Image shows an elder man in a turquoise shirt sitting at a wooden table, working on a laptop
The UK Parliament - not simply the current party of government, but the majority of the House of Commons - are, according to an unnamed whistleblower, and the I Paper of Thursday 16th April 2026, all in agreement that the UK State pension triple lock - the requirement that UK pensioners with at least 35 years' National Insurance contributions benefit from increases in the amount of pension they receive as a taxpayer-funded benefit rises each year by whichever is highest; inflation, average earnings, or 2.5% - needs to be reformed, but are equally all afraid to come out and talk about even the concept of reform, much less how it could look in practice.
UK State pension provision currently accounts for 55% of the UK welfare bill, at £146.1billion per year.
This is nearly double the £77billion pounds annually spent on supporting disabled people through State welfare - yet disabled peoples' access to necessary support gets discussed, disparaged, and dismantled at the drop of a hat - or the publication of a hostile newspaper headline, an arbitrary number of Tik Toks discussing disabling conditions, and the support disabled people living with them should be able to access, and how they can go about accessing that support.
Almost as much as the cost of the pensions triple lock, at an annual £145billion, is the cost of providing in-work benefits ("topping up" part-time, low-wage employment, provision of in-work support through PIP, funding "free" childcare), and welfare support intended to benefit children (but paid, by necessity, to parents.)
If disabled people, who have very limited ability to alter the reality of how their disability affects them, whilst often being at greatest risk of being in insecure, low-wage employment, whilst also facing costs able-bodied people, including older able-bodied people, do not, "just have to accept that these handouts can't go on", why do pensioners consistently get a free pass on shouldering some of the load of managing debt the UK government ran up without any citizens' consent, or even awareness?
. The mistaken belief that "our National Insurance pays for our pensions!" from pensioners, and that reforming the State pension would therefore amount to a form of theft.
In fact, subsequent generations' National Insurance contributions are what's paying for the current and rising crop of retirees to enjoy a seemingly sacrosanct State pension. The insistence on "35 qualifying years of National Insurance" makes it seem as though people are funding their own State pensions; however, simple logistics disprove this; if everyone who was benefitting from a State pension had "paid for it" with their own National Insurance contributions, it wouldn't be able to be linked to increases in anything - because the money to fund it wasn't a continuing income, but an historic reality. Pensioners would simply be getting increases (and, sometimes, decreases) based on the performance of whatever investment vehicles the government is using for National Insurance income.
. A societal "time-blindness" which sees immediate cries of "But they lived through a WAAAARRRR!!!!" every time any adjustment to pensioners' expectations is mooted
World War II - the last time Britain was explicitly attacked on the home front - ended in 1945. No one over the age of 81 was even alive at any stage of "a war people had to live through that brought immediate threat to civilian life."
As it is current generations are living through a very real threat of the de-stabilisation of, and potential outright destruction of, most of the world, courtesy of Donald Trump's neurotic grandstanding, and the inability of UK leaders to separate from America's madness.
Russia is carrying out targeted cyber attacks, disinformation programmes, and is invading UK waters containing underwater cables which service critical UK infrastructure.
We're facing repeated terrorist attacks, including the domestic terrorism of right-wing groups, and the sub-terrorism which results from breakdowns in social cohesion, including gang violence, and gender-based violence.
Trans and disabled people in the UK routinely face physical attacks in public, with several very prominent, very recent, murders of trans and disabled people, including the murder of Brianna Ghey, which was primarily orchestrated by a cisgender female perpetrator.
Generations who may never get to retire are living with our lives at very immediate threat right now. We are living through at least one war - some demographics are also facing "friendly fire" hostilities, as well as international threats. Meanwhile, many retirees did not, in fact, "live through" World War II.
. The over-reporting of pensioners living in poverty
In many cases, this is mostly owing to the costs of care, and housing costs for under-utilised properties.
In the case of care costs, the majority of these costs go to private companies, many of which are owned by individuals who are "non-domiciled" (non-doms) for tax purposes - meaning that, while they drain money from the UK exchequer through necessary support to individuals in affording what, thanks to declines in quality of older life in the UK, are increasingly becoming essential, though unaffordable, services, they do not pay tax in the UK - because a simple administrative "hack" means the UK government...just...accepts that they don't have to.
