated based on what our government believes is the minimum amount of money the average person requires to live.

It isn’t. It’s a pay floor - designed to protect as many low-paid workers as possible without hurting jobs or the economy.

Guidelines are:

• It should not fall below two-thirds of median hourly earnings

• It should take take into account increased costs of living over the previous year and/

• Considers the impacts on businesses and the wider economy.

It’s the third one that’s problematic.

In short, people could and should be paid more, Union leaders such as Mick Lynch repeated call for a proper living wage but employers don’t like it, whether they would be able to pay it or not. Heaven forbid that the CEOs and other directors of some of our largest employers should be paid less than £5 million a year and often much more. But then if these employers paid their employees more how would small businesses compete for staff?

We know that wage growth leads to inflation because employers push the increased costs of providing goods and services to consumers. In addition, consumers with more money tend spend it chasing a limited supply of goods and services and that causes inflation too. It’s a vicious circle.

We know that the discussion about removing the triple lock is to uncouple it from earnings growth but that would leave pensioners unable to keep up with the cost of inflation caused by earnings growth - which would be unfair.

Again, as I said in my first post, the way to deal with this is to control the costs of life’s essentials, the things we have to spend most of our money on: food, water, energy and the biggest one, housing (including the taxation of housing through council tax). Tackle those, especially extortionate private rents and we would need far fewer safety nets.

And the real big one overarching all of those is the cost of adult social care. Nationalise that and remove the moneymen creaming off the top and we would all have to pay far less council tax.

All that said, I could live on my SP alone which would be full but for contracted-out deductions as I paid NIC for 50 years. I do live very simply though. However, without savings to fall back on, it would leave very little for any luxuries, for larger household maintenance costs or to replace my ageing car which is just scraping through its MOT each year and other emergencies.

My biggest outgoing is council tax even with 25% single occupancy discount but if I had only full SP I would qualify for enough Council Tax Support to bring my income up to the £15,000 mark - as you have suggested as a benchmark.

Thanks Graphite 14:03

Fully take onboard all your comments and info

It’s interesting to hear people stating “I can manage”, “I can get by”.

I’ll be honest, at nearly 68, like many others having worked full time almost all my working life, with minimum breaks for mat leave, ranging from 6 weeks-5 months, raised four children, cared for my DM and DF and helped with care for my MiL, and cared for DH when he had his heart attack, I actually want a little bit more than to “get by” Is that so wrong??

It's not wrong at all, Cossy, which is why I twitch when people start talking about 'enough' and people being 'able to afford' things others get free.

It's not that I want to see others go without (or that I see them as 'lower forms of life' 🙄), it's that that road leads to people who do without nothing deciding what is 'enough' for others to live on, and dragging everyone down to that level. It scares me.

Nobody has to live on just the state pension. If you have no other pension you get income support, which comes with lots of other extras.
I have a small work pension which, together with the state pension, gives me exactly what I’d get with income support added to my state pension. I don’t get the useful extras, which I rather resent.

I have a small work pension which, together with the state pension, gives me exactly what I’d get with income support added to my state pension. I don’t get the useful extras, which I rather resent.

I am in the same position. I do resent the fact that two of my friends both get pension credit and all the other benefits, making their income more than mine.

I have worked all of my life but never earned great money. I know a few people like this who are struggling whilst the ones who never worked are much better off. It doesn't feel fair.

My friends who have never worked (through choice) qualify for pension credit, rent paid etc. etc. They get more income each month than I get after working all of my life.

Not everyone has fantastic private pensions. Maybe there should be some kind of level where working all of your life should be rewarded a bit more. I have paid in way more than the qualifying years. Maybe you should get an extra amount for every extra year you pay.

I think the state pension should be exempt from tax anyway.

Generally though, I think the level at which everyone pays tax should be increased. This would take pensioners with small private pensions out of paying tax. It could also mean that people on lower incomes won't need to get 'top ups' all the time. If people have more money in their pockets, they will in turn spend more and this will help business - or am I being naïve?

.

We are well below the minimum wage. We are 18th on the European chart out of about 20 countries. And just above Bulgaria, Estonia etc. Not good is it as, correct me if I'm wrong, the sixth wealthiest country in the world. And I'm still paying a mortgage and others are paying rent, private or otherwise.

watermeadow

Nobody has to live on just the state pension. If you have no other pension you get income support, which comes with lots of other extras.
I have a small work pension which, together with the state pension, gives me exactly what I’d get with income support added to my state pension. I don’t get the useful extras, which I rather resent.

Income support was phased out years ago, do you mean pension credit?

Benefits are actually much less generous than they were back in the day.

Pension Credits boost anyone with an income of less than £238 (single) £363 (couple)

I’m not sure what additional benefits can be claimed additionally other than housing benefit for those privately renting and possibly a discount on council tax.

It’s not a huge amount though.

Plevey08

We are well below the minimum wage. We are 18th on the European chart out of about 20 countries. And just above Bulgaria, Estonia etc. Not good is it as, correct me if I'm wrong, the sixth wealthiest country in the world. And I'm still paying a mortgage and others are paying rent, private or otherwise.

