Weekend reading: our rare breed pensioners, and how to read these links in future

The State Pension is worth a considerable amount of money. To generate £12,000pa, you would need an asset of £300,000 assuming a 4% return.

I appreciate all the hard work, sacrifice and passion it takes to keep this website on. It made/keeps making a difference in my life. Echoing Ermine, “It’s truly lovely seeing the world from my own windows and not from the office.”

@Sparschwein (#9):
Thanks for the link.
The data tables are also worth downloading – they can be accessed via a URL in Section 2 under the heading “Additional tables and data” in the linked report.

+1 for please don’t break RSS!

@Alan S (#42):
An interesting suggestion. However, the ability of our politicians/civil servants to make good decisions (and stick with them) for the long run is extremely poor. IMV, they are always focussed on the here and now. Have you ever seen a copy of the 1974 McCrone Report which was only made public in 2005? If not, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCrone_report and note the comment from Denis Healey which I take to be a classic example of HMG’s short-term thinking. Compare and contrast the UK’s approach with that taken by the Norwegians to an oil windfall.
Do you really think the current lot (of whatever flavour) are any better or less lazy?

@TI
In the Off our beat section, the CEPR link could do with correcting.

The Harper’s and Kyla Scanlon articles this week make very uncomfortable reading but it’s hard to disagree with any of it. Thanks for linking to those.

@Alan S
“A Thatcherite response to people not having saved enough for their old age is that they should have taken personal responsibility and saved more!”

That’s essentially the system that we have at the moment. Whatever the arguments for reducing the better off’s SP entitlement or addressing the triple lock, surely we don’t want to live in a society where any elderly are living on less than 12K/year.

Concur with @Barney – always talk about the triple lock being the thing bleeding the country dry but not really?? Pensioners aren’t well off – well those just on the SP aren’t anyway, it’s a pittance really.

SP is not that generous – maybe better than was pre-2016 but still no lap of luxury and I’m not yet near the SP age. As stated most European countries have much more generous SP/benefits. I went to Dublin some years ago – was pre 2010, can’t remember exactly the date and was told that they had much more generous system with added benefits such as free public travel including trains as well as buses and free household bills/support. I just looked online and seems pretty much the same now eg:

“Pensioners (generally aged 66+) living in Dublin are entitled to free travel on public transport and can receive assistance with energy bills through the Household Benefits Package.
.These schemes, which often include free electricity/gas and TV licenses, are designed to help with living costs.

Key Pensioner Benefits in Dublin:
– Free Travel Scheme: Persons aged 66 or over and living in Ireland permanently receive a Free Travel Public Services Card (FTPSC), allowing free travel on buses, trains, the Luas, and some private services.
– Household Benefits Package: This package covers one electricity/gas bill allowance and a free television license. People over 70 do not have to be receiving a state pension to qualify, while those under 70 must meet specific conditions.
– Additional Support: Individuals living alone may be eligible for a Living Alone Increase, which provides extra weekly support.
Companion Travel: Those with a “Free Travel Companion” card can bring a person (aged 16+) with them for free on public and some private transport services.”

So just means the paltry SP would be even worse without the triple lock. As of early 2025, the median annual salary for full-time employees in the UK is approximately £39,000 whilst the Mean Average is around £45,000+ per year, according to Office for National Statistics data so a full post 2016 SP is not even a third of the average median salary – not great at all and if you have any other personal income pretty much anything above the SP, you are taxed on it. These people can’t work anymore like others can – they are usually too old/frail/disabled etc. and done their share anyway. Why should many of them on just SP live in relative poverty whilst people who never attempt to work live off benefits.

As @ Barney stated, there is too much waste in this country, by politicians deciding to give our taxes away to illegal immigrants to pay for hotels/subsistence – that should be stopped dead for a kick off and so should giving millions away every year to the French for doing nothing much to stop the boats – bet them frenchies are rubbing their hands and laughing at our stupidity. We should police our own borders properly full stop – the French won’t – they just play at it and pretend it’s too difficult.