When you also consider that part-time contracts, low wages, and a systemic refusal to cover the true cost of vehicle mileage incurred through work contributes to care workers employed by these companies often needing in-work support through UK welfare payments, the cost of allowing these private companies to operate in the UK becomes even more obviously unaffordable.
Of course, no human being should be in actual poverty. Of course the State should be supporting anyone, of any age, to ensure they can afford the core necessities of life - if for no other reason than that this reduces costs to the NHS and social services, and therefore saves the exchequer money in the long run.
But when a considerable number of pensioners are taking multiple overseas holidays a year, are able to "generously" purchase cars and contribute to mortgage downpayments for grandchildren, are able to afford to keep on costly houses they are not fully utilising, questions need to be asked about equity, and the damage done, through the "gifts" of grandparents to their adult grandchildren, to the government's ability to accurately perceive how accessible milestones such as home ownership - which actually directly benefit the exchequer - are to the average person, and thus their ability to have informed conversations about what is and is not appropriate welfare support, and how welfare provision might be reformed, there does have to be a reality check; the UK government are very aggressive, through their pals in the mainstream media, about disabled people having holidays, and being able to live in suitable, decent housing, or run a car, if they're "benefit claimants"; equity would mean applying that same energy to anyone being supported by the State; which includes pensioners.
UK State pension provision currently accounts for 55% of the UK welfare bill, at £146.1billion per year.
This is nearly double the £77billion pounds annually spent on supporting disabled people through State welfare - yet disabled peoples' access to necessary support gets discussed, disparaged, and dismantled at the drop of a hat - or the publication of a hostile newspaper headline, an arbitrary number of Tik Toks discussing disabling conditions, and the support disabled people living with them should be able to access, and how they can go about accessing that support.
Almost as much as the cost of the pensions triple lock, at an annual £145billion, is the cost of providing in-work benefits ("topping up" part-time, low-wage employment, provision of in-work support through PIP, funding "free" childcare), and welfare support intended to benefit children (but paid, by necessity, to parents.)
If disabled people, who have very limited ability to alter the reality of how their disability affects them, whilst often being at greatest risk of being in insecure, low-wage employment, whilst also facing costs able-bodied people, including older able-bodied people, do not, "just have to accept that these handouts can't go on", why do pensioners consistently get a free pass on shouldering some of the load of managing debt the UK government ran up without any citizens' consent, or even awareness?
. The mistaken belief that "our National Insurance pays for our pensions!" from pensioners, and that reforming the State pension would therefore amount to a form of theft.
In fact, subsequent generations' National Insurance contributions are what's paying for the current and rising crop of retirees to enjoy a seemingly sacrosanct State pension. The insistence on "35 qualifying years of National Insurance" makes it seem as though people are funding their own State pensions; however, simple logistics disprove this; if everyone who was benefitting from a State pension had "paid for it" with their own National Insurance contributions, it wouldn't be able to be linked to increases in anything - because the money to fund it wasn't a continuing income, but an historic reality. Pensioners would simply be getting increases (and, sometimes, decreases) based on the performance of whatever investment vehicles the government is using for National Insurance income.
. A societal "time-blindness" which sees immediate cries of "But they lived through a WAAAARRRR!!!!" every time any adjustment to pensioners' expectations is mooted
World War II - the last time Britain was explicitly attacked on the home front - ended in 1945. No one over the age of 81 was even alive at any stage of "a war people had to live through that brought immediate threat to civilian life."
As it is current generations are living through a very real threat of the de-stabilisation of, and potential outright destruction of, most of the world, courtesy of Donald Trump's neurotic grandstanding, and the inability of UK leaders to separate from America's madness.
Russia is carrying out targeted cyber attacks, disinformation programmes, and is invading UK waters containing underwater cables which service critical UK infrastructure.
We're facing repeated terrorist attacks, including the domestic terrorism of right-wing groups, and the sub-terrorism which results from breakdowns in social cohesion, including gang violence, and gender-based violence.
Trans and disabled people in the UK routinely face physical attacks in public, with several very prominent, very recent, murders of trans and disabled people, including the murder of Brianna Ghey, which was primarily orchestrated by a cisgender female perpetrator.
