Winter fuel payment

[chrisjones3]

As someone who is approaching retirement and does not need a winter fuel payment I have to say this seems eminently sensible to limit this to those truly in need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[hogthrob]

Worthy of discussion, but this is a thread for The Bear Pit. No politics in The George.

[chrisjones3]

I did debate that but considered it hardly political or contentious enough to be worthy of the depths of the bear pit. If I am wrong please skip on by and I will work to delete


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[noTAGlove]

As someone who is approaching retirement and does not need a winter fuel payment I have to say this seems eminently sensible to limit this to those truly in need.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My Mum has a private pension of £191 per month on top of her state pension. For that reason she is excluded from winter fuel payment.

£13k per year income and she lives by herself. She is deemed too wealthy for the winter fuel payment.

[chrisjones3]

My Mum has a private pension of £191 per month on top of her state pension. For that reason she is excluded from winter fuel payment.

£13k per year income and she lives by herself. She is deemed too wealthy for the winter fuel payment.

Harsh indeed. I didn’t consider the threshold margin where it is cut. Just my own situation where receiving it would not be impactful - perhaps they set the threshold just too low but paying wealthy pensioners an allowance they don’t need when there are those who do seems counterproductive - or at best poorly directed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[number2]

Harsh indeed. I didn’t consider the threshold margin where it is cut. Just my own situation where receiving it would not be impactful - perhaps they set the threshold just too low but paying wealthy pensioners an allowance they don’t need when there are those who do seems counterproductive - or at best poorly directed.

As above, the threshold needs revisiting, currently the revised ''winter fuel payment'' is unfair to many and a political own goal.

[blackal]

Martin Lewis offered a reasonable criteria- on a state pension and house below a certain council tax band.

He admitted that the idea would take some fine tuning but on the face of it - makes sense.

(Would need council tax bands/house values to be reassessed also)

[aa388]

Martin Lewis offered a reasonable criteria- on a state pension and house below a certain council tax band.

He admitted that the idea would take some fine tuning but on the face of it - makes sense.

(Would need council tax bands/house values to be reassessed also)

I think the whole council tax thing is wrong as it’s old figures and only takes the value into consideration, but get there good meaning. The so called poll tax is a far fairer way but you know what that did.
The other question that needs asking is what’s the cost to check if someone now is eligible for winter fuel payments rather than a blanket payment for all.


Sent from my iPhone using TZ-UK mobile app

[Mr Curta]

I have some considered views on this, but it is 100% a discussion for the BP.

[Passenger]

And that is part of the problem. People who are well off not realising that many who will lose it did actually need it.
It’s a poor policy and saves little compared to the amount being handed out to union friends on over £50k who apparently need a pay rise.

PMSL 50k´s nearly nothing in terms of living costs, especially including mortgage costs in GB nowadays, why iirc a public servant, Gov. Minister at that, publicly threw in the towel early this year, he was on over twice as much...this needs to go downstairs.

[oldoakknives]

PMSL 50k´s nearly nothing in terms of living costs, especially including mortgage costs in GB nowadays, why iirc a public servant, Gov. Minister at that, publicly threw in the towel early this year, he was on over twice as much...this needs to go downstairs.

“50k is nothing in terms of living costs” but £13k is enough to mean you don’t need the fuel allowance. Yes. Of course.

[oldoakknives]

Harsh indeed. I didn’t consider the threshold margin where it is cut. Just my own situation where receiving it would not be impactful - perhaps they set the threshold just too low but paying wealthy pensioners an allowance they don’t need when there are those who do seems counterproductive - or at best poorly directed.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And that is part of the problem. People who are well off not realising that many who will lose it did actually need it.

[Passenger]

“50k is nothing in terms of living costs” but £13k is enough to mean you don’t need the fuel allowance. Yes. Of course.

