UK State Pension - Is it really enough?

I get by with my pension because my mortgage is paid off. I don't know how people manage if they have rent or mortgage payments to find.

That was very informative Graphite. I am not a bitter person but we still live in a patriarchal society. I brought my 2 children up after a divorce when my children were still young.My eldest is disabled. My ex-husband was on a very good income. He got away with paying very little maintenance during their childhood. I didn't get any part of his pension. So I worked my butt off, got back into teaching and brought my kids up. He is very comfortably off now. But I'm certainly not. I'm retired but still have a mortgage. I didn't work for several years before we divorced, too difficult with a disabled child, so missed years of paying NI. I just get by. There are different circumstances for many. But I do think we should receive the minimum wage.

Graphite and M0nica

You’ve both raised great points.

I’m happy to say that 4 out 5 of our adult children have good private pension provision and none would ever op out, our youngest at 24 is a self employed musician so .. 🤷🏻‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️

I don’t have the answers, but I do know I’d not like to see any pensioner living in abject poverty, irrespective of whether they’d spent their working life in paid work or not.

My MiL is a prime example, three children by the time she was 22, married and living in Southern Ireland, in what what then a very small seaside town, with little work. Long story short, developed/diagnosed with schizophrenia, moved with husband to England for work, domestic abuse, sectioned several times then electro-therapy in the 60’s completely wrecked her. So fast forward to now and she’s in a fully funded dementia home. No property to sell, very little savings, lots of small non pensionable jobs when she was well.

Thank goodness for the welfare state.

J52. If you were in pension scheme which opted out of SERPS then you should receive a Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) within your workplace pension equivalent to the Additional State Pension you would have received had your scheme not contracted out. It’s complicated but that’s the basic premise.

Former Pensions Minister Steve Webb explains more here:

www.lcp.com/media/1150050/why-is-money-being-deducted-from-my-state-pension.pdf

When governments plan and legislate for pensions it’s presumably done on the basis that people will lead straightforward lives and be fully employed for the requisite number of years to get the most benefit (literally) from the system.

The old system required a man to work and pay NIC for 44 years and a woman 39. Following equalisation, that’s 35 years for both. As SP age rises that hasn’t been increased. This factors in that many young people now don’t enter the workplace until 21 when once it would have been 14, 15 or 16 for most. I think that 35 years is still fairly generous as age 21 to 67 is 46 years so allow for 11 years out of the workplace.

What it isn’t factoring in complex life changes, sustained periods of unemployment, poor health and caring responsibilities of the sandwich generation caught between child care and caring for elderly parents. More often (but not always) it is women who are worst affected as Plevey describes.

The graphic show DWP numbers from February 2025 when the New State Pension was £221.20. It shows that most people, whichever system they are on, receive less that a full pension with women lagging behind for obvious reasons. Someone with no other income would have had that topped up with Pension Credit to the then ceiling of £218.15 a week and could claim other benefits in addition which, as I said before, could bring someone’s income close to Cossy’s number of £15,000.

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/dwp-benefits-statistics-august-2025/dwp-benefits-statistics-august-2025

www.gov.uk/government/publications/benefit-and-pension-rates-2024-to-2025/benefit-and-pension-rates-2024-to-2025#pension-credit

I think pensions are always going to be messy, simply because people’s lives are messy in all sorts of ways and one size is never going to fit all. Governments can try to push the system to more reliance on workplace pensions but if fewer people are working and those who are working are opting out then the problems aren’t going to go away.

Moreover, workplace pension scheme are very vulnerable to market shocks as we saw in 2022 when they nearly failed. A Reform government is predicted to have the same effect and would let them fail as under them there would be no quantitative easing to shore them up. That’s very worrying.

Your idea is a good one, Cossy, but it isn't going to happen even if the net affect of simplification was no overall cost. I wonder if people realise how administratively expensive means testing is?

Any attempt to do what you suggest would be met by a barrage of commentators who rather enjoy stoking generational warfare and the notion that one person's pocket is being picked to pay for someone else's free ride. I expect most have little clue as to how the State Pension system has been operating and evolving over the last 100 years and the social and political factors and events which have given rise to such a range of disparities.

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....

"I'm fine......." Jaysus, then thank your lucky stars.

Why do foodbanks still exist (and multiply) and why do very many, including pensioners, thank THEIR lucky stars for them?

