Is the State Pension a benefit?

Grumpy_chap

The state pension is most definitely a benefit.
It differs from other benefits in that people actively expect to claim and plan their retirement on the assumption of the state pension being part of their income for that phase of their life.  For that reason, it is not in the category of "safety net" that other benefits may be considered as.  Most people try to avoid needing those "safety net" benefits.  Most people at some point in their life will fall on hard times and need some support from the "safety net".

Anyone receiving the state pension who does not consider it a benefit to them is free to donate the funds to charity, or to refuse to claim.

westv

flaneurs_lobster said:

westv said:

MX5huggy said:

Dustyevsky said:

In the 1960s there were people of pension age without sufficient contributions to gain a retirement pension, who flatly refused to accept National Assistance as it was known then, because it was a means tested benefit.

I doubt if there would be many thinking similarly today!

No it’s the same today 850,000 don’t claim Pension Credit about one third of those eligible. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-minister-urges-pensioners-to-check-eligibility-for-pension-credit-as-week-of-action-kicks-off

How easy is it to claim?

Have a go at the eligibility check and see for yourself

https://www.gov.uk/pension-credit-calculator

I wouldn't say it was easy nor difficult. What it is is detailed and involved, as you would expect for any eligibility check for benefit.

My point is, how many of the 850,000 have difficulty claiming and, if so, what steps are taken to ensure those that can claim feel able to claim.

hugheskevi

elsien said:

Same as child benefit, which despite being called a benefit is also not viewed in the same way.

And not just any benefit, but a means-tested benefit, the type which probably has the highest level of stigma attached.

Dustyevsky said:

In the 1960s there were people of pension age without sufficient contributions to gain a retirement pension, who flatly refused to accept National Assistance as it was known then, because it was a means tested benefit.

I doubt if there would be many thinking similarly today!

Such attitudes were still very prevalent until the 2000s - the Labour govt. had campaigns to change perceptions about claiming means-tested Pension Credit when it was introduced and significantly expanded the scope of means-tested benefits for pensioners.

I think such attitudes were more strongly associated with the generations before the baby-boomers, who generally as a cohort exhibit a much stronger sense of entitlement (ie WASPI, attitudes to Winter Fuel Payments, Triple Lock, lobbying, etc). Maybe it is because of a lifetime growing up under a Welfare State system, unlike their predecessors.

MX5huggy said:

Dustyevsky said:

In the 1960s there were people of pension age without sufficient contributions to gain a retirement pension, who flatly refused to accept National Assistance as it was known then, because it was a means tested benefit.

I doubt if there would be many thinking similarly today!

No it’s the same today 850,000 don’t claim Pension Credit about one third of those eligible. 

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-minister-urges-pensioners-to-check-eligibility-for-pension-credit-as-week-of-action-kicks-off

A lot of DWP research has shown that whilst there are large numbers not claiming their entitlement, mostly it is those who are only entitled to a very small amount who are not claiming - so it is probably more associated with not being perceived as worth the hassle of claiming than with a sense of morality. That is also possibly why the DWP article focuses so much on the value of a small award in opening up entitlement to other benefits.

cloud_dog

RG2015 said:

There was an article in the i over the weekend saying the following.

The state pension is a benefit – here’s why it’s important we say so

The notion that people collecting their state pension are simply taking back what they previously paid in is wrong

I did catch my eye and it does appear controversial but does it matter?

I was though wondering what others on here thought.

I did notice that the journalist looked about 12 years old from his photograph!

https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/pensions-and-retirement/state-pension-benefit-2788014

(stupidly) I actually read the article.  I can only agree with @SouthCoastBoy.  Perhaps it was a slow/no real news day.

Linton

RG2015 said:

There was an article in the i over the weekend saying the following.

The state pension is a benefit – here’s why it’s important we say so

The notion that people collecting their state pension are simply taking back what they previously paid in is wrong

I did catch my eye and it does appear controversial but does it matter?

I was though wondering what others on here thought.

I did notice that the journalist looked about 12 years old from his photograph!

https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/pensions-and-retirement/state-pension-benefit-2788014

Like all such questions the answer is that it depends on what you mean by "benefit".   WIthout defining the term it is impossible to say whether SP is a benefit or not.   If the key  criterion is that people are not "simply taking back what they previously pay in" perhaps one could argue that a DB pension is also a "benefit".

Grumpy_chap

Linton said:

perhaps one could argue that a DB pension is also a "benefit".

It is in the name "defined benefit" and really a massive great big benefit solid gold, diamond encrusted, cream, cherries, whistles and bells

pinnks

Linton said:

RG2015 said:

There was an article in the i over the weekend saying the following.