Well as we can probably chat numbers in a non political way...recent data asserts on living costs in the UK almost 30k is the bare minimum for a singleton to maintain a basic standard of living, for a couple with 2 kids it´s close to 80k...For the record No 13 k IMHO isn´t enough, at best life probably comes with a degree of precariousness, sacrifice I wouldn´t want in retirement, or for my parents to have. Though wanting and getting´s sometimes 2 different things.
But then we are where we are as a nation, one where even some on 120k now struggle to pay their mortgages!...My attempt at, I considered, a somewhat jocular point was to highlight Blighty´s gotten bloody pricey these last few years, and for anyone now on only average wages it´s likely become a bloody struggle and that éven´50k if you´ve a family, isn´t enough.

(A different chat on a different day with a different member threw up the notion that in our nation you´re in some respects better off with nowt as they can´t take that from you in taxes, care fees, etc than having a little bit diligently saved over a lifetime of work, taxes and sacrifice...which is another wrinkle in the setup.)

[monogroover]

As someone who is approaching retirement and does not need a winter fuel payment I have to say this seems eminently sensible to limit this to those truly in need.

Nothing to do with being sensible. Everything to do with finding money for the unions who've bought and paid for this government, and naturally want to see a handsome return on their investment from the Prime Minister in their pocket.

[Danstone]

Might be a strange thing to say but I think those on pension credit should have been targeted first. Mother in law is just above the threshold and will lose the fuel payment, sister in law is on pension credit and will keep it. The problem for me is that the sister in law, thanks to all the other savings and benefits that come with being on pension credit, is actually hundreds of pounds a month better off than the mother in law. Free dentistry, discounted council tax, heavily discounted tv and broadband packages, she even gets free Netflix! Whenever we’re all together and the conversation turns to bills the sister in laws answer is always “we don’t have to pay for that” or “we get that half price.” The companies offering these discounts won’t be doing it out of kindness, there will be payments from the government somewhere and the savings made by clamping down on this would probably be far in excess of those made from taking the fuel payment away from all.

[oldoakknives]

Well as we can probably chat numbers in a non political way...recent data asserts on living costs in the UK almost 30k is the bare minimum for a singleton to maintain a basic standard of living, for a couple with 2 kids it´s close to 80k...For the record No 13 k IMHO isn´t enough, at best life probably comes with a degree of precariousness, sacrifice I wouldn´t want in retirement, or for my parents to have. Though wanting and getting´s sometimes 2 different things.
But then we are where we are as a nation, one where even some on 120k now struggle to pay their mortgages!...My attempt at, I considered, a somewhat jocular point was to highlight Blighty´s gotten bloody pricey these last few years, and for anyone now on only average wages it´s likely become a bloody struggle and that éven´50k if you´ve a family, isn´t enough.

(A different chat on a different day with a different member threw up the notion that in our nation you´re in some respects better off with nowt as they can´t take that from you in taxes, care fees, etc than having a little bit diligently saved over a lifetime of work, taxes and sacrifice...which is another wrinkle in the setup.)

I wasn’t questioning your assertion that “50k´s nearly nothing in terms of living costs,” but pointing out that at the same time pensioners on £13k were deemed to be too well off to receive the fuel allowance. Both surely cannot be true.

[Ruggertech]

Well as we can probably chat numbers in a non political way...recent data asserts on living costs in the UK almost 30k is the bare minimum for a singleton to maintain a basic standard of living, for a couple with 2 kids it´s close to 80k...For the record No 13 k IMHO isn´t enough, at best life probably comes with a degree of precariousness, sacrifice I wouldn´t want in retirement, or for my parents to have. Though wanting and getting´s sometimes 2 different things.
But then we are where we are as a nation, one where even some on 120k now struggle to pay their mortgages!...My attempt at, I considered, a somewhat jocular point was to highlight Blighty´s gotten bloody pricey these last few years, and for anyone now on only average wages it´s likely become a bloody struggle and that éven´50k if you´ve a family, isn´t enough.