Generations who may never get to retire are living with our lives at very immediate threat right now. We are living through at least one war - some demographics are also facing "friendly fire" hostilities, as well as international threats. Meanwhile, many retirees did not, in fact, "live through" World War II.
. The over-reporting of pensioners living in poverty
In many cases, this is mostly owing to the costs of care, and housing costs for under-utilised properties.
In the case of care costs, the majority of these costs go to private companies, many of which are owned by individuals who are "non-domiciled" (non-doms) for tax purposes - meaning that, while they drain money from the UK exchequer through necessary support to individuals in affording what, thanks to declines in quality of older life in the UK, are increasingly becoming essential, though unaffordable, services, they do not pay tax in the UK - because a simple administrative "hack" means the UK government...just...accepts that they don't have to.
When you also consider that part-time contracts, low wages, and a systemic refusal to cover the true cost of vehicle mileage incurred through work contributes to care workers employed by these companies often needing in-work support through UK welfare payments, the cost of allowing these private companies to operate in the UK becomes even more obviously unaffordable.
Of course, no human being should be in actual poverty. Of course the State should be supporting anyone, of any age, to ensure they can afford the core necessities of life - if for no other reason than that this reduces costs to the NHS and social services, and therefore saves the exchequer money in the long run.
But when a considerable number of pensioners are taking multiple overseas holidays a year, are able to "generously" purchase cars and contribute to mortgage downpayments for grandchildren, are able to afford to keep on costly houses they are not fully utilising, questions need to be asked about equity, and the damage done, through the "gifts" of grandparents to their adult grandchildren, to the government's ability to accurately perceive how accessible milestones such as home ownership - which actually directly benefit the exchequer - are to the average person, and thus their ability to have informed conversations about what is and is not appropriate welfare support, and how welfare provision might be reformed, there does have to be a reality check; the UK government are very aggressive, through their pals in the mainstream media, about disabled people having holidays, and being able to live in suitable, decent housing, or run a car, if they're "benefit claimants"; equity would mean applying that same energy to anyone being supported by the State; which includes pensioners.
What's the answer?
There's not one answer, but a package of several answers - individual answers which need to be applied as a package, in full:
1. Stop linking the State pension to inflation
By having any ability to link pensions to inflation, the government has no incentive to control inflation - inflation increasing means pensioners get more money, which is presented as an unequivocable "good thing"; as older people are more likely to vote, ensuring their income keeps increasing also benefits the incumbent government - very few people bite the hand that feeds them.
With State pensioners often benefiting from private businesses offering them discounts which are not available to disabled people, and low-wage workers receiving State support (which should be considered age discrimination...especially in the case of Iceland offering any over-60 10% off their shopping on a Tuesday, when many over-60s are actually working in very well-paid jobs...sometimes as well as claiming pension payouts...), pensioners are often not facing the same issue workers do; that the "inflation-linked" increase doesn't actually cover rises in the cost of living.
Pensioners also have the ability to reduce their travel costs, which working people don't - doesn't matter how much fuel or public transport fares have gone up, if you're under 65, you either have to go to work, or travel up to 3hrs a day looking for work (90mins each way is the standard Universal Credit requirement for job seekers.) With multiple businesses closing week on week, and increased house-building in unserved, isolated areas, without any commitment to even trying to attract businesses to those areas, and an enduring, rising hostility to, and therefore reduction of, full-time remote roles, the distances covered on the daily commute, or to search for work, are only increasing, bringing higher fuel and wear-and-tear costs.
Pensioners are typically not paying for their own care, where this is needed - this is often a cost burden carried by their adult children, who may also be having to support their adult children, who are facing a lack of sustainable, secure, full-time employment, and therefore struggling to meet even basic living costs. Again, this shields increases in the State pension from attacks from wider elements of the cost of living.
2. Base the State pension on income, not simply National Insurance contributions.
Why should a disabled person be penalised through a loss of housing support and Universal Credit, as well as potentially other State benefits, if they take a part-time job, which may be all they can manage, or a working single mother receiving Universal Credit top-up penalised if she receives a relatively small inheritance, why should people be actively prevented, if they receive State assistance, from even building up what is considered a "basic" emergency fund (3-6months' living costs), when those receiving the State pension can be working, drawing on as many private pensions as they like, enjoying investment income, potentially enjoying landlord income from rental property portfolios (and thus likely contributing to the cost burden of welfare payments made to support unaffordable private rental costs...) and not lose a single penny of their tax-payer-funded pension?
