This is total rubbish you do not automatically receive the State Pension , you have to put in a claim.

We are only talking about state pension and that means test already exists. It's called pension credit.

Hardly the oracle but Peter stringfellow, a lifelong Conservative voter, called the DSS (as was) after he turned 65 demanding they take back his state pension! Why does a millionaire need a state benefit he asked.

If you can answer that question I will deal with any sensible points you make.

A pension is paid for by working and is designed to support those who have retired.

Benefit is the exact opposite for many who have hardly worked a day.

The best part is that a reduction in state pensions would probably be used to fund layabouts.

Now that is Lefty.

I'm not Willo but still voted Conservative on the basis that there was no credible alternative and there was no way that I would vote for Smash the Gangs Starmer as I didn't consider him to be a credible alternative

OK then, as the expert, educate me. How is pension credit calculated? Is it means tested? If so, at what level? That is, is it based on a line designed to ensure that those below it have the minimum dignified life that an elderly person deserves.

If so, then that is the level I would set it at. The work has been done. And, to answer your question, I would not have basic state pension at all. It wouldn't exist. There would only be this benefit. It would have as its aim the lifting of retired people of limited means out of poverty. That is, what was always intended to be its purpose.

I may be a lone voice and this view is VERY unpopular, especially on this site where many posters receive this money and believe they are entitled (your word) to it. However, I think there has been mission creep on state pensions where its role has morphed from safety net (the clue is in the words national INSURANCE) to entitlement (Badger misdescribed it as an "annuity" to a transparent electoral bribe.

In a rapidly ageing population where the disposable income of the retired passed those of the workforce some years ago and then left it well behind, is it really appropriate to pay from a diminishing tax kitty somebody who has 2 houses, no dependents, no debts, a brand new car every 3 years and a dog, other than to retain their vote?

And this time, please don't get smart and tell me that these people have this wealth as they have worked hard all their life etc. I know that. I just fail to see the fiscal justification for the workforce having to add to it.

Like I said, I'm p1ssing in the wind. Pure electoral suicide.

this whole thread is rather depressing - let's knock the new govt on day 1 and get a right leaning pile on against anything Labour, however, this response is just pathetic.

So after 14 years when the Tories have behaved disgracefully, all public services are now broken and we are in a cost of living crisis, yet we are paying the highest tax rates since the 2nd world war to bring this down to immigration is so sad.

'Illegal' immigration accounts for c5% of all immigrants coming into the UK and the Rwanda scheme is so costly and will account for c1% of those who do come in i'm not sure how this can be considered a deterrent. Cameron had told us he would get net migration down to the tens of thousands about 10 years ago and failed miserably as has every Tory govt since.

I think Starmer has shown more statesmanship in 2 days than we have seen from the Tories in the last 10 years.
I'm not his biggest fan, but it is clear we now have a grown up running the country. Clearly the Mail and the Telegraph will never like him, but they let the likes of Boris and Sunak literally get away with murder.