Does the State Pension increase every year?

bostonerimus

The UK state pension will rise with inflation as long as you live in the UK or in a country with a reciprocal social security agreement. If you live in Australia it will not increase. 

Langtang

mgdavid said:

..... didn't have today's sense of entitlement and didn't splash the cash on consumer products. We made do with what we could get cheaply or for nothing, bought doer-upper houses, drove 10 year old cars and rarely went out on the town. 

I would be interested to know when people think things changed to the above? As a 58 year old, I feel that my generation were the ones who ruined things. I'm fortunate that I have "old-fashioned values" for want of a better phrase

sevenhills

bostonerimus said:

The UK state pension will rise with inflation as long as you live in the UK or in a country with a reciprocal social security agreement. If you live in Australia it will not increase. 

Not sure why you have quoted Australia. To qualify for a full Age Pension in Australia your assets must also be valued below a certain level. I cannot see UK voters agreeing with that policy.

Silvertabby

sevenhills said:

bostonerimus said:

The UK state pension will rise with inflation as long as you live in the UK or in a country with a reciprocal social security agreement. If you live in Australia it will not increase. 

Not sure why you have quoted Australia. To qualify for a full Age Pension in Australia your assets must also be valued below a certain level. I cannot see UK voters agreeing with that policy.

I believe I'm right in saying that the Australian State pension has always beens means tested.  I can't see any UK  political party slipping that one in now, and then surviving beyond the next general election.

JezR

Under the 1946 National Insurance Act pensions weren't paid at all, let alone increases, to people when they ceased living in the British Empire. The first relaxation was to pay pensions to those living in Ireland, and after that there were various bilaterals agreed with other countries. At that time there was no annual updating either.

xylophone

I believe I'm right in saying that the Australian State pension has always beens means tested.  I can't see any political party slipping that one in now, and then surviving beyond the next general election.

I know somebody who has lived in Oz for the past fifty years - she came over to visit the UK a couple of years back and we got  started talking about retirement provision - a spry late sixties, she was still working.

I was surprised that at her age she seemed to know virtually nothing about state pension ( I thought she'd be getting it!) until we  realised that we were both suffering from a misunderstanding that in each country the system would be roughly similar in respect of state provision!

She didn't know about non means testing for UK SP and I hadn't grasped that that there was full means testing for what the Australians call the Age Pension.

She seemed to think that "it was ever thus" in Oz and I've just had a quick Google - 

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2011/February/History_of_Australian_pensions 

At federation in 1901 the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Australia gave power to the Commonwealth Government to legislate for invalid and old-age pensions. A Royal Commission on Old-Age Pensions was conducted during 1905‐6 and legislation for both age and invalid pensions was passed in 1908 during the Deakin administration.

These pensions were unusual compared with other countries in that they were non-contributory (paid for through general revenue, rather than social insurance contributions), non-discretionary and means tested. This design has been the cornerstone for Australia’s social security system ever since.

and it seems she was right!

xylophone

Not sure why you have quoted Australia. To qualify for a full Age Pension in Australia your assets must also be valued below a certain level. I cannot see UK voters agreeing with that policy.

The poster was not making any comment on the Australian SP but rather on the fact that if as a person in receipt of a UK SP you emigrated to Australia,  thenceforwards you would not receive any increases on your UK SP.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2020/mar/14/frozen-pensions-australia

badmemory

To look at state pension from another point of view.   The gov went for triple lock because they were embarrassed to be the "poor man" of Europe.  I am hoping they will want to now show themselves as the "rich man" of non-Europe.  Can you imagine the european laughter if they decide they can now cut the increases in the state pension because we are no longer in europe?   Perhaps they should bring back the increases in contributions for the self employed that got shot down in flames as they now get the same pension for half the contributions.  These things are never as straightforward as they may seem.  I still worry about women who never worked after marriage as they mostly now get nothing unless they contributed for 10 years.

p00hsticks

badmemory said:

To look at state pension from another point of view.   The gov went for triple lock because they were embarrassed to be the "poor man" of Europe.  I am hoping they will want to now show themselves as the "rich man" of non-Europe.  Can you imagine the european laughter if they decide they can now cut the increases in the state pension because we are no longer in europe?   Perhaps they should bring back the increases in contributions for the self employed that got shot down in flames as they now get the same pension for half the contributions.  These things are never as straightforward as they may seem.  I still worry about women who never worked after marriage as they mostly now get nothing unless they contributed for 10 years.

People have to accept that higher benefits general mean higher taxes.

It's unrealistic to expect high benefits whilst paying low taxes . and to just compare headline pension provision in other countries in isolation without also looking at how those pensions are funded.

zagfles

p00hsticks said:

badmemory said:

To look at state pension from another point of view.   The gov went for triple lock because they were embarrassed to be the "poor man" of Europe.  I am hoping they will want to now show themselves as the "rich man" of non-Europe.  Can you imagine the european laughter if they decide they can now cut the increases in the state pension because we are no longer in europe?   Perhaps they should bring back the increases in contributions for the self employed that got shot down in flames as they now get the same pension for half the contributions.  These things are never as straightforward as they may seem.  I still worry about women who never worked after marriage as they mostly now get nothing unless they contributed for 10 years.

People have to accept that higher benefits general mean higher taxes.

It's unrealistic to expect high benefits whilst paying low taxes . and to just compare headline pension provision in other countries in isolation without also looking at how those pensions are funded.

The UK has low contributory benefits, but high means tested benefits, compared to most other European countries. So a single parent on a low income or not in employment would get a lot more in benefits in the UK than most other countries, but a pensioner who's worked and paid NI all their life would get a lot less.