(A different chat on a different day with a different member threw up the notion that in our nation you´re in some respects better off with nowt as they can´t take that from you in taxes, care fees, etc than having a little bit diligently saved over a lifetime of work, taxes and sacrifice...which is another wrinkle in the setup.)

I can see how a singleton needs £30k compared to a pensioner needing £13k, even round my way you're looking at £1k a month rent for anything half decent, add in commuting etc and the sums add up.
But £120k and struggling is certainly not indicative of where we are as a nation P, maybe in central London, but anyone would live a very comfortable life on that money on most parts of the UK, unless they are an idiot of course and have overextended themselves or have very expensive habits.

[sprite1275]

My Mum has a private pension of £191 per month on top of her state pension. For that reason she is excluded from winter fuel payment.

£13k per year income and she lives by herself. She is deemed too wealthy for the winter fuel payment.

About the same as mum. I think she is also going to loose her single person council tax discount also.

[Passenger]

I can see how a singleton needs £30k compared to a pensioner needing £13k, even round my way you're looking at £1k a month rent for anything half decent, add in commuting etc and the sums add up.
But £120k and struggling is certainly not indicative of where we are as a nation P, maybe in central London, but anyone would live a very comfortable life on that money on most parts of the UK, unless they are an idiot of course and have overextended themselves or have very expensive habits.

Agree 6 figures you're doing well, I was aiming for a bit of hyperbole, satire, my bad.

[David_D]

Martin Lewis offered a reasonable criteria- on a state pension and house below a certain council tax band.

He admitted that the idea would take some fine tuning but on the face of it - makes sense.

(Would need council tax bands/house values to be reassessed also)

Sounds like that would create a complex (and no doubt costly) process out of all proportion to the amounts involved. The original proposal was supposed to be a cost saving measure. Just stick it on the state pension and tax payers will pay tax on it which would recoup a reasonable amount. People always say how low the UK state pension is so two birds with one stone.

[oldoakknives]

I can see how a singleton needs £30k compared to a pensioner needing £13k, even round my way you're looking at £1k a month rent for anything half decent, add in commuting etc and the sums add up.
But £120k and struggling is certainly not indicative of where we are as a nation P, maybe in central London, but anyone would live a very comfortable life on that money on most parts of the UK, unless they are an idiot of course and have overextended themselves or have very expensive habits.

Why would a ‘singleton’ need £17k more than a pensioner?
Many pensioners also have to rent their homes from private landlords because it’s almost impossible to get council/housing association homes nowadays. And £13k falls below the income level most private landlords demand to rent their properties.

[number2]

Might be a strange thing to say but I think those on pension credit should have been targeted first. Mother in law is just above the threshold and will lose the fuel payment, sister in law is on pension credit and will keep it. The problem for me is that the sister in law, thanks to all the other savings and benefits that come with being on pension credit, is actually hundreds of pounds a month better off than the mother in law. Free dentistry, discounted council tax, heavily discounted tv and broadband packages, she even gets free Netflix! Whenever we’re all together and the conversation turns to bills the sister in laws answer is always “we don’t have to pay for that” or “we get that half price.” The companies offering these discounts won’t be doing it out of kindness, there will be payments from the government somewhere and the savings made by clamping down on this would probably be far in excess of those made from taking the fuel payment away from all.

Subsidised car anyone?

Going on real world experiences, not everyone that gets really should.

[David_D]

I think she is also going to loose her single person council tax discount also.

Can’t see them pushing that through, surely? What’s the principle behind such a change?

[noTAGlove]

Might be a strange thing to say but I think those on pension credit should have been targeted first. Mother in law is just above the threshold and will lose the fuel payment, sister in law is on pension credit and will keep it. The problem for me is that the sister in law, thanks to all the other savings and benefits that come with being on pension credit, is actually hundreds of pounds a month better off than the mother in law. Free dentistry, discounted council tax, heavily discounted tv and broadband packages, she even gets free Netflix! Whenever we’re all together and the conversation turns to bills the sister in laws answer is always “we don’t have to pay for that” or “we get that half price.” The companies offering these discounts won’t be doing it out of kindness, there will be payments from the government somewhere and the savings made by clamping down on this would probably be far in excess of those made from taking the fuel payment away from all.

