@steber2.bsky.social
The least surprising announcement you'll hear all year.
November 26, 2025 at 1:03 PM
The least surprising announcement you'll hear all year.
A big win for all those over 65's with more than 12k p.a. of income they don't need to use now, but firmly plan to spend in its entirety within the next 3 or 4 years.
November 26, 2025 at 1:01 PM
A big win for all those over 65's with more than 12k p.a. of income they don't need to use now, but firmly plan to spend in its entirety within the next 3 or 4 years.
Looking ahead, those on the lowest / no earnings will be better off after retirement than they are before, given that significant gap in benefits' generosity.
You can also compare UK state pension provision for low earners to other countries; they compare more favourably than median earners.
You can also compare UK state pension provision for low earners to other countries; they compare more favourably than median earners.
November 20, 2025 at 5:28 PM
Looking ahead, those on the lowest / no earnings will be better off after retirement than they are before, given that significant gap in benefits' generosity.
You can also compare UK state pension provision for low earners to other countries; they compare more favourably than median earners.
You can also compare UK state pension provision for low earners to other countries; they compare more favourably than median earners.
For today's retirees? To understand if their benefits are too low (and should be prioritised for an increase), you can just compare them to working age benefits. Pensioners' benefits are much higher (even excluding SERPS); not a sensible priority for more Government spending.
November 20, 2025 at 5:26 PM
For today's retirees? To understand if their benefits are too low (and should be prioritised for an increase), you can just compare them to working age benefits. Pensioners' benefits are much higher (even excluding SERPS); not a sensible priority for more Government spending.
Is that from the same study? It doesn't seem to tie-in with the graph I shared.
The result for low-earners (which is most relevant for pensioner benefits discussions) is slightly above average in any case, so for simplicity "around average" seems about right.
The result for low-earners (which is most relevant for pensioner benefits discussions) is slightly above average in any case, so for simplicity "around average" seems about right.
November 17, 2025 at 5:36 PM
Is that from the same study? It doesn't seem to tie-in with the graph I shared.
The result for low-earners (which is most relevant for pensioner benefits discussions) is slightly above average in any case, so for simplicity "around average" seems about right.
The result for low-earners (which is most relevant for pensioner benefits discussions) is slightly above average in any case, so for simplicity "around average" seems about right.
If we find any new source of income, the priority is to use it to raise non-pensioner benefits, not pensioner benefits.
November 17, 2025 at 8:10 AM
If we find any new source of income, the priority is to use it to raise non-pensioner benefits, not pensioner benefits.
The first chart just shows state pensions provision between countries.
The second is whole-income. I completely agree that it's not the correct comparator for the state pension (it moves onto other points), which is non-pensioner benefits, which are much lower (hence no one likes raising SPA!).
The second is whole-income. I completely agree that it's not the correct comparator for the state pension (it moves onto other points), which is non-pensioner benefits, which are much lower (hence no one likes raising SPA!).
November 17, 2025 at 7:30 AM
The first chart just shows state pensions provision between countries.
The second is whole-income. I completely agree that it's not the correct comparator for the state pension (it moves onto other points), which is non-pensioner benefits, which are much lower (hence no one likes raising SPA!).
The second is whole-income. I completely agree that it's not the correct comparator for the state pension (it moves onto other points), which is non-pensioner benefits, which are much lower (hence no one likes raising SPA!).
Finally, you get to the question of Government's role. Is it to set average incomes? No, Government's role is to create a safety net. And the safety net for pensioners is currently much more generous than non-pensioners', so it's not a sensible priority for more Government spending.
November 17, 2025 at 7:28 AM
Finally, you get to the question of Government's role. Is it to set average incomes? No, Government's role is to create a safety net. And the safety net for pensioners is currently much more generous than non-pensioners', so it's not a sensible priority for more Government spending.
Which might seem confusing at first: whatever the exact figure, gross pensioner incomes are usually quoted as much lower than workers'. But;
1. They ignore implicit rental incomes from property (average pensioner owns their home outright).
2. They ignore the costs of raising children.
1. They ignore implicit rental incomes from property (average pensioner owns their home outright).
2. They ignore the costs of raising children.
November 17, 2025 at 7:26 AM
Which might seem confusing at first: whatever the exact figure, gross pensioner incomes are usually quoted as much lower than workers'. But;
1. They ignore implicit rental incomes from property (average pensioner owns their home outright).
2. They ignore the costs of raising children.
1. They ignore implicit rental incomes from property (average pensioner owns their home outright).
2. They ignore the costs of raising children.
Looks a little low vs other sources I've seen (eg this from the HBAI, as analysed by RF).
But the key point is that average non-pensioners are roughly as well off as average pensioners, but there's much fewer low-income pensioners than non-pensioners.
But the key point is that average non-pensioners are roughly as well off as average pensioners, but there's much fewer low-income pensioners than non-pensioners.
November 17, 2025 at 7:23 AM
Looks a little low vs other sources I've seen (eg this from the HBAI, as analysed by RF).
But the key point is that average non-pensioners are roughly as well off as average pensioners, but there's much fewer low-income pensioners than non-pensioners.
But the key point is that average non-pensioners are roughly as well off as average pensioners, but there's much fewer low-income pensioners than non-pensioners.
Many benefits' eligibility's already at a household not individual level. But it does reduces the savings from (and therefore the incentives to) merge households, so you might not want to reduce it "all the way".
Pensioner poverty's lower than non-pensioner, they're not a sensible priority.
Pensioner poverty's lower than non-pensioner, they're not a sensible priority.
November 17, 2025 at 7:10 AM
Many benefits' eligibility's already at a household not individual level. But it does reduces the savings from (and therefore the incentives to) merge households, so you might not want to reduce it "all the way".