Precisely my point!

Cossy

Thanks Graphite 14:03

Fully take onboard all your comments and info

It’s interesting to hear people stating “I can manage”, “I can get by”.

I’ll be honest, at nearly 68, like many others having worked full time almost all my working life, with minimum breaks for mat leave, ranging from 6 weeks-5 months, raised four children, cared for my DM and DF and helped with care for my MiL, and cared for DH when he had his heart attack, I actually want a little bit more than to “get by” Is that so wrong??

No, of course not. & you deserve it.

But the state pension is a safety net, not to enable all of us who have had busy, hard-working lives to retire & work through a bucket list of destinations & experiences on.

Some single mums might like to do a bit more than "get by" , they might want to support their children in an expensive sport they show a flair for, make memories with their children while they are young, etc - but again, that's not what the benefits system does. It's there to keep us all out of poverty (& let's face it, it's better than the workhouse)

But the state pension is a safety net, not to enable all of us who have had busy, hard-working lives to retire & work through a bucket list of destinations & experiences on.

This is an interesting point Vivaldi. Years ago at its inception the SP was seen as a ‘reward’ for a Woking life. Those who had low paid jobs, certainly could afford ( just) to live on it.
Times have changed out of all recognition and as you say it has become a safety net.
We all started our working lives at 15,16,18 or 21 depending on how far education took us. Thus paying NI for a considerable amount of years. Back then nobody, certainly government advice, suggested that a supplementary pension would be required in 2026.
The State pension situation needs to be serious overhaul and certainly clarity for those still in work

Working life!

Overhauled! Sorry for typos

No, not wrong at all, Cossy.

Retirement Living Standards publish annually what expenditure is needed for people to live a minimum, moderate of comfortable lifestyle. Important to make that distinction about their numbers. That it’s not income.

www.retirementlivingstandards.org.uk/

They say the minimum expenditure for a single person outside London is £13,900 - which again post-tax would roughly equate to your £15,000 income benchmark.

Then RLS leap to expenditure of £32,700 for a moderate lifestyle but even then, what they are describing as moderate is not excessive.

The thing they underestimate, in my opinion, is what is costs to keep one’s home in good order or what’s needed as a contingency - something which worries a lot of people at they get older and don’t have much spare cash.

For the person living on the minimum, RLS factor in only £200 and DIY. I’m reasonable fit at 70 but I don’t want to tackle those jobs any more and good luck finding a skilled tradesperson who charges less than £200 a day.

(I am not claiming they are charging too much as it equates to a gross income of less than £50,000 year when factoring in holidays, sick leave and business expenses.)

Very restrictive too in terms of any life outside the home whether pleasure or necessity. RLS say No car, free bus pass, £32 per month to cover two taxi trips, £193 per year to cover 3 rail fares. Essentially, it’s factoring in an average £10 a week to go anywhere that can’t be done on a free bus pass. Some people live somewhere with a good bus network that operates for most of the day. Many will not. And if they can’t, that leads to social isolation and the effects that can have on physical and mental health.

It’s interesting watching money advisers such as Martin Lewis telling young people that they shouldn’t turn their back on getting into workplace pension schemes as soon as they can. And yet many have and are turning their backs.

What really incenses me every time ministers start talking about the overall cost of State Pension being too expensive and unsustainable because there are too many of us, is that it should take them by surprise. It’s as if they have forgotten that we had a post-war baby boom. In the 1960s over 800,000 babies were being born a year, in some years closer to 900,000. These people have or are now reaching SP age and could easily live another 20 years.

I have to disagree with you J52 when you say back then nobody . … It’s why the graduated contribution scheme began in 1961 to be replaced by SERPS in 1978 which, as I said upthread can, in theory, add £230.54 a week to a basic state pension making a SP in excess of £20,000 a year possible for some people. Over 9000 people do receive that much and over 800,000 do receive over £300 a week so are at Cossy’s number of £15,000 a year. In effect, government did plan for people to have a pension of over £15,000, but for many people, life didn't work out that way.

That isn’t going to be possible at all now that SERPS has been abolished as a means to enhance the baseline pension although an element has been factored in hence the higher rate of the new State Pension.

The simple answer is we cannot afford it in either the short or long term. We are already being held back by the huge cost of welfare benefits and with fewer and fewer children being born there will simply not be a taxpayer base sufficient to meet the cost of higher pensions.

In 1950, there were approximately 5 working-age people for every one retired person. By 2070, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) expects this fallen to about 2 workers for every pensioner.

The reason so many legal immigrants ( the vast majority) were invited or came her was because we simply did not have enough younger people, especially in the health industry, to meet the needs of the current population and had to go overseas. This goes right back to the Windrush generation who came over to feed London Transport's need for bus crews.

Now young immigrants are needed to help pay for older people's pensions.

Thank you Graphite for pointing out my error. I was in an industry that opted out of SEPS, so I really wasn’t aware of the implications.