Spot on.

My Mums very small private pension excludes her from pension credit.

She would be a lot better off in retirement if she had saved up for nothing.

[Passenger]

Why would a ‘singleton’ need £17k more than a pensioner?
Many pensioners also have to rent their homes from private landlords because it’s almost impossible to get council/housing association homes nowadays. And £13k falls below the income level most private landlords demand to rent their properties.

A secure retirement so pension and/or other investments, Health/Care costs...many Brits now factoring in paying for some types of surgery privately rather than submitting to the long wait/ growing discomfort, so plausibly put aside money for future needs or buy health insurance it's cheaper when young, saving for a deposit to fulfil the ambition of home ownership eventually, marriage, kids one day, they ain't cheap!. The stuff beyond just existence and going to work. Guessing. I can see how some/ all of that could absorb 17 k, fairly readily.
(In fact looking back me and the wife would try hard to put away 2 or 3 k every month typically, once we'd got some roots down in London, moved on from the bar work/hospitality of the new arrival days).

[Ruggertech]

Why would a ‘singleton’ need £17k more than a pensioner?
Many pensioners also have to rent their homes from private landlords because it’s almost impossible to get council/housing association homes nowadays. And £13k falls below the income level most private landlords demand to rent their properties.

I'm adding £12k rental costs to £13k pension plus commuting costs and that's not far off Ian. I'm unsure what help non home owning pensioners get with rental costs but there's no way one on £13k a year pays £12k rent out of that, it would be simply impossible.

[uptheaddicks]

My Mum has a private pension of £191 per month on top of her state pension. For that reason she is excluded from winter fuel payment.

£13k per year income and she lives by herself. She is deemed too wealthy for the winter fuel payment.

If there is such a "black hole" to be filled then surely ending the payment of Child Allowance to those who do not need it would be far more effective.

[oldoakknives]

I'm adding £12k rental costs to £13k pension plus commuting costs and that's not far off Ian. I'm unsure what help non home owning pensioners get with rental costs but there's no way one on £13k a year pays £12k rent out of that, it would be simply impossible.

Maybe so but I'm betting there are pensioners paying private rents who are struggling. Taking the fuel allowance away seems unnecessarily vindictive to me, given the government can afford billions in foreign aid and pay rises for their mates. Most pensioners probably didn't vote for them so nothing to lose.

[oldoakknives]

Can’t see them pushing that through, surely? What’s the principle behind such a change?

Probably that most getting it wouldn't vote for them anyway.

[oldoakknives]

Spot on.

My Mums very small private pension excludes her from pension credit.

She would be a lot better off in retirement if she had saved up for nothing.

Unfortunately seems to be the case all too often these days.

[Ruggertech]

Maybe so but I'm betting there are pensioners paying private rents who are struggling. Taking the fuel allowance away seems unnecessarily vindictive to me, given the government can afford billions in foreign aid and pay rises for their mates. Most pensioners probably didn't vote for them so nothing to lose.

I broadly agree Ian, there are many many pensioners struggling for all sorts of reasons, and this punitive cut will affect 84% of those who are currently living below the poverty line (whether because of rent or other costs). But to say any more I would be straying too far into politics for the g&d.

[number2]

Maybe so but I'm betting there are pensioners paying private rents who are struggling. Taking the fuel allowance away seems unnecessarily vindictive to me, given the government can afford billions in foreign aid and pay rises for their mates. Most pensioners probably didn't vote for them so nothing to lose.

Hmmm I wonder how many pensioners bought their council houses and have subsequently fritterd it away? And your comment smacks of particular political party.

[oldoakknives]

Hmmm I wonder how many pensioners bought their council houses and have subsequently fritterd it away? And your comment smacks of particular political party.

Why do you ask that, do you have evidence that a lot did?
I wonder how many pensioners worked hard all their lives but didn't earn enough to pay into private pensions?