Nothing works in this country – totally broken from prices through the roof for everything (and why does this country always suffer the worst of it?), NHS hospitals, GP’s/ambulance services and hardly any NHS dentists left – only private ones that rob you dry and add stuff on that doesn’t need doing (sheer greed), no proper mental health services, hardly any social housing left, roads/cycle paths in bits, services cut, flytipping out of control, legal system doesn’t work, prisons overflowing and criminals given stupidly short sentences then still let out early and foreign criminals paid money to sling their hook out the country?? London known around the world as “stab central.” Police that overstretched they are no longer able to do their job and give victims any justice. Our cities and once great seaside resorts have fallen into terminal decay with filthy streets and many boarded up shops/businesses that have long ceased. Then the politicians ask the daft question of why don’t more people spend and holiday more in UK?
Well just compare the Costas with Weston Super Mare/Ryll/Blackpool/Skegness/Clacton – the not so great anymore Great Yarmouth and even the once great Scarborough and the answer is like most British resorts they are mainly rubbish, dilapidated/run down, cheap in looks (not necessarily in prices), tacky and generally awful with terrible food/accommodation offerings with nothing much to see or do here anymore – quite apart from the weather (not everybody loves baking sun all the time anyway).

It’s not all down to covid & brexit as they like to pretend. Our people are not put first by politicians and we just stand for it and every govt. just puts us in a worse position these days. They are supposed to serve the people – not to serve themselves. Still far too much corruption and inflating expenses goes on in politics. Also too much wokery here and unfortunately have to agree with the Orange Buffoon and MAGA on this (and should be MBGA here). It should be Britain first and our money spent on our own nation – not everywhere/everyone else (even Trump says we are dumb as a country and look who’s talking). Too much wasted on woke schemes and police having to waste time over wokery on the internet, instead of using resources prosecuting real crime. Need to start putting Britain first and somebody who can actually do the job they were appointed to do would be a good start.

The idea that UK pensions are “comparable” to Europe once you add in private savings is a bit of a stretch when you look at the actual numbers. Even with private pots, the UK’s combined replacement rate of 54.4% is significantly below the EU average of 70.8%. Essentially, many in the UK are using their own savings just to try and reach the baseline security that our European neighbours get from their state alone.

It is also worth noting that for the poorest 20% of UK pensioners, the state pension and benefits make up over 70% of their income. These people never had the opportunity to partake in the generous pension allowances that many here have taken for granted as a right, whilst eagerly discussing ways to curtail the triple lock. Yet these are the very people—the cleaners, refuse collectors, and admin staff—who are essential to the everyday services we all rely on.

When the UK can find nearly £60 billion a year for pension tax reliefs that largely benefit higher earners, and millions more for hotel accommodation, arguing that the triple lock—which costs an “extra” £12 billion compared to standard earnings links—is “unaffordable” feels like a major double standard.

It is also worth asking why a household with a joint income of £80,000 can still qualify for child allowance, meaning pensioners on a fraction of that income are effectively subsidising the very people who begrudge them the triple lock.
The real “unaffordability” in our economy isn’t the triple lock; it’s the fact that our total welfare bill of £334 billion now rivals our entire income tax take. We spend £145 billion on working-age welfare alone, with health-related benefits reaching nearly £100 billion.

The delay of HMS Dragon—reportedly slowed by a “9-to-5” dockyard contract—is just one symptom of a productivity gap where our output sits 20% behind the US. If we addressed the lack of production and the benefit traps that see some, better off out of work than in it, these pension commitments would be easily managed.

Perhaps a broader view of these spending priorities would shift the focus away from those who have no one else to promote their cause.

Finally, thanks to TI, TA, and TM, for a great site that occasionally goes off-piste, but always encourages a deeper look at the facts.

@The Accumulator – Thanks for the detailed reply. To keep this watertight, a few specific points on the figures:

On the OECD comparison: I use the Net Replacement Rate specifically because it already accounts for the tax differences you mentioned. It calculates retirement income after all national taxes and social security have been deducted from both your old salary and your new pension. Even on this “after-tax” basis, the UK’s combined rate of 54.4% is significantly below the EU average of 70.8%. We aren’t comparing apples with oranges; the OECD has already adjusted for the “highly-taxed European chums” factor, and we still come out near the bottom. You can verify this in the OECD Pensions at a Glance report (Table 4.5 in the 2023 edition, and updated 2025 summaries).