Plevey08

Why did you not get any of your ex husbands pension? Sounds like you were the one at home with disabled child and your now suffering financially.
A friend of mine aged sixty divorced many years ago, has been to a solicitor and been awarded a substantial sum from her ex’s pension pot. Maybe it’s not too late.

Padstow13

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....

"I'm fine......." Jaysus, then thank your lucky stars.

Why do foodbanks still exist (and multiply) and why do very many, including pensioners, thank THEIR lucky stars for them?

Is it the difference between those living in a relationship, sharing costs, and those who live on their own?

Obviously, singletons pay 100% for their food, household items, tradesman's bills, utilities, holidays etc (and singletons pay the same charge for a hotel room that a couple sharing pay).

I thought Vivaldi was doing well until she mentioned a husband.
What a difference that makes.

It’s much easier with two incomes. I’ve already posted links to government numbers which show that, even after housing costs, couples have income which is on average £328 per week more per week than single people. £17,000 per annum more than a single person. That’s a lot of money and more than the £15,000 that Cossy is suggesting as a universal basic income.

Many on just a State Pension will end up with that amount anyway when all the benefits they can claim are added in. That sum equates to expenditure that Retirement Living Standards say is required for a minimum lifestyle after tax is taken into account.

That people need to claim all these extras just to live at a very minimum standard is both a faff and administratively expensive - Pension Credit, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Discount plus the data sharing that has to go on to get Warm Home Discount or proof of entitlement to get free eye and dental care or a TV Licence.

The notion that we “paid in” for a State Pension is ridiculous when millions of people receive Category B, C and D pensions that they did not pay NIC for, plus the other systems to credit periods of not working e.g. Home Responsibilities Protection and NIC credits.

By and large we have had and continue to have decent safety nets. Why not make that net a higher universal one to save all the administrative overload and cost?

Graphite That people need to claim all these extras just to live at a very minimum standard is both a faff and administratively expensive - Pension Credit, Housing Benefit, Council Tax Discount plus the data sharing that has to go on to get Warm Home Discount or proof of entitlement to get free eye and dental care or a TV Licence.

The notion that we “paid in” for a State Pension is ridiculous when millions of people receive Category B, C and D pensions that they did not pay NIC for, plus the other systems to credit periods of not working e.g. Home Responsibilities Protection and NIC credits.

By and large we have had and continue to have decent safety nets. Why not make that net a higher universal one to save all the administrative overload and cost?

I agree.

Administrative costs are undoubtedly high, people are reticent to claim -- higher universal safety nets (and minimum wage) may help.

I was struck by how relatively few additional households successfully claimed Pension Credit as a result of the withdrawal of universal Winter Fuel Payment in 2024.

We were lead to believe, based on DWP statistics, that over 800,000 household were eligible but not claiming. Martin Lewis was shouting about it on national TV but …

Our Pension Credit campaign has seen over 56,000 households awarded Pension Credit in one year (29 July 2024 – 27 July 2025) when compared to the previous year.

The average award was: £114.99 p.w. for a couple and £78.23 p.w. for a single pensioner.

www.gov.uk/government/news/fresh-drive-to-boost-pension-credit-take-up-as-new-figures-reveal-large-regional-gaps-in-those-receiving-benefit-worth-around-4300-a-year

So we are talking roughly £6,000 a year extra income for a couple and £4,000 for a single pensioner.

That 800,000+ was a number extrapolated from an annual survey conducted on behalf of the DWP.

Either there is something wrong with the survey data and methods or hundreds of thousands of households are still not claiming what they are entitled to.

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....

Well of course you are fine....you have a husband...who works.....how can you compare yourself

My state pension is no where near £12000 pa. I’m not complaining because I never had a paid job and so never paid NIC.
I get maintenance/alimony payments, which due to a negligent solicitor , has stayed the same for the past 20+ years, despite inflation.. I have savings and I manage fine .

£12,500? I wish. My pension isn’t anywhere near that much.

People keep implying that they are living on less than £12.5k, but if that is the case they are entitled to pension credit which will bring their income to far more than that. The benefits of getting PC have been outlined above, and they go above and beyond the obvious.