You obviously missed the other comments on here that smack of another political party. Or not.

[number2]

Why do you ask that, do you have evidence that a lot did?
I wonder how many pensioners worked hard all their lives but didn't earn enough to pay into private pensions?

You obviously missed the other comments on here that smack of another political party. Or not.

Thing is matey I've strayed into politics in the G&D before and I'm trying to avoid it, if I'm ever in your neck of the woods I'm stand you a pint to discuss, enjoy your Sunday.

[sprite1275]

Can’t see them pushing that through, surely? What’s the principle behind such a change?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/bmmagaz...-threat/%3famp

Rayner hasn't ruled it out. I think it might be labour don't like old people. Freeze them to death and starve them should take pressure off the NHS. Don't they have to pay for TV licence now? Bus passes will be next. Might as well go all in.

[David_D]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/bmmagaz...-threat/%3famp

Rayner hasn't ruled it out. I think it might be labour don't like old people. Freeze them to death and starve them should take pressure off the NHS. Don't they have to pay for TV licence now? Bus passes will be next. Might as well go all in.

Well good luck getting a second term if they try that!

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...ouseholds/2022

• The number of people living alone in the UK in 2022 was 8.3 million, this represents 13% of the household population and 30% of all households; the majority (53%) of these households were women living alone.

[P9CLY]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/bmmagaz...-threat/%3famp

Rayner hasn't ruled it out. I think it might be labour don't like old people. Freeze them to death and starve them should take pressure off the NHS. Don't they have to pay for TV licence now? Bus passes will be next. Might as well go all in.

Free prescriptions over 60 will definately be on their target.Probably start by introducing a set price and every budget increase it.
That will get rid of more of us pensioners who then have to decide if life is really worth living.Because it really wont be something many could afford imo.


Heating,eating or buying the drugs required to get thru their already tough existence.

But as all MPs like to say,they like to look after "The Hard Working People"....Do they,fine way of doing that!!.

[Pitfitter]

If there is such a "black hole" to be filled then surely ending the payment of Child Allowance to those who do not need it would be far more effective.

I suggested dumping it altogether, it’s a choice(in most cases)to have a child(or children) affording one should come into doing it, getting old -hopefully-comes to us all and not all are/were able to make provision for extra pension. We were in the pub and those shouting loudest about keeping it and dropping the two kid limit were parents- spending child benefit in the pub!
Perhaps old age pension should match minimum wage?

[Wimm]

I suggested dumping it altogether, it’s a choice(in most cases)to have a child(or children) affording one should come into doing it, getting old -hopefully-comes to us all and not all are/were able to make provision for extra pension. We were in the pub and those shouting loudest about keeping it and dropping the two kid limit were parents- spending child benefit in the pub!
Perhaps old age pension should match minimum wage?

The trouble is we need young people to work to pay the pensions. Fewer children means fewer workers in the future and less money going into the giant Ponzi scheme that is the state pension.

[oldoakknives]

Thing is matey I've strayed into politics in the G&D before and I'm trying to avoid it, if I'm ever in your neck of the woods I'm stand you a pint to discuss, enjoy your Sunday.

OK pal.

[Passenger]

The trouble is we need young people to work to pay the pensions. Fewer children means fewer workers in the future and less money going into the giant Ponzi scheme that is the state pension.

An inconvenient/ escapes many truth.

[oldoakknives]

The trouble is we need young people to work to pay the pensions. Fewer children means fewer workers in the future and less money going into the giant Ponzi scheme that is the state pension.

Why do people refer to the state pension as a 'Ponzi scheme'?

Does that mean that disability benefits, jobseekers allowance, child benefits etc are all Ponzi schemes? After all, they all depend on new people paying in, as there is no pot as such to pay out from. No revenue coming in would mean nothing to pay out.

The only difference I can see, is that people have to pay NI for a given period to qualify for a state pension, whereas there is no such qualification for the other 'benefits'.