Regarding the spending pie: You noted the £146Bn state pension bill, but we should also include the £59.1 billion HMRC estimates we spend annually on private pension tax and NI relief. This is a massive state subsidy that largely benefits higher earners, yet it is rarely labelled “unaffordable” in the same way the £12Bn “extra” cost of the triple lock is.

On targeting: The issue with “targeting” the triple lock while leaving the £60Bn tax relief untouched is that it creates a double standard. We allow a couple earning £80,000 jointly to keep 100% of their state child allowance—provided neither individual hits the £60k individual threshold—yet we argue over whether a pensioner’s £12,500 safety net is too generous.

On poverty rates: While headline UK poverty figures are lower for pensioners than for children, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and DWP note that UK pensioner poverty has trended upwards to 16-17%. More importantly, our rate is nearly triple that of France, which sits at 6%. We are “getting there” relative to our own past, but we are still the poor relation of the G7.

My point about the £212Bn inactivity cost isn’t that we should ignore the £12Bn for pensions, but that the focus is often disproportionately on the smallest slice of the problem. If we addressed the productivity gap and the benefit traps that keep people out of the workforce, the state pension would be a non-issue.

It isn’t an inter-generational grudge match; it’s a serving of current fiscal facts. Who else here will push on behalf of possibly, the unseen and silent majority.

The reason the triple lock is so terrible is not the current cost. It’s the fact that the triple lock liability is totally unhedgeable by any government and will grow exponentially over time.

The triple lock is in financial terms a “best of” option. Imagine getting owning an asset that gives you the best return each year from three asset classes: say equities, bonds and cash each year? It would massively outperform any other asset. Would you be happy to sell that option? No f**king chance. How the hell would you hedge it? So no govt should ever sell such an option to the public either.

The indexation should be just earnings. It achieves two clear objectives. First, it relates the retiree income to that of the working population. We can argue the exact level of that relation. Second, it relates pension income to the the flow of taxation income from workers that pays for it. So the pension liability is naturally hedged. Again, we can argue the acceptable taxation burden on workers to pay for this.

We had the correct earnings linkage until 1980. The Thatcher govt changed it, knowing that a RPI linkage would save a large amount over time. It was that linkage that damaged the value of the state pension. People who think SWR rules with CPI linkage or linker ladders alone hedge their retirement might like to ponder on that reality.

@Alan S – Thanks for the detailed breakdown. You make a fair point about the complexity of the 9 million, but there is a specific, avoidable slice of that group that remains a major fiscal outlier.

While we certainly can’t get all 9 million back to work, the OBR has confirmed that “excess” inactivity since 2020 alone—the spike in people who dropped out of the workforce compared to our G7 peers—is costing the taxpayer roughly £16 billion a year in extra benefits and lost tax (OBR). This avoidable cost is already higher than the entire £12bn “extra” premium for the triple lock (IFS). We are the only G7 nation where inactivity rose post-pandemic while it fell in Germany and Japan.

Regarding your points on a state-run CDC or reforming the lock, the double standard remains the issue. We already spend £59.1 billion a year on pension tax and NI relief (HMRC), which largely benefits those already able to save significant amounts. If we are looking for “unaffordable” spending, it is difficult to see why the first port of call is always the £12bn for the state pension rather than this £60bn private subsidy or the £80k joint-income households that still receive state child allowance.

It is all about the fact that we are losing far more to a productivity gap and avoidable worklessness than we are spending on protecting the basic safety net for time-served citizens. If we simply matched German productivity, our economy would be over £100 billion larger every year (ONS). Addressing that lack of production is the absolute key to affordability.

How about making people do a bit of work for the state pension? Everyone who receives the SP and is under SP age + 10 years (so, 75/77) might do a couple of days of light work each week.

I’d like to see:
* Manned toilets in every town centre, each with a couple of cleaners.
* Reopening libraries and other civic spaces, with helpers to staff, clean and paint.
* Litter pickers everywhere (the litter situation is out of control).
* Older people as classroom assistants and giving careers, financial and general life advice to children.
* Those who are able to drive helping the more elderly to hospital appointments.

We could call it “civic duty” akin to jury duty.