It is not the case that each generation "pays for their own State pension" - each generation's State pensions are being funded by the generations behind them. That's why there's a "pensions crisis" - because the UK currently has over 1million more unemployed people than there are available job vacancies.
Centring income as the qualifier for the State pension enables the government to drive up wages - through fines levied to low-wage employers, in recognition of the reality that underpaying workers places an unacceptable burden on the exchequer, and is unacceptable behaviour from individuals and organisations granted the privilege of doing business in the UK. This allows more people to invest and save for their own futures, to plan for their own retirement stability, to utilise private pension provision, which reduces the pensions burden of the exchequer, and frees money for necessary support for low income individuals, including pensioners in unavoidable poverty.
3. Fine companies who refuse to actively hire and appropriately accommodate disabled people, as well as those whose activities are suitable for fully remote work, but who refuse to allow it.
These unnecessary barriers create State dependence, but, currently, the "punishment" for that is handed to those already being punished by the existence of the barriers. Shifting the responsibility for reparations to the businesses who create the inequity in experience for working-age people compels businesses to be proactive in equity and accessibility.
Fully remote work gets more disabled people into the workforce.
Fully remote work gets more unpaid carers into the workforce.
Fully remote work gets more parents into the workforce.
Fully remote work reduces the healthcare and infrastructure costs associated with high numbers of vehicles on the roads, and high levels of pollution.
Fully remote work enables companies to be more efficient and productive - because work can be picked up when demand picks up, and workers released from "busy-work" and "presenteeism" when income-generating work drops off.
Fully remote work makes it more affordable for workers to accept part-time contracts, as they are able to accept multiple part-time remote roles, because they do not need to consider their commuting time.
There's not one answer, but a package of several answers - individual answers which need to be applied as a package, in full:
1. Stop linking the State pension to inflation
By having any ability to link pensions to inflation, the government has no incentive to control inflation - inflation increasing means pensioners get more money, which is presented as an unequivocable "good thing"; as older people are more likely to vote, ensuring their income keeps increasing also benefits the incumbent government - very few people bite the hand that feeds them.
With State pensioners often benefiting from private businesses offering them discounts which are not available to disabled people, and low-wage workers receiving State support (which should be considered age discrimination...especially in the case of Iceland offering any over-60 10% off their shopping on a Tuesday, when many over-60s are actually working in very well-paid jobs...sometimes as well as claiming pension payouts...), pensioners are often not facing the same issue workers do; that the "inflation-linked" increase doesn't actually cover rises in the cost of living.
Pensioners also have the ability to reduce their travel costs, which working people don't - doesn't matter how much fuel or public transport fares have gone up, if you're under 65, you either have to go to work, or travel up to 3hrs a day looking for work (90mins each way is the standard Universal Credit requirement for job seekers.) With multiple businesses closing week on week, and increased house-building in unserved, isolated areas, without any commitment to even trying to attract businesses to those areas, and an enduring, rising hostility to, and therefore reduction of, full-time remote roles, the distances covered on the daily commute, or to search for work, are only increasing, bringing higher fuel and wear-and-tear costs.
Pensioners are typically not paying for their own care, where this is needed - this is often a cost burden carried by their adult children, who may also be having to support their adult children, who are facing a lack of sustainable, secure, full-time employment, and therefore struggling to meet even basic living costs. Again, this shields increases in the State pension from attacks from wider elements of the cost of living.
2. Base the State pension on income, not simply National Insurance contributions.
Why should a disabled person be penalised through a loss of housing support and Universal Credit, as well as potentially other State benefits, if they take a part-time job, which may be all they can manage, or a working single mother receiving Universal Credit top-up penalised if she receives a relatively small inheritance, why should people be actively prevented, if they receive State assistance, from even building up what is considered a "basic" emergency fund (3-6months' living costs), when those receiving the State pension can be working, drawing on as many private pensions as they like, enjoying investment income, potentially enjoying landlord income from rental property portfolios (and thus likely contributing to the cost burden of welfare payments made to support unaffordable private rental costs...) and not lose a single penny of their tax-payer-funded pension?
