Time to get on our bikes and mopeds to earn extra money to live on?

I think that most people who can afford to do pay into occupational or private pensions. The problems arise when those who haven't done so resent that and suggest that state pensions should be treated as means-tested benefits, and only paid to those on the breadline, meaning that it is a race to the bottom for older people. This is encouraged by governments who foster intergenerational conflict and point to the low level of benefits for young people, as though it is not possible to both manage a state pension scheme based on contributions and a benefit scheme for those unable to work. Those who do work should, IMO, have a legal right to pay that keeps them above the level where benefits are necessary.

I think we are going round in circles a bit though.

growstuff

The government didn't get you sign any such contract when you were 16.

The agreement was then that if a woman paid a full stamp, for the required amount of years, then she would be entitled to a full pension, in her own right, instead of relying on her husbands pension, at age 60.

They moved the goalposts with the age 60 thing. No need to alter anything else for existing pensioners.

Doodledog

No she didn’t!

She said that they entered into a contract, which is about trust and tacit agreement. We all know there is no signed deal, any more than we have signed for any of our rights, yet this lack of a paper contract is brought up with tedious regularity as though we are all too dim to understand the pension system. We aren’t - we know that ‘our’ money paid for the previous generation- but the ‘contract’ we have is the basis of rule by consent in the absence of a constitution. It’s about an understanding that if we do what we are asked, live within the law, pay what we owe etc then we will be protected, have access to education, health and pensions (amongst other things). That contract is perilously close to being shattered these days, but it forms the basis of our relatively peaceful society. If governments continue to renege on their side of the deal there is no incentive for citizens to stick to ours.

Generally the Brits don’t go in for revolution or rioting as much as countries which do have legal contracts, but that’s because generally governments have kept to their side of the (implicit) deal. If they water that down too far, there are no guarantees.

Thank you.....for understanding what the tacit agreement was.

Up until somewhere in the 60/70s, women could pay what was then called a "married woman's stamp" and get a reduced pension, or opt to pay for a full pension.

I chose to pay a full stamp.

No, I didn't sign a contract, because that's not how it works - in those days you relied on what the government was telling you.

It works the same now with JSA and ESA - if you pay in for the qualifying period, you can claim the contributory element, which is non means tested.

Other benefits, or the above if you haven't paid in enough, rely on nothing, other than income/savings.