So what would you call the benefits schemes that require no payments in at all, but allows payments to be given out, or 'doled' out, perhaps?

[hogthrob]

This may be helpful
https://www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment

Winter Fuel. Payment

Overview
If you were born before 23 September 1958 you could get either £200 or £300 to help you pay your heating bills for winter 2024 to 2025. This is known as a ‘Winter Fuel Payment’.

You may be eligible if you or your partner get certain benefits. If you are eligible, you’ll normally get the Winter Fuel Payment automatically.

You will not get the extra Pensioner Cost of Living Payment given in 2022 and 2023. It stopped in winter 2023

Eligibility
You can get a Winter Fuel Payment for Winter 2024 to 2025 if you were born before 23 September 1958.

You must also live in England or Wales and get one of the following:

Pension Credit
Universal Credit
income-related Employment and Support Allowance (ESA)
income-based Jobseeker’s Allowance (JSA)
Income Support
Child Tax Credit
Working Tax Credit
In some circumstances, you might be eligible if you live abroad.

When you will not be eligible
You will not be eligible if you:

live in Scotland
have been in hospital getting free treatment for more than a year
were in prison for the whole of the week of 16 to 22 September 2024
were living in a care home for the whole time from 24 June to 22 September 2024
If you live in a care home
You can get a Winter Fuel Payment if:

you get certain benefits and are eligible
you lived in a care home for less than 13 weeks including the week of 16 to 22 September 2024

How much you'll get
You’ll get a letter in October or November telling you how much Winter Fuel Payment you’ll get, if you’re eligible.

If you do not get a letter but think you are eligible, check if you need to make a claim.


How much you'll get

The amount you get is based on when you were born and your circumstances between 16 and 22 September 2024. This is called the ‘qualifying week’.

Any money you get is tax-free and will not affect your other benefits.

If you live alone
You’ll get either:

£200 if you were born between 23 September 1944 and 22 September 1958
£300 if you were born before 23 September 1944
If you live with someone
If you and your partner jointly claim any of the benefits, one of you will get a payment of either:

£200 if both of you were born between 23 September 1944 and 22 September 1958
£300 if one or both of you were born before 23 September 1944
You’ll be paid into the bank account your benefits are usually paid into.

If you live in a care home
If you’re eligible you’ll get either:

£200 if you were born between 23 September 1944 and 22 September 1958
£300 if you were born before 23 September 1944

[uwtc]

Why do people refer to the state pension as a 'Ponzi scheme'?

Does that mean that disability benefits, jobseekers allowance, child benefits etc are all Ponzi schemes? After all, they all depend on new people paying in, as there is no pot as such to pay out from. No revenue coming in would mean nothing to pay out.

Isn't that the definition of a Ponzi scheme? Perhaps we've given him an unfair rep!

[PhilipK]

Martin Lewis offered a reasonable criteria- on a state pension and house below a certain council tax band.

Imagine twins with identical earning capacity throughout their lives.

Twin 1 has been very financially responsible throughout his/her life, and has ended up owning a nice, and expensive house.

Twin 2 has spent most of his/her money on cocaine and hookers, and has ended up in a much cheaper house.

Martin Lewis's criteria would provide more support to Twin 2 than to Twin 1, which doesn't seem fair.

I'm not that far away from pensionable age, and I have no problem with the idea of benefits (whether it's Winter Fuel Payment, prescription charges, bus passes or whatever) being allocated according to NEED rather than to AGE - but there will always then be the issue of how you don't incentivise people to be fiscally irresponsible. If you know that you can spend all your money and the state will still take care of you, why would you save rather than spend?

[sprite1275]

Imagine twins with identical earning capacity throughout their lives.

Twin 1 has been very financially responsible throughout his/her life, and has ended up owning a nice, and expensive house.

Twin 2 has spent most of his/her money on cocaine and hookers, and has ended up in a much cheaper house.

Martin Lewis's criteria would provide more support to Twin 2 than to Twin 1, which doesn't seem fair.