@The Accumulator – Thanks for the IFS link; the podcast is a vital piece of the puzzle. However, the data within it actually highlights why the UK is a unique outlier rather than just “reverting to the mean.”

Regarding the sickness crisis: the IFS itself notes that while health-related benefit claims in most similar countries—including Germany, the Netherlands, and the US—have actually fallen or stayed flat since 2019, the UK’s have surged by over 30%. We aren’t just catching up to a mean; we are diverging from our peers. This “excess” inactivity is now forecast to cost us over £63 billion a year by 2028. This isn’t just about a “rundown NHS”; it’s a UK-specific failure to keep the working-age population productive that our “highly-taxed European chums” have managed to avoid.

On productivity and the “Silicon Valley” myth: the argument that US success is just about tech giants doesn’t hold up. Recent analysis shows that even when you strip out the “Magnificent Seven” and Silicon Valley, the US still outperforms the UK across nearly every sector, including professional services and manufacturing. The real gap isn’t just “tech”; it’s a massive investment deficit in software and development compared to our peers.

Furthermore, productivity is measured as output per hour worked. Even on this “per hour” basis, UK workers produce 16% less than Germans and significantly less than Americans. We aren’t just working fewer hours; we are producing less value for every hour we work due to chronic underinvestment.

My point remains: we are arguing over a £12bn “extra” for the triple lock while ignoring a £63bn health-benefit bill and a £100bn productivity gap. If we simply matched the production and participation rates of Germany or Japan, the state pension would be a non-issue.

We are “laggards” because of a lack of production and skewed spending priorities, not because the state pension is too generous.

@Rich – The idea of a “civic duty” for pensioners raises some significant practical and moral issues. If we mandated manual labour like litter picking as a condition for the state pension, it would likely backfire by encouraging even more people to seek health-related benefits to avoid it. We already face a £63 billion annual bill for health and disability benefits (IFS/OBR), and creating a “work” requirement for the retired would only squeeze more people into that part of the system.

The word “begrudged” really does come to mind here. It is a telling double standard to suggest that law-abiding citizens who have already contributed 40-plus years of National Insurance should now perform tasks like cleaning and maintenance—which are already used as punishments for criminals under Community Payback. It is a strange logic where a felon can enjoy the benefits of a library, gym, and other facilities in prison, while time-served pensioners who have paid their dues are put to work in their retirement. You’ll be suggesting the fit and healthy retirees be employed as bouncers next.

It is also worth noting that the current tax system allows a household with a joint income of £120,000 to still receive full state child allowance—provided both partners earn £60,000 and neither individual hits the high-income threshold. Yet it is the pensioner on a fraction of that income whose triple lock is always the first target for “restraint.”

We already spend £59.1 billion a year on pension tax and NI reliefs that largely benefit higher earners (HMRC Jan 2026). Simultaneously, we are losing £212 billion a year to economic inactivity and a productivity gap that sees our output 20% behind the US. There are now more people over 70 paying income tax than there are taxpayers under 30.

Before we begrudge the time-served generation a pension that is already one of the lowest in the G7, we should address the lack of production and the benefit traps that are the real “unaffordable” parts of our economy.

You picked out “manual labour like litter picking” out of my list when 4 out of 5 of the suggestions involve sitting down in a warm room. And 2 days a week? Is that really so much to ask?

> who have already contributed 40-plus years of National Insurance

Ah that old canard that refuses to die.

I didn’t pick these examples randomly. This already happens in the Far East, certainly in Japan and China. It keeps people fit and engaged in the local community. The reasons over there are slightly different – in those countries pensions are very threadbare and people do a little work well into their 70s. I assume you wouldn’t want the threadbare pension, but expecting people to do a little work to keep the common spaces they enjoy is too much?

@Rich

“4 out of 5 of the suggestions involve sitting down in a warm room.”

To be fair, 2 of those 4 suggestions involve cleaning, of which 1 also involves painting, 1 involves driving, and in 1 case the warm room is a public toilet.

@Rich – The “it keeps people fit” argument is a very selective way of looking at health.

Other European nations promote and supply far better means of keeping their older populations fit through social clubs, sports facilities, and preventative healthcare—not by forcing them into mandatory labour. Expecting 70-year-olds to perform work as a fitness programme is a poor substitute for the active, healthy retirement they have actually paid for.

