I started full-time work on 9 August 1971, just four days after turning 15.
On my first wage slip, I had earned too little to pay income tax. Nevertheless, 57 pence was immediately deducted for National Insurance.
That might not sound like much today, but it was part of my first-ever full-time wage. From the very beginning of my working life, I was contributing to the system.
I was told that National Insurance helped provide security when people were sick, unemployed or retired. The message was simple: contribute while you are working and the system will help support you when you need it.
I accepted that agreement and paid National Insurance continuously until I reached State Pension age.
More work meant larger contributions
Whenever I earned more money or worked overtime, my National Insurance and income-tax deductions increased.
I did not object. That was how the system operated.
Over the years, I accumulated enough qualifying years to receive the full State Pension. However, National Insurance did not stop being deducted once I had reached that point. It continued coming out of my wages for as long as I remained below State Pension age and liable to pay it.
I may therefore have contributed considerably more than a neighbour who also qualifies for the same full State Pension.
I do not object to that either.
National Insurance is a collective system, not an individual savings account with each person's name written on it. People contribute different amounts according to their earnings and circumstances, while the system supports people when they become eligible for help.
That is part of living in a civilised society.
When did pensioners become the problem?
What I object to is society accepting those contributions from people for forty, fifty or even more years, then describing them as greedy or burdensome when it is finally their turn to receive support.
Pensioners are increasingly discussed as though they have taken something that belongs to younger generations.
We hear that the State Pension is too expensive, that the triple lock is unfair and that working people are being forced to maintain a privileged generation of retirees.
There is a legitimate discussion to be had about how an ageing population should be supported and how future pensions should be funded. However, that discussion should not become an excuse to set one generation against another.
Most pensioners did not write the rules. We worked and contributed according to the system that successive governments put before us.
A benefit—but not a handout
One aspect that particularly frustrates me is hearing the State Pension repeatedly described simply as a “benefit.”
Technically, it is classified as a contributory social-security benefit. But when that word is used in public debate, the distinction between a contributory pension and other forms of financial support is often lost.
The State Pension can then be thrown into the same general category as unemployment-related benefits, creating the impression that pensioners are receiving a discretionary handout from the taxpayer.
I contributed to the State Pension system throughout my working life. My entitlement is based upon my National Insurance record and the qualifying years I accumulated.
That does not mean the money was placed in a personal savings account bearing my name. I understand that today's contributions finance today's pensions and other services.
Nevertheless, the contributory principle matters.
If I had not accumulated the required National Insurance record, I would not have qualified for the full State Pension. People can even pay voluntary National Insurance contributions to fill gaps in their records and improve their pension entitlement.
There is nothing shameful about receiving any support to which somebody is genuinely entitled—including help during unemployment, illness or disability. Those systems exist for good reasons.
I am not asking for charity. I am receiving a contributory State Pension under the system whose rules I followed throughout my working life.
How political language has encouraged resentment
Politicians across the political spectrum have helped create this negativity.
They repeatedly tell us that the welfare bill is enormous and that pensioners account for a large proportion of it.
In a strictly accounting sense, that is true. In 2025–26, around 55% of social-security expenditure in Great Britain was directed towards pensioners. The State Pension alone was forecast to cost £146.1 billion.
But presenting the figures in that way, without proper explanation, creates a particular impression.
It makes it sound as though pensioners are consuming more than half of a fund intended to help people in genuine difficulty. The State Pension becomes mixed into one enormous “welfare bill” alongside unemployment support, housing assistance, disability payments and numerous other forms of help.
Of course the total is large. It is being paid to an entire retired population every week of the year.
The National Health Service also costs an enormous amount because it serves millions of people. Schools cost billions because they educate a whole generation. Quoting the total cost does not, by itself, prove that the amount received by each individual is excessive.
The same principle applies to the State Pension.
The full new State Pension is £241.30 a week. That is not a fortune simply because the national total contains a large number of zeros.
A government is entitled to discuss the affordability of the State Pension. Indeed, it has a duty to plan for it. But it should describe the issue honestly: Britain has an ageing population, and honouring contributory pension entitlements for millions of retired people costs a considerable amount of money.
That is very different from suggesting pensioners are responsible for an out-of-control benefits culture. One encourages a serious debate about funding and demographics. The other encourages one generation to blame another.