The state pension is a benefit – here’s why it’s important we say so

The notion that people collecting their state pension are simply taking back what they previously paid in is wrong

I did catch my eye and it does appear controversial but does it matter?

I was though wondering what others on here thought.

I did notice that the journalist looked about 12 years old from his photograph!

https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/pensions-and-retirement/state-pension-benefit-2788014

Like all such questions the answer is that it depends on what you mean by "benefit".   WIthout defining the term it is impossible to say whether SP is a benefit or not.   If the key  criterion is that people are not "simply taking back what they previously pay in" perhaps one could argue that a DB pension is also a "benefit".

I think the point is, that the SP is part of the benefits legislation and is defined as a benefit in S1 Pensions Act 2014, that introduced the new SP.  It is that context, I think, that the discussion arises.

"1 State pension

(1) This Part creates a benefit called state pension.

(2) A person who reaches pensionable age before 6 April 2016 is not entitled to benefits under this Part (but may be entitled to similar benefits under Part 2 of the Contributions and Benefits Act)."

Personally, I don't care what it's called as long as I get what I am entitled to, based on my NI record and that it hits my bank account like clockwork.

RG2015

Linton said:

RG2015 said:

There was an article in the i over the weekend saying the following.

The state pension is a benefit – here’s why it’s important we say so

The notion that people collecting their state pension are simply taking back what they previously paid in is wrong

I did catch my eye and it does appear controversial but does it matter?

I was though wondering what others on here thought.

I did notice that the journalist looked about 12 years old from his photograph!

https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/pensions-and-retirement/state-pension-benefit-2788014

Like all such questions the answer is that it depends on what you mean by "benefit".   WIthout defining the term it is impossible to say whether SP is a benefit or not.   If the key  criterion is that people are not "simply taking back what they previously pay in" perhaps one could argue that a DB pension is also a "benefit".

The Government response says that no offence was intended by the use of the term benefit. Therefore those starting the petition must regard it as pejorative.

The question goes a long way to demonstrating how easy it is to polarise opinions in our society.

Universidad

I think what's at play is that there are multiple similar meanings (and understandings)of the word "benefit" which are all being conflated.

"Benefits" as defined by the government are a class of payment, of which there are literally dozens, and the state pension is definitely one of them. 

The colloquial term to be "on benefits" is unreservedly a negative term, even if 1/3 of people claim one benefit or another at any given time. Whether it should be stigmatised or not is irrelevant: there is a stigma. However hypocritical it may be for a middle class parent or a pensioner to complain about people who are "on benefits" - there is nontheless a whole derisive conceptual framework hiding behind the term.

And then there are benefits outside of state provision. There's the "extra stuff" you get with your job. Private health insurance, a dental plan, a company car - these are "benefits". No stigma associated with these private benefits, of course. 

Then there's workplace pensions. A defined benefit pension is also a benefit - it's in the name. But it's not a state benefit. Except that most DB schemes these days are government backed - so maybe they are state benefits to some degree too?

norsefox said:

 many people take the view that the State Pension is theirs by virtue of having 'paid for it'. 

Those people are correct. Not in the sense of getting out what they put in, sure. But in the sense of having bought an entitlement to something? Absolutely they did, and the government all but states this outright when you look up your entitlement.

Many people have made voluntary contributions to fill in missing years. How could one argue they haven't paid for an entitlement to pension? For such people, having any part of their state pension taken away would be nothing less than fraud.

The key themes that I think are emotive for people in the discussion of whether the state pension is a benefit are:

1) Most benefits are like privileges. They're "perks". They're "help". They're a gift, even. They can be reduced or taken away. This should never be true of earned entitlements, like a pension.

2) People talk as if there not being a pot of money with your name on it means you're not owed something. That's not true, and the world would turn inside out in a day if it were. There isn't a (personal) pot of money behind any DB pension scheme, but do we think a 30 year member of USS, for example, can say their pension "is theirs by virtue of having 'paid for it'"? 

I think most of us would agree that the pension is yours, if you have paid into it. And we're smart enough to recognise that it may be funded by other means than direct contributions, but that there is nonetheless a lasting entitlement. 

So if we see the State Pension as just another government-backed defined benefit scheme, perhaps we can agree that it is a benefit, but also an entitlement, and one which should not be subject to dramatic reversal, future means testing, or capricious reduction.

We can call the State Pension any flavour of benefit you like, but people are entitled to the fruit of the promises that have been made to them, particularly when they have been paying to accrue/earn those benefits.

RG2015

Universidad

Kudos!

I believe that your treatise has bridged the divide with elegance and brevity.

If only we had more people in the world with your insight and ability.