Furthermore, who exactly would supervise these pensioners who have the “temerity” to retire? We’d presumably need a new layer of “jobsworths” from local councils—likely already on bloated, taxpayer-funded pensions themselves—to monitor retirees cleaning toilets or painting libraries. It would be a bureaucratic farce that would probably cost more to manage than it ever saved.

The begrudging sentiment remains the core issue here. It is a striking contrast that a household with a joint income of £120,000 can receive state child allowance with no strings attached, yet a pensioner on £12,500 is expected to “pay twice” through mandated labour. We are looking for ways to extract more from retirees while ignoring the £59.1 billion we spend on pension tax reliefs for the wealthy and the £63 billion annual bill for working-age health benefits.

We are debating over whether a 70-year-old should be litter picking to keep the heating on, while ignoring a £100 billion productivity hole in our national accounts.

Your turn to join the “time-served” generation will eventually come. If you’ve heeded the excellent advice that is freely available on this site and stayed reasonably healthy, you will probably have no need for additional benefits—but the reality of a threadbare state pension looks very different from the outside, whilst insisting that retiree’s, sing for their supper.

@MA (#89):
Re: “HMRC doesn’t necessarily lose out as …”
+1 for that, and AIUI HMRC may even gain!

The c. £60bn figure is just one side of the equation (i.e. pure fiction), which is promoted by all sorts – for reasons best known to themselves!

I agree with @Barney that the government decisions on pensions (and other things) w0uld become a lot easier if there was £100 billion more GDP due to better productivity.

However experience tells us that governments know how to say that but not how to do it. It was a problem that I first noticed when the Thatcher government closed down a lot of traditional industries. Those industries certainly weren’t sustainable but instead of managing a transition there was a sudden loss which meant a lot of previously productive communities – mostly comfortably distant from the home counties – now became unproductive. Apart from one or two very specific solutions (Nissan in Sunderland) those areas have still not recovered. The Blair government did at least try to introduce regional development policies, but if those were to achieve something it would be over the longer term and they were terminated by the Cameron government. The current government came in recognising a need to increase the size of the economy but don’t appear to have any ideas how to do it.

I do think it is possible for governments to act to increase the productive economy – Germany did it with the former DDR – but it is costly and wouldn’t produce a net benefit for many years.

I agree with @Barney that abolishing the triple lock would be a less effective – and largely regressive – approach to state pension affordability than restricting tax relief to basic rate, which would also have the benefit of rapidly having a fiscal impact. I don’t share his irritation at child benefit which I think is better as a universal availability as long as tax rates are progressive (its removal above a threshold shouldn’t be needed).

I support @TA’s suggestion of an eventual link of state pension to median earnings, with the triple lock disappearing once the target ratio is reached.

So, I’m crossed off so many “Christmas” card lists, but it’s hard to ignore your beliefs, especially when you’ve been part of it all.

@Barney (#93):
Even on the income tax side, the “deferred” argument only holds if people pay the same rate in retirement as they did while working. In reality, many claim relief at 40% or 45% now but only pay 20% on their pension income later.

Not strictly true – there is also a temporal component to the calculation and the effects of frozen allowance etc to factor in.
Believe it or not, there are also an increasing number of folks who would have to pay income tax at a higher rate on the way out than they did on the way in to their DC pensions – I often refer to these folks as “hostages”.

From a personal perspective (which I know is not the whole picture – but is the part I concern myself most with):
Re NI: all my DC baseline contributions got NI relief at 2% and I got zero NI relief on my DC AVC’s as they could/were NOT salary sacrificed.
Assuming I live a few more years (say to life expectancy) I will win from a tax and NI perspective on the DC side* of things but HMRC will win very handsomely from my DB!

Any goings-on between employers and HMRC is outside my control.

*but only because I have made a conscious effort to run down my DC at no more than BRT – which is a lot more tricky to execute than it sounds.

*Colombia!

@ZXSpectrum48k – Your “best-of option” analogy is a fascinating piece of financial theory, but it ignores the very real “hedge” the UK has been using for decades: paying out one of the lowest state pensions in the developed world.

