How long until the UK's Universal State Pension Ends...?
Rachel Reeves's eleventh-hour u-turn on the winter fuel allowance brought to the forefront a question avoided by so many British politicians for too long: should the state pension be means-tested? While the temporary adjustment only concerns one specific benefit, it paves the way for far more profound and contentious question — how sustainable is the idea of a universal state pension in the long term?
The current state pension system in the UK is built on a simple principle: if you've paid into the system through National Insurance, you get the full pension, regardless of your income or wealth when you retire. It is a principle of equity and predictability, established well over a hundred years ago in 1909. But as public spending on pensioners soars — set to cost £180 billion annually by 2029 — the question of affordability cannot be ignored.
Labour's suggestion that it may reconsider the winter fuel allowance for more affluent pensioners may be the first indication of a more general shift in mood. If it is acceptable to means-test one, why not others? Already Australia, Canada, and Chile means-test their pensions. There's plain sense: public funds should be available to those who need them, not to pensioners with private incomes enough to live in comfort or with substantial assets.
But the political price is steep. The British electorate, especially older voters, is deeply invested in the idea of a universal pension. When Tory chief Kemi Badenoch suggested the possibility of means-testing this year, the backlash was swift and brutal. But now that Labour is also floating similar ideas tentatively, there's growing recognition that unpleasant decisions may be required sooner rather than later.
Means-testing backers argue that it is the only fair and fiscally responsible path. The country is facing massive budgetary constraints, not just in pensions but also in the NHS, social care, and going green. With the population ageing, it is increasingly difficult to continue to operate a generous, universal pension for all pensioners without either cutting down on other services or significantly raising taxes.
Critics maintain, though, that means-testing would undermine the very foundation of the welfare state. It would be bureaucratic, deter people from saving, and destroy public confidence. There is also the risk that overly targeted benefits would stigmatise — something universal schemes avoid doing.
Labour advisers, economists, and think tanks increasingly appear to be of one mind: the current system may no longer be of use. And while neither of the large parties has yet floated the idea of completely scrapping the universal state pension, groundwork is certainly being laid for change. The winter fuel allowance U-turn might be the peak of only the beginning.
In the end, this is a conversation Britain can’t afford to postpone. Like it or not, the age of the universal state pension may be drawing to a close — not out of ideology, but out of economic necessity. Whether that transition is handled with fairness and foresight remains to be seen.
Posted Using INLEO
I was having this discussion only today with a financial adviser. One of the things he noted was the change in language: pensions have not previously been referred to as a benefit but an entitlement that people have contributed to throughout their working lives.
Life expectancy has increased from roughly 13 years to 33 years post-retirement, plus we have a larger cohort right now as baby boomers move through pensionable age, combined with the health effects of late capitalism - diabetes and dementia most costly among them - of which contributing factors of air pollution and industrial (ultra processed) foods, exacerbated through poverty, cannot be resolved entirely through individual lifestyle changes.
A means-tested pension might be a false economy in those circumstances and lead to greater demands on the public purse. Never mind the expense of further state intervention in people's lives.
The birthrate falls after the baby boomers and, in line with the rest of Europe, continues to decline after that so, although an issue, it is a passing one. Raising the retirement age seems more sensible, together with much better financial literacy as part of secondary education and opting out options for pension planning.
Edit to update: This commentary says their analysis shows that the winter fuel and welfare reform fandangos have cost the government more than if they had done nothing.
It really isn't sustainable, anyone can see it, add to that social care too, the whole system needs a radical rebalancing but no one's prepared to pay for it. A lot of people are set for a miserable final decade or so, and those numbers are stacking year on year. There's no chance of this being sorted, not by the this government, then we go right for another decade. We are stuffed.
It seems there are about 1,028,000 people in receipt of UK state pension who are paying higher rate tax: setting the bar there would save approximately £12 billion a year and fairly low-cost to implement through HMRC rather than DWP. How much do we need to save?
I guess the amount we need to save is a moving target - that's a lot of people with massive pensions!
$12 bn is a pretty good start!
I'm disappointed with this government. They made a good start and have achieved some things, but their clumsiness, lack of vision and poor communication is appalling.
https://www.reddit.com/r/antiwork/comments/1lr2eal/how_long_until_the_uks_universal_state_pension/
This post has been shared on Reddit by @stekene through the HivePosh initiative.
I have just started collecting my Canadian pension and I'm not expecting it last another 12 years after contributing for 30 years. It just makes me mad seeing my Federal representative entitles himself to a $2+ million pension serving a minimum of 7 years.
The rich are always gonna feather their own nests. Isn't yr pension guaranteed for life..?
Yes they are, but I think my life will be much shorter than I'd like considering that I was injured by the Covid Vaccine. I was much healthier before I was forced to take it or lose my job. My health had gone downhill since.
Anyone who doesn't make provision for their later years gets what they deserve to be honest, people can either make the right choice and save from an early age or piss their money up the wall on a weekend. it only needs to start small and increase through the working decades. putting the age higher up before one can claim state pension is the wrong wy about it, just delaying the inevitable.
I imagine they'll set the bar quite high so the people who lose out are precisely the people who have made provisions for their retirement!
Roll on the autumn statement!!!!!