I'm not that far away from pensionable age, and I have no problem with the idea of benefits (whether it's Winter Fuel Payment, prescription charges, bus passes or whatever) being allocated according to NEED rather than to AGE - but there will always then be the issue of how you don't incentivise people to be fiscally irresponsible. If you know that you can spend all your money and the state will still take care of you, why would you save rather than spend?

Can I ask why you always write in blue ?

[Wimm]

Why do people refer to the state pension as a 'Ponzi scheme'?

Does that mean that disability benefits, jobseekers allowance, child benefits etc are all Ponzi schemes? After all, they all depend on new people paying in, as there is no pot as such to pay out from. No revenue coming in would mean nothing to pay out.

The only difference I can see, is that people have to pay NI for a given period to qualify for a state pension, whereas there is no such qualification for the other 'benefits'.

So what would you call the benefits schemes that require no payments in at all, but allows payments to be given out, or 'doled' out, perhaps?

Fair question. To me there are two similarities between the state pension and a Ponzi scheme (although I only have a basic understanding of what a Ponzi scheme is so happy to be corrected)..

Firstly there is the impression that, if you have paid your NI contributions you will get back what you have paid in (I suspect there are still people who think there is a fund against their name which just drawn down against after they reach pensionable age). So you pay in on the promise you'll get money back at a later date.

Secondly the only people who may get money out of a Ponzi scheme are the ones towards the top of the pyramid. This money comes from the money paid by the people at the bottom of the pyramid. At some point it isn't possible for the base of the pyramid to expand enough to pay all of the people further up.

Other benefits are, as you say, "doled out" whether or not you have made any contributions.

[oldoakknives]

Fair question. To me there are two similarities between the state pension and a Ponzi scheme (although I only have a basic understanding of what a Ponzi scheme is so happy to be corrected)..

Firstly there is the impression that, if you have paid your NI contributions you will get back what you have paid in (I suspect there are still people who think there is a fund against their name which just drawn down against after they reach pensionable age). So you pay in on the promise you'll get money back at a later date.

Secondly the only people who may get money out of a Ponzi scheme are the ones towards the top of the pyramid. This money comes from the money paid by the people at the bottom of the pyramid. At some point it isn't possible for the base of the pyramid to expand enough to pay all of the people further up.

Other benefits are, as you say, "doled out" whether or not you have made any contributions.

I think you misunderstood my point. I understand the principle behind the Ponzi scheme.
I get that the pension scheme in the U.K. can be said to be based on that principle because people who have qualified by paying NI long enough are paid out from funds currently being paid in.

But other benefits are also being paid from funds currently being paid in. So they rely on people at the bottom of the pyramid paying in. So surely they are Ponzi schemes as well, but without the beneficiaries having to pay in!

It always feels to me that people referring to the pension as a Ponzi scheme are looking down their noses at it somewhat.
They wouldn’t dream of criticising people drawing benefits but feel ok saying ‘oh the state pension is just a Ponzi scheme you know, because it’s not your money it’s everyone else’s’ !

Well I paid NI and tax for 42 years, which helped to pay for all those drawing out benefits during that time, so Ponzi scheme or not I don’t feel guilty about having a state pension.

So when people say ‘but your state pension is just a Ponzi scheme you know’ I really couldn’t care less.

[Saint-Just]

I don’t think there is any reason to feel guilty about drawing a pension. The name Ponzi associated to it nowadays is a result of people realising that there are suddenly more and more people drawing it (baby boomers + next gen), for longer due to increase in life expectancy and that requires a constant increase in the size of the workforce needed that our reduced families cannot supply.

[mart broad]

Just briefly paid in NI for 49 yrs according DWP along with class 4 and tax as i was born before 1951 i get the old rate pension which is a whopping £9100.00 pa as i have a couple private pensions i do not qualify for any form of benefit.I look at people i know who have never saved and are on all sorts of benefits and in all honesty think who is the mug?