Regarding the “didn’t pay enough” claim: it is a bit rich to judge the past by the fiscal theories of today. At the time, those National Insurance contributions were exactly what was deemed enough by the state. Relative to the average industrial wages of the era, they represented a significant portion of a worker’s take-home pay. You cannot blame a generation for paying the exact premium requested by the government of the day—especially when that generation worked in industries where injury and high mortality were the norm. This was an era of zero industrial protection, resulting in the unacceptable levels of hearing loss, mesothelioma, and asbestosis fatalities that only those suffering will ever truly understand. To suggest that these people—who unknowingly, literally traded their health and their lives for the nation’s production—are now “taking out more than they put in” is a fundamental misunderstanding of the social contract, and by those who have suffered, would be considered offensive.

If we want to talk about fiscal sustainability, let’s look at the options we are selling today. We now spend £59.1 billion a year on pension tax and NI relief—a figure that has jumped by £11 billion in just five years and now largely benefits the most comfortable (HMRC). Simultaneously, the tax system allows a household with a joint income of £120,000 to still receive full state child allowance—provided neither individual hits the £60,000 threshold. Why is the pensioner’s £12,500 safety net “intellectually weak,” but a £60bn subsidy for the already wealthy treated as a right?
The “unhedgeable” liability you fear is only a threat because of our stagnant production.

Every year we parade ceremonial state openings with old men in wigs and britches, believing we are preserving it for future generations who, in reality, don’t give a fig because it doesn’t pay the mortgage. While the rest of the developed world points to our decline, and the undeveloped look on bemused, we ignore the fact that UK output per hour is 20% behind the US and 16% behind Germany.

A return to technical colleges, apprenticeships, and evening classes would contribute massively, but as long as a majority of schoolchildren see education as a bind and technical work as a second-class choice, we are bound to fall behind our diligent global competitors while still expecting the rewards they enjoy. Perhaps the next government will read the riot act and ring the changes, but I fear that won’t happen when the leadership remains heavily influenced by those who have overseen this decline. Or just maybe, AI will convince a few that a technical “Trade” is actually better, and for the foreseeable future, safe.

@Barney:

>The “unhedgeable” liability you fear is only a threat because of our stagnant production.

No – even if our production were increasing at a healthier pace, it is unrealistic to assume it(as I’m assuming production is an accurate proxy for average earnings) would always increase at more than either inflation or 2.5%. The ratcheting effect that ZXSpectrum48k describes is therefore inevitable.

It may not be an immediate issue (although a healthy dose of stagflation might lead us to reassess that assumption in relatively short order) but ultimately, the way the commitment is structured, it will exceed UK GDP, which is likely to be unpopular with the bond market.

Looking at demographics, voters who are likely to support greater pensioner benefits are only going to form a greater part of the electorate, so reviewing the inflator algorithm will only get more politically challenging.

My personal preference would be for MP salaries and pensions to be indexed to median wages – it gives both groups an incentive to desire policies that are most likely to raise income for everyone.

@B (#102):
Re “While you may feel like a tax hostage on your specific DB pension, …”
No idea where you get that idea from.
I just gave you some facts, that you do not seem to like or want to even acknowledge. So be it.
Furthermore, I have not expressed any bones with the TL.
Lastly, can you teach me how to pay 0% tax.

@Al Cam – Regarding the 0% tax question: it is a simple fiscal fact that a pensioner whose only income is the full New State Pension (£12,547.60) currently pays 0% income tax because they are below the frozen £12,570 threshold. However, being only £22 away from the tax net means the state is now effectively clawing back the triple-lock increase from anyone with even the most modest savings.

Regarding the National Insurance relief: you are conflating Income Tax with NI. While the state may recover some Income Tax later, the £25.6 billion in NI relief given to employers is strictly never paid back. Retirees are exempt from NI on pension income, so that money is a permanent, non-recoverable loss to the public purse. It is a multi-billion pound state subsidy that primarily benefits those with the largest private pots.

As for the Child Benefit point: the government has officially scrapped plans to move to a household income basis because it was “too expensive.” This means a household with a joint income of £120,000—where two partners earn £60k each—receives full state child allowance with zero charge. If the state can afford a no-strings handout to a £120k household, it can afford a £12bn “extra” for the triple lock.