Pensioner poverty's lower than non-pensioner, they're not a sensible priority.
Pensioner poverty's lower than non-pensioner, they're not a sensible priority.
Our state pension provision's mid-range vs other developed countries, higher than many Western European countries.
Not that higher is always better in these cases. The money needs to come from somewhere. So is the aim to eg raise pensioner benefits, and also pensioner-only taxes on the better off?
Not that higher is always better in these cases. The money needs to come from somewhere. So is the aim to eg raise pensioner benefits, and also pensioner-only taxes on the better off?
November 17, 2025 at 6:38 AM
Our state pension provision's mid-range vs other developed countries, higher than many Western European countries.
Not that higher is always better in these cases. The money needs to come from somewhere. So is the aim to eg raise pensioner benefits, and also pensioner-only taxes on the better off?
Not that higher is always better in these cases. The money needs to come from somewhere. So is the aim to eg raise pensioner benefits, and also pensioner-only taxes on the better off?
What do you think a "sensible" level is?
November 16, 2025 at 10:18 PM
What do you think a "sensible" level is?
They're significantly ahead of their non-pensioner equivalent. The priority is to align them, then we can decide what level we think that combined safety net should be set at.
November 16, 2025 at 10:18 PM
They're significantly ahead of their non-pensioner equivalent. The priority is to align them, then we can decide what level we think that combined safety net should be set at.
Our state pension provision's mid-range, our pensioners are better off than non-pensioners.
November 16, 2025 at 10:16 PM
Our state pension provision's mid-range, our pensioners are better off than non-pensioners.
UK state pension provision's mid-range, UK pensioners are better off than non-pensioners.
November 16, 2025 at 10:15 PM
UK state pension provision's mid-range, UK pensioners are better off than non-pensioners.
It's a really bad idea. Those on low incomes are already worse off before state pension age than after, widening that gap (and increasing pressure to raise state pension age faster due to affordability concerns) is a really bad idea.
November 16, 2025 at 10:14 PM
It's a really bad idea. Those on low incomes are already worse off before state pension age than after, widening that gap (and increasing pressure to raise state pension age faster due to affordability concerns) is a really bad idea.
Difficult to say why we haven't reached it a while ago (potentially around the time it was implemented).
November 16, 2025 at 10:05 PM
Difficult to say why we haven't reached it a while ago (potentially around the time it was implemented).
UK state pension provision's mid-range, UK pensioners are better off than non-pensioners.
November 16, 2025 at 10:02 PM
UK state pension provision's mid-range, UK pensioners are better off than non-pensioners.
That's not the case. People who try to pretend it is usually like to compare minimum UK pensioner incomes to maximum state pensions in other countries, or ignore opt-out'able UK state pension provision.
Make the right comparisons, and the UK's mid-range.
Make the right comparisons, and the UK's mid-range.
November 16, 2025 at 9:14 AM
That's not the case. People who try to pretend it is usually like to compare minimum UK pensioner incomes to maximum state pensions in other countries, or ignore opt-out'able UK state pension provision.
Make the right comparisons, and the UK's mid-range.
Make the right comparisons, and the UK's mid-range.
The key issue with pensioner benefits (including the state pension) is how much more generous they are than benefits for other age groups.
Close that gap, and most of these discussions disappear, replaced with a discussion on the right level for that combined safety net.
Close that gap, and most of these discussions disappear, replaced with a discussion on the right level for that combined safety net.
November 16, 2025 at 9:13 AM
The key issue with pensioner benefits (including the state pension) is how much more generous they are than benefits for other age groups.
Close that gap, and most of these discussions disappear, replaced with a discussion on the right level for that combined safety net.
Close that gap, and most of these discussions disappear, replaced with a discussion on the right level for that combined safety net.
The exact opposite is true. Pensioners in the UK are better off than non-pensioners, their benefits are made more generous each year (triple "lock" ratchet) while other benefits struggle to even maintain their generosity.
November 16, 2025 at 9:09 AM
The exact opposite is true. Pensioners in the UK are better off than non-pensioners, their benefits are made more generous each year (triple "lock" ratchet) while other benefits struggle to even maintain their generosity.
I assume not, things look quite different if you include the impact on benefits as well as taxes.
November 11, 2025 at 9:25 PM
I assume not, things look quite different if you include the impact on benefits as well as taxes.
I know it's even more complex, but it'd be great to have a version which looks at how much more (or less!) money people receive as they earn more.
I.e. including changes in benefits received, as well as changes in tax paid. It leads to some significantly different shapes.
I.e. including changes in benefits received, as well as changes in tax paid. It leads to some significantly different shapes.
November 11, 2025 at 9:23 PM
I know it's even more complex, but it'd be great to have a version which looks at how much more (or less!) money people receive as they earn more.
I.e. including changes in benefits received, as well as changes in tax paid. It leads to some significantly different shapes.
I.e. including changes in benefits received, as well as changes in tax paid. It leads to some significantly different shapes.
"Average incomes in retirement range from about £14,500 for a single pensioner, to nearer £31,000 for a couple (after housing costs)"
About the same as the country as a whole. Pensioners aren't especially cash-strapped, they have roughly the same incomes as everyone else.
About the same as the country as a whole. Pensioners aren't especially cash-strapped, they have roughly the same incomes as everyone else.
November 6, 2025 at 6:52 AM
"Average incomes in retirement range from about £14,500 for a single pensioner, to nearer £31,000 for a couple (after housing costs)"
About the same as the country as a whole. Pensioners aren't especially cash-strapped, they have roughly the same incomes as everyone else.
About the same as the country as a whole. Pensioners aren't especially cash-strapped, they have roughly the same incomes as everyone else.