Tell the young the truth: they won’t get a state pension

When Mr Asquith created the pension plan for elderly individuals, starting in January 1, 1909, it amounted to five shillings per week (which is less than £30 in today's currency) and was exclusively provided to those aged 70 or older. Back then, the typical life expectancy for men was 48 years, and for women, it was 52 years. In the previous year, the overall cost of pensions reached £110 billion, and by 2025, it could potentially increase to £135 billion. This amount would surpass the combined spending on defense, education, and the Home Office.

The increasing invoice is partially due to extended lifespan (males now survive until 79 and females until 81), but it is also influenced by the increase in actual worth (the primary solitary state pension is now £203.85) and the "triple lock" that guarantees the pension increases by the highest of inflation, yearly wage increments, or 2.5 percent. This year, the increase surpassed 10 percent. It is impractical and cannot be sustained.

Maybe the recognition of that fact prompted 30 percent of participants in a recent survey to express skepticism about the future existence of the state pension in three decades. Numerous individuals also indicated doubts about retiring before their 70s, or even retiring at all. If this holds true – which is highly plausible – it further adds to the struggles faced by the current generation of individuals in their 20s and 30s.

Currently, they receive meager wages, frequently lack the means to consider becoming homeowners, and their most viable option when it comes to finances is depend on support from their more prosperous parents or patiently wait for their inheritance - assuming it hasn't been completely taken by the government.

If the gloomy outlook for pensions in the future is reasonable, then it is not only the current administration but also those who hope to lead in the future who need to be honest with the younger population on this matter. Since the current system is not sustainable, the government should carefully consider how they will financially support the elderly individuals in their 20s and 30s to prevent a situation reminiscent of the workhouses from occurring again.

This might necessitate stronger tax benefits to motivate individuals to make payments towards private retirement plans; and it mandates the restructuring of the National Insurance system, where contributions are theoretically expected to be tied to pension qualifications.

The funds to give rewards to those who won't experience the kindness of the government in their own old age must be sourced from the cohort that has profited greatly from it.

This indicates the conclusion of the triple lock and the alarming pace at which state pensions increase, leading to financial insolvency. It potentially involves reducing the state pension for individuals who possess private savings and considerable assets, particularly homes that have experienced substantial growth in property values over several years.

The Government tries to defend the current system by claiming it is "safeguarding the elderly". However, a growing segment of older individuals and those approaching retirement age do not require such safeguards, as they are fully capable of looking after themselves.

Many senior citizens find it difficult to provide themselves with food and keep their houses warm. It is only fair in a kind-hearted society that those who are less fortunate deserve assistance from the government. However, the government's support towards the elderly seems unfair and unbalanced, as some of it should be directed towards enhancing the opportunities and circumstances of the younger generation who are facing difficulties.

Alternatively, the individuals in their 70s during the 2060s will be just as susceptible to harm as their predecessors from the Victorian era.