If this is the case as stated in this article (from Which):
> “But the sobering fact is for most Britons, the State Pension is and will remain all-important in retirement.
The DWP’s figures highlight how vital the state pension is.
Almost all pensioners (98%) receive it, and benefits overall make up a large share of income – 58% for single pensioners and 40% for couples.”

Which I would think is the case as well, then arguing against the triple lock is just an argument to reduce an already pitiful SP. Someone said about they don’t face mortgage costs versus working generation but a lot rent which can be even higher costs than mortgage – plus they have the same bills as most generally – help with bills is also limited and pitiful with a minefield of eligibility criteria and claims forms that many can’t be bothered with for a low amount.

Also I don’t think many pensioners will buy the idea of taking it off some and redistributing it to others – not those currently expecting a SP, however rich. I think the SP contract was seen as just that – a pension for retirement paid in return for a number of working years’ contributions – whether this was high enough is not their problem, that was the contract given to them and they fulfilled their side of the bargain.

So pensioners, of which I am not yet one, do not see it as a state benefits handout but as a pension to fund/partly fund retirement and taking it away would be a massive breach of contract by the govt. which I can understand the revolution there would be. If they now want to change that contract they would have to do it over many many years or it will not wash. They cannot change the contract at the last minute as they did with the Waspi’s – no wonder they are revolting, I would be. The SP as it is on it’s own is a pittance and that’s all many have to rely on – how do you pay the basics even of rent, bills, food etc. and manage a life.

Politicians always argue we cannot afford it while adopting policies that waste money and cost us a fortune such as some mentioned already earlier. They award themselves greater pay rises than the pensioners or workers and now argue it’s set independently. Well if so, how come it’s always a very decent rise compared to the rest of us – they should get the average of the rest of us and certainly no more – they are overpaid anyway for what they achieve – which with any of current and previous lots is nothing except scandal/waste/fiasco. Their combined salaries overall may not add up to that much in the scheme of things but that isn’t the point. If they preach one thing to others they should do the same themselves. Applies to the Lords as well as @ Barney said, money just for turning up and signing in then leaving. Just utter unashamed corruption in full view of the public as was the expenses scandal. We all knew it was going on and still is. Liars and cheats don’t change their colours. And all parties were at it.

Whilst at the same time we can’t even defend our own country – forces that small that they are no use in defending ourselves whilst Starmer pretending to strut around on the world stage as if we are the big I am. We have put ourserves up as Russia’s no. 1 enemy and have provided much support/weapons/training to Ukraine – why/what for? We aren’t safer by helping a losing Ukraine – it puts us more at risk. Russia hates us. Who will defend us if Russia attacks us, apparently not the US anymore, who can blame them, and not the useless EU either? Trump is about right with our hopeless govt. and 2 small broken aircraft carriers – oh but don’t forget the 3 or 4 subs with a few nuclear warheads – bound to scare Russia to death no doubt! Talk about priorities all wrong – should look after our own country and people first and foremost – which other countries would actually help us in a crisis – not the French or EU (we’ve seen what NATO would be like without the US – simply doesn’t exist and they are flapping around like chickens now that they’ve realised they’re in the shit). Also US not likely to help us anymore and certainly not Ukraine if we were in a hole I don’t believe (and they weren’t in one).

I can’t see that many other countries are our “friends” either like Starmer seems to think. Middle Eastern countries, we are currently helping to defend aren’t really – they’d look after themselves. Saudi who are supposed to be an ally, but is a relationship based more on what they can get from us/the US (like advanced weapons systems) and is more of a friend to Russia than us – I mean who was it from the Saudi regime that was smirking and laughing with Putin after they murdered that western journalist in the embassy – only Bin Salman no less. Some friend huh!

Thank god Starmer and this govt will be naffed at the local elections although still nobody worthwhile to replace them. A useless load of incompetents.

@TA, et al

FWIW, I would highly recommend reading (cover to cover) a copy of Paul Johnson’s Follow the Money, see e.g. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Follow-Money-much-does-Britain/dp/1408714019
The crits from Peston, Kuenssberg et al are pretty bang on IMO.

IMO you need to be careful what you wish for re Dutch pensions, they are under-going sweeping changes as we speak.

