Can we rely on the State pension in the future?

penwise

hugheskevi wrote: »

What do you mean by full State Pension? The current maximum is over £250 p/w, but full tends to be used as meaning only the £113 p/w Basic State Pension.

I mean the £ 148 ( or it's equivalent at my time of retirement)

hugheskevi

I mean the £ 148 ( or it's equivalent at my time of retirement)

In that case, given your age, I'd be very confident that you would receive at least that amount, but that it may have increased by something closer to CPI rather than average earnings.

If you were younger I would have much less confidence, but the political risk declines with proximity to State Pension age, and once past age 50 the risks start to fall off considerably (in my opinion). Although as seen my the recent State Pension age increases, you cannot be sure, so I'd also be factoring in the probability that you don't get it until age 68 or maybe even age 69.

brasso

princeofpounds wrote: »

The post-war generation and the baby boomers have awarded themselves pensions that have proved to be unaffordable given increasing longevity.

Oh, do stop this nonsense. A journalism-contrived 'generation' like the "post-war" or "boomer" or X / Y blah blah, are not individual people capable of making decisions for an entire future population.

I'm a member of that appalling boomer generation (it says here) and I've never awarded anything to my generation and never been asked to. Whatever oppressed generation you have allocated yourself membership of has also never been asked or been able to award themselves pensions or anything else.

Making laws at any point in history is the job of a government, not a "generation". Each administration, including those that apparently conspired to ruin your life, cover a wide range of ages, typically from mid-20s to 80+. They typically make laws that apply to people of all ages, not a particular generation.

The world changes. Sometimes laws are passed that seem like a great idea in one period, but a few decades later, turn out to have unforeseen consequences. No one passing laws to create the welfare state and improve the pension system back in the 40s and 50s could have predicted globalisation, immigration trends, population shifts, advances in healthcare and most of all, the remarkable increase in life expectancy.

When circumstances change, so must our behaviour and our collective rules, whether or not you feel that you will lose out compared to the old bloke next door, who has tried to do the best for himself and his family just like you do, and just like your own grandkids will do. Things are as they are. Instead of wondering who you can blame for your perceived wretched plight, why not spend that energy on working out what you can do that will improve your life and be in your family's best interests, and that won't unfairly hurt someone else's. That's all I've ever tried to do -- and I'm not a spokesperson for any arbitrary 'generation'.

Sorry for the rant, but this moaning about baby boomers stealing the bread from the mouths of Generation X, or whatever, drives me nuts.

Added:

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

No we haven't. I have never been consulted about my eventual state pension, and I have certainly never been in a position to "award" myself anything.

The level of state pension has been repeatedly confirmed by governments of all parties since the war. Presuming that at some time your own vote has contributed to this consensus, then you too have been party to this award.

Thank you very much.

Sorry, I should have read this before my own rambling rant.

saver861

SailorSam wrote: »

I'm 61 and have a small private pension pot, so that's one of the things i've started thinking about. I thought i may be better off cashing in my pension and getting a new kitchen and bathroom with the money It's getting towards the time i must look into it, but i agree about being annoyed with people who have never saved.

Well its not always people who have not saved - many have had misfortune etc. I understand your point, and unfortunately there will always be those who take advantage. I've known people who have saved only for their relatives to squander and fight over the assets.

Equally there are those who save but lead unhealthy lifestyles, ergo putting pressure on the NHS over those that lead healthy lifestyle. It is a merry-go-round argument.

For the reason you state, its less than likely means testing will suddenly be brought in on pensions. Simply those that had saved would plunder it and those that had not started would have no incentive to do so.

le_loup

saver861 wrote: »

Equally there are those who save but lead unhealthy lifestyles, ergo putting pressure on the NHS over those that lead healthy lifestyle.

......... but die earlier thus not collecting their state pension!

princeofpounds

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

No we haven't. I have never been consulted about my eventual state pension, and I have certainly never been in a position to "award" myself anything.

The level of state pension has been repeatedly confirmed by governments of all parties since the war. Presuming that at some time your own vote has contributed to this consensus, then you too have been party to this award.

Thank you very much.

Your 'consultation' is and was called voting.

I agree that there has been cross-party consensus.

I have also been party to this award, yes. It doesn't matter. It is not about you or me.

Whether you call it 'generations' or 'the government elected by the generations', it doesn't change the fact that the pension structure is not affordable, and it was created by the governments of that electorate. Beyond that, it's just a question of how specific you want that description to be.

Personally I happen to have no problem being brutally honest about what has happened, and I do not take personal offence at the idea that I or people of the relevant age may have had something to do with it

Every generation will make mistakes that need to be corrected by their descendants, and this just happens to be one of them.

I do not happen to believe that there is individual personal responsibility, if you think I am trying to imply that you are mistaken.

So taking personal offence is misplaced.

penwise

atush wrote: »

I am fairly confident that there will be a state pension of some kind, and of the kind now for you.

Your problem is not the SP but your private pension. Which obv you ate not paying enough into as you say it is not acceptable currently. The only way to make it acceptable (esp at age 60 when you wont be getting any SP) is to put in more now and going forwards.

And as you wont be having any SP, you will not only get 25% tax free, you will be able to draw up to your PA tax free each year.

It is not an acceptable amount on its own but it is with the maximum SP at 67 .
I will be saving to provide adequate money for the 7 (8 or 9) yrs until the SP clicks in.

penwise

hugheskevi wrote: »

In that case, given your age, I'd be very confident that you would receive at least that amount, but that it may have increased by something closer to CPI rather than average earnings.

If you were younger I would have much less confidence, but the political risk declines with proximity to State Pension age, and once past age 50 the risks start to fall off considerably (in my opinion). .

So my friend who is 46 might have more reason to be concerned

sparky6840

What do you mean by full State Pension? The current maximum is over £250 p/w, but full tends to be used as meaning only the £113 p/w Basic State Pension.


Please excuse me, what would someone have to be or do to receive £250.00 or over of State Pension p/w.
I'm due to retire in March and all my searches come up with £113.10 p/w

Archi_Bald

Some sort of state pension will probably with us for many decades but most people will probably aspire not to be reliant on it, certainly not solely.