What the triple lock actually does
The State Pension triple lock has operated since 2011, apart from a temporary suspension during the 2022–23 financial year.
It normally increases the basic and new State Pensions each year according to whichever is highest: average earnings growth, inflation or 2.5%.
Critics sometimes describe this as though pensioners receive an enormous annual bonus. They do not.
The triple lock is intended to prevent the State Pension from falling behind both wages and the rising cost of living. It offers protection against the gradual erosion of its value.
£241.30: the full new State Pension per week.
£444.85: 35 hours at the £12.71 minimum wage.
The full new State Pension is therefore only about 54% of that minimum weekly wage.
That does not suggest that the triple lock has made pensioners wealthy. It suggests that it has prevented an already modest pension from steadily losing its relative value.
Not every pensioner receives the full amount
It is also important to remember that £241.30 is the full rate of the new State Pension. Not everybody receives that amount.
What someone receives depends upon their National Insurance record and individual circumstances. Some people are covered by the older basic State Pension system, whose full weekly rate is lower.
Even among those receiving the full new pension, circumstances differ enormously.
Some pensioners have workplace pensions, savings and mortgage-free homes. Others depend heavily upon the State Pension and perhaps Pension Credit. Some live alone, pay rent or face considerable heating, care and disability-related costs.
The word “pensioner” describes an age group—not a single financial condition.
If additional help needs to be better targeted towards those who genuinely require it, we can discuss that. But portraying pensioners collectively as wealthy or greedy is neither fair nor accurate.
Younger people have genuine problems
I readily accept that younger workers face serious financial pressures.
Housing is expensive. Rents have risen. Secure employment can be difficult to find. Many people struggle to save a deposit, raise children or build a private pension while meeting today's living costs.
Those concerns are real and should not be dismissed.
But they were not created by somebody receiving £241.30 a week in State Pension.
Reducing an elderly person's income will not automatically reduce a young person's rent. It will not increase wages, build affordable homes or provide secure employment.
Taking support away from one struggling generation does not solve the problems facing another. It merely creates two struggling generations.
A promise between generations
The State Pension has never been a personal investment fund containing all the money an individual paid during their working life. Today's National Insurance contributions help finance today's pensions and other services.
When I was working, my contributions helped support the pensioners of that time. Today's workers are helping to support my generation. If the social agreement continues, tomorrow's workers will support them when they retire.
That is why the system depends upon trust between generations.
It also means governments have a responsibility to plan honestly for demographic change, employment, productivity and the future tax base. They cannot spend decades accepting contributions and promising security, then act surprised when people live long enough to claim their pensions.
We can discuss affordability without attacking people
I am not arguing that the State Pension can never be changed or that its cost should never be examined.
No responsible person can pretend that public finances are unlimited. The pension system must remain affordable for future generations as well as current pensioners.
However, reform requires honesty, evidence and long-term planning. It should not begin by portraying pensioners as the enemy.
We should be able to ask serious questions:
- How should the State Pension be funded as the population ages?
- How can younger workers be helped to build adequate pensions of their own?
- How do we protect pensioners who depend almost entirely upon the State?
- How can governments encourage secure employment and higher wages, creating the contributions needed to sustain the system?
- How much notice should people receive before pension rules or retirement ages change?
Those are legitimate questions.
“Pensioners are greedy” is not a serious answer to any of them.
We followed the rules
I began paying National Insurance at 15 and continued contributing throughout my working life until I reached State Pension age.
I paid according to the rules. Millions of other pensioners did the same.
We did not demand that every penny be returned to us personally. We understood that our contributions also supported people who were ill, unemployed, disabled or already retired.
Now that we receive the State Pension, we are not taking an undeserved handout. We are receiving support under the same collective system into which we contributed for decades.
We can debate how that system should operate in the future. We can acknowledge the pressures facing younger generations and seek fair solutions.
But we should do so without resentment, insults or attempts to make pensioners feel guilty for growing old.
We paid according to the rules throughout our working lives, and now we receive according to those same rules. That is not greed. It is the social agreement we were asked to trust.
Figures and rates are correct for 2026–27. Sources include GOV.UK and the House of Commons Library.