@ Al Cam….Thanks for the tip, though I tend to stick to the real heavyweights like Andrew Neil and Andrew Marr for my political steer. To my mind, they offer a bit more depth than the likes of Kuenssberg and Peston when it comes to charting the nation’s direction.

Interesting shout on the Dutch pensions, too. It’s a classic case of the grass always looking greener. If even they are having to ditch their “guaranteed” payouts because they’ve become too expensive to sustain, it suggests there really are no safe harbours left—not even in the Netherlands. It seems they’re finding out the hard way that when the demographics shift, the “indomitable” promises of the past have to give way to market reality.

@TA
The PJ book IMO is a must read – but seems to have been somewhat overlooked. AFAICT, it was his swan song prior to leaving the IFS for IIRC an Oxbridge college Dean (or equivalent) position.
Re: “Do you know why they’re reforming?”
Not in great detail, but AFAICT @B has it about right – unaffordable. AIUI, they are moving away from DB towards CDC – and that includes all DB rights accrued to date too! This last point IMV is a real biggie, but …
The NL may well, in some circumstances, look enviously at UK DC – it absolutely has some advantages over DB. I am lucky to have both; although the DB on balance IMO is better. Alan Stocker did a rather good paper comparing DB and DC.

@B:
You caused me to look at my numbers again. Assuming I live to my current ONS life expectancy (LE) and my DB broadly keeps pace with inflation*, to LE including my extant DC win (which could be reversed before I reach LE by changing, say, ISA rules) and with pretty much everything revalued to 2026 £’s) and tax rates stay as is**, I will pay in income tax of the order of twice all the reliefs (income tax and NI) I received***. Pretty good investment by HMG IMO, not so different from a typical mortgage!

* I have capped indexation, but I also have some collars too
**mmm????
***everybody’s situation will be different (e.g. I took the full PCLS from my DC and a tiny tax free lump sum vs what I could have had from my DB), but that is my situation.

@TA
This is all very well but what the public really want is the S&S quarterly update. It’s 8 April already for heaven’s sake. 🙂

@ Al Cam……Fair play for running the numbers, Al Cam. It’s rare to hear someone describe themselves as a “pretty good investment” for the taxman, but it illustrates the point perfectly—the Treasury is the only house that always wins in the end.
You’ve essentially proved that even with our tax shelters, we’re mostly just deferred revenue in the eyes of the Chancellor. It makes you wonder why they are so aggressive with stealth taxes and dividend hikes if they’re already on track to double their money on us!
It also ties into your point about the Dutch reforms. The fact that they are unpicking “guaranteed” pensions already in payment to tether them back to the markets is a real biggie. It suggests that across Europe, the “indomitable” social contracts of the past are being fundamentally renegotiated mid-payout.
As TA says, we aren’t having an honest conversation about it here yet, but your arithmetic suggests the “honest” version is simply that we’re all just line items on a balance sheet. It’s a sobering bit of reality, even if it doesn’t make the mulch for the garden any cheaper!

@B et al,

I am not an actuary, but I am pretty sure that the governments actuaries will know the overall score. And, if they don’t, then they damn well should! I am not sure what the overall score is, but it is definitely, at least, a two-sided sum. I have never been able to locate any relevant official calculations – but the data that is occasionally presented (that compares this years reliefs given vs this years tax take from pensioners) is pretty disingenuous IMO.

Re the rescinding of Dutch DB schemes in payment – I have not been able to fully confirm how this is proceeding. I would hope that they are staring with the youngest, as (in general – but definitely not in all cases) they are probably most able to deal with the many potential fall outs.

Whilst a deferred member of my DB scheme I requested a transfer value pretty much every year, and even though some of them were truly eye-watering, I was never persuaded to go that route*. In part, this was because it was always an all or nothing choice. Had a part trade been available, then I might have chosen differently. To then age a few years and have such a thing thrust upon you as a fait accompli would, I imagine, would be pretty hard to deal with.

That the Dutch Pension system is/was in trouble is not really news, see e.g. from 2011:
https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/reports/2011/01/making-the-dutch-pension-system-less-vulnerable-to-financial-crises_g17a1f32/5kgkdgg5fxd3-en.pdf
but myths, legends, and other forms of misinformation do tend to linger.

*which may turn out to have been a mistake, but ….