As an example, I am in a group who visits a local theatre regularly. Over 65s used to get reduced tickets, which made the trips affordable to those on SP only (and to those just above because of an occupational pension they had worked for and paid into). As of September, all ticket prices have risen, and the concession has been withdrawn for those not on PC, 'to be fair to everyone', so the old concessionary tickets have had a double increase - once to full price and then to the increase in full price, whilst the cost for those on PC stays the same. This means that some of the group will no longer be able to go, as the ticket prices for them are £15 more than if they had PC, taking them to a high price for someone budgeting carefully.

This sort of discount is available at a wide range of venues, so adds up over a year. Before anyone suggests that I am begrudging those on PC anything, I'm absolutely not. What I do feel, however, is that this sort of means-testing is deeply unfair to those who tried to make their later years more comfortable by paying for an extra pension (they are not free, despite the resentment they seem to cause) and find that yet again, taking responsibility for themselves has backfired. If fewer people can go, the bus hire price will go up too, as we split it between passengers.

I understand that the theatre company has to stay afloat and prices had to rise, but I want all group members to be able to attend all the performances that we used to, and I don't think that will be possible.

That is not a 'notion' that some pockets are being picked to put money in others - it is a lived (but far from isolated) example of how the current system can be very unfair to the very people who prop it up.

silverlining48

The problem is whenever the sp is mentioned by the media it’s always the new rate and not the old rate that so many of us are on, which is quoted.

This is a niggle of mine too, very rarely is the old pension rate mentioned.
I often wonder if there is some way to stop the triple lock for those who don't need/want it in favour of giving more to those in need.

I read online today our state pension is overly generous, so the triple lock should be removed!!! I would think whoever wrote that statement is struggling on around £100,000 a year.

I receive the "old" state pension which has crept up to 4 figures. I could live on that if I lived in one room! I have no idea how many people cope. So many are part of the "eat or heat" group.

Well, we saw what happened when the WFA was taken from those who had previously said thy didn't need/want it, didn't we .

Also, as has been pointed out on this thread already, not everyone on the OSP is worse off than those on the NSP (and many on NSP don't get the full amount anyway). Not only that, but the UK SP is lower than that in many countries, so I don't see why it should be lowered further.

AFAIK you don't have to claim it if you don't want it. Everyone who claims it has made the choice to do so, usually because they paid NI for decades in the expectation that a pension would be the reward. Maybe that could be publicised more, but my guess is that the cost of the advertising would far exceed any profit.

Martin Lewis is currently promoting a campaign for people (mainly women) to check their state pension entitlements. Apparently there is a review going on as errors have come to light affecting thousands of pensioners. Some will be corrected automatically, others will need to apply.
Check it out on MoneySavingExpert website. It is in his weekly email this week.

www.moneysavingexpert.com/latesttip/?anchor=pension#pension

M0nica

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.

I wonder what the ratio of people on benefits for long term unemployment compared to those working was back in the 1950's. I also wonder how successful the immigration policy is for boosting the number of working people compared to pensioners. I suspect that in both cases it has had a huge impact on our ability to ensure pensioners don't just get by but are able to live a little. I welcome working immigrants who come here legally and genuine refugees so it certainly isn't my intention to have a pop at them. I just remember reading an article recently about the real figures to do with immigration and they weren't as positive as we have been led to believe. I wish I could find the article!
My mother was a single parent with very young children and she certainly couldn't get enough benefit to even consider staying at home. She couldn't even get Child Benefit for the first child. There was no "funded" childcare and it was a struggle. She could certainly have managed these days by comparison.

The reason we have the triple lock. Is so that all governments can literally buy the votes of millions of pensioners and stay in power.

An ageing population, dying off soon. Lets get their votes while we can.

As for people in other Countries getting better State Pensions. This may be true but the same thing applies to them. Their votes have been bought.

That isn’t true. In most years there is little difference between the double and triple lock. This year it is just 1% representing an extra 30p a day pre-tax compared to the double lock.

The triple lock was to allow pensioners to benefit from wage growth if average earnings rose faster than inflation and why shouldn’t they? Wage growth contributes to cost-push inflation which affects everyone.

In addition, it’s based on wage growth in the summer of the preceding year. By the time we get it, pensions paid four weeks in arrear, it’s already May of the next year and wages are rising again. Always playing catch up.

Count Binface has it covered,
Pensions to be double-locked, with an extra little chain on the side.

I think pensions should be tied to the average increase in wages and nothing else. Pension Credit can be used to bridge the gap between individual pensioners income and the minimum income considered necessary to live on. That is what it is there for.