It is not the case that each generation "pays for their own State pension" - each generation's State pensions are being funded by the generations behind them. That's why there's a "pensions crisis" - because the UK currently has over 1million more unemployed people than there are available job vacancies.
Centring income as the qualifier for the State pension enables the government to drive up wages - through fines levied to low-wage employers, in recognition of the reality that underpaying workers places an unacceptable burden on the exchequer, and is unacceptable behaviour from individuals and organisations granted the privilege of doing business in the UK. This allows more people to invest and save for their own futures, to plan for their own retirement stability, to utilise private pension provision, which reduces the pensions burden of the exchequer, and frees money for necessary support for low income individuals, including pensioners in unavoidable poverty.
3. Fine companies who refuse to actively hire and appropriately accommodate disabled people, as well as those whose activities are suitable for fully remote work, but who refuse to allow it.
These unnecessary barriers create State dependence, but, currently, the "punishment" for that is handed to those already being punished by the existence of the barriers. Shifting the responsibility for reparations to the businesses who create the inequity in experience for working-age people compels businesses to be proactive in equity and accessibility.
Fully remote work gets more disabled people into the workforce.
Fully remote work gets more unpaid carers into the workforce.
Fully remote work gets more parents into the workforce.
Fully remote work reduces the healthcare and infrastructure costs associated with high numbers of vehicles on the roads, and high levels of pollution.
Fully remote work enables companies to be more efficient and productive - because work can be picked up when demand picks up, and workers released from "busy-work" and "presenteeism" when income-generating work drops off.
Fully remote work makes it more affordable for workers to accept part-time contracts, as they are able to accept multiple part-time remote roles, because they do not need to consider their commuting time.
Fully remote work reduces rural poverty, once initial infrastructure investment to support it is made.
Increasing both the availability and positive attitudes towards remote work literally maximises potential benefit, and reduces costs which the State is expected to meet.
Increasing both the availability and positive attitudes towards remote work literally maximises potential benefit, and reduces costs which the State is expected to meet.
4. Require those seeking to claim the State pension to undergo the same kinds of assessments PIP claimants currently face, and the same assumption that they are "fit for work" that disabled Universal Credit claimants have levelled at them.
It is patently ridiculous that one group of people receiving State welfare have to face hostility and humiliation to "prove" that they are not physically or mentally able to earn an income sufficient to support themselves, while another group of people can claim significant amounts of State welfare whilst being well enough to travel regularly, work part-time, engage regularly in active social and leisure pursuits, without anyone in government so much as raising a critical eyebrow.
It is patently ridiculous that one group of people receiving State welfare have to face hostility and humiliation to "prove" that they are not physically or mentally able to earn an income sufficient to support themselves, while another group of people can claim significant amounts of State welfare whilst being well enough to travel regularly, work part-time, engage regularly in active social and leisure pursuits, without anyone in government so much as raising a critical eyebrow.
Bringing in a "fitness to work" element to State pension claimants would also reveal disaparities in health outcomes, and enable support to be appropriately targetted for those who genuinely need it.
5. Centre private pensions as the main source of retirement income.
This would increase wages paid to those in work, improve the employment rate of disabled people, and the retention of ageing workers, as companies would no longer be able to shrug, and assume that the State would simply pick up the slack of low wages, denial of flexibility and accessibility, and hostile attitudes to older workers, disabled workers, and workers with family care commitments.
It would also act as a brake to the cost of living, as retailers and service providers faced the reality that their prices had to compete with peoples' ability to provide for a reasonable retirement.
Investment firms would also be forced to become more intuitive and customer-focused, with lower barriers to entry for high-return investments, which would result in higher returns through corporation tax from these companies to the exchequer.
5. Centre private pensions as the main source of retirement income.
This would increase wages paid to those in work, improve the employment rate of disabled people, and the retention of ageing workers, as companies would no longer be able to shrug, and assume that the State would simply pick up the slack of low wages, denial of flexibility and accessibility, and hostile attitudes to older workers, disabled workers, and workers with family care commitments.
It would also act as a brake to the cost of living, as retailers and service providers faced the reality that their prices had to compete with peoples' ability to provide for a reasonable retirement.
Investment firms would also be forced to become more intuitive and customer-focused, with lower barriers to entry for high-return investments, which would result in higher returns through corporation tax from these companies to the exchequer.
Comments
Post a Comment