The BBC’s report on Gen Z “planning for life without a state pension” quotes Joel who says the state pension “just mathematically doesn’t make sense”. He’s right that something doesn’t add up, but the arithmetic that fails is not that of the state pension. It’s the arithmetic almost everyone has been taught about pensions in the first place.

We’re told to save for retirement. What we actually do is accumulate financial claims. Yet retirement itself is paid for by the goods and services other people produce when we’re old, and that’s true whichever pension scheme the money came from. Financial assets can be amassed over the decades. Retirement consumption cannot. Every pension system, public or private, rests on three things: that future workers produce enough, that society allocates an acceptable share of what they produce to people no longer producing it, and that whatever share retirees get is then divided among them somehow. Private pensions solve an individual saving problem, not the economy’s retirement problem: no financial asset can create the future goods and services retirees end up consuming. Treating the first as if it settles the second just adds investment risk and intermediation costs on top of a political problem it cannot escape.

Three questions, not one

  • Production: can the economy produce enough for both workers and retirees?
  • Allocation: how much of that output should go to retirees as a group?
  • Distribution: once that share is set, how does it get divided among individual pensioners, by rule, or by gamble?

Production and allocation come first. They determine the total share of the economy that retirees receive. Only once that has been settled does the question of distribution arise: how should that share be divided between individual pensioners? The state pension and private pensions are simply different answers to that final question. They don’t alter the size of the pension share; they only alter the mechanism used to divide it, and the cost of doing so.

Every pension is a transfer, not a stockpile

Build an enormous private pot, and at retirement it still has to turn into food, energy, housing and care, none of which are provided by a share certificate or a bond. It has to be produced, at the time of consumption, by somebody working. The pot holder sells the assets to someone using purchasing power generated in the contemporary economy; ownership of the claim changes hands, but the goods the pensioner consumes are still produced by people working at the time.

The stock market is not a time machine. It can transfer financial claims, but it cannot transfer today’s meals into the future. All a pension pot does is establish a claim on whatever the economy happens to be producing when the saver spends it. Asset markets can’t eliminate the underlying necessity: retirees consume current production, whatever markets do. All they determine is the price at which competing claims on that output are exchanged, which then decides how the total is split between individual holders: quietly, via prices, rather than openly, via a rule.

Which is the point most conventional pension debate misses entirely. Private pensions don’t replace the transfer from working-age people to retirees. They privatise it: the same handover of purchasing power, routed through forty years of asset trading instead of a flat weekly rule.

By rule, or by gamble

The state pension is a guaranteed outcome, and the purest version of that promise: £241.30 a week, uprated by the triple lock, paid to anyone with thirty-five qualifying years of National Insurance, for life, by the same flat rule to everyone who qualifies. Its real limits are production and allocation, not solvency: the economy has to produce enough, and the working population has to keep accepting, politically, that pensioners are entitled to that share.

A private pension makes no such promise. It answers the distribution question by gamble: the contribution goes in, and what comes out depends on the market. Final-salary schemes, which used to promise a guaranteed outcome in the private sector too, have been closed to new members for two decades because employers wouldn’t carry that risk themselves. What replaced them pushes all the risk onto the saver.

Every proposal on the table works the same way: shrink the half that distributes by rule, grow the half that distributes by gamble, and call it affordability. The article reports the Resolution Foundation’s case for scrapping the triple lock. That’s a change to distribution dressed up as an answer to production and allocation, since the pension share itself doesn’t shrink, only the cheap half of it does.

The Tony Blair Institute’s “Lifespan Fund” takes the same idea further. It caps total lifetime support at the equivalent of twenty years per person rather than paying for however long you live, so the effective retirement age rises automatically with life expectancy instead of being renegotiated politically. TBI’s own modelling says that this reform, together with scrapping the triple lock, would cut the cost of state pension provision by around a third by 2070. That’s not a production gain or an efficiency saving. It’s an allocation decision, less total lifetime support per person, wearing a solvency costume.

With all of these proposals the mechanism is identical. The rule-based share shrinks, and the resulting gap doesn’t close itself: people still need an income in retirement. Whatever the state no longer provides has to be bought, at a fee, from the private sector instead. The state pension is cheap and certain. A private pension is expensive and uncertain, and that difference, not any question of affordability, is what the rest of this debate turns on.

The casino

Strip away the marketing and private pensions are a forty-year investment process whose outcome is uncertain but whose fees are guaranteed. Investment risk sits with the saver throughout, worst of all in the years just before retirement, when a downturn leaves no time to recover. That’s the casino: the house has certainty, the customer does not.

It fits in a second sense too. The total retiree allocation is politically capped; someone still has to decide how that capped pool is split among individual claimants. National Insurance does it by rule, the same result for everyone who qualifies. The private system does it by gamble, pricing each saver’s claim against everyone else’s out of a pool that’s already capped, which means the pitch that “investing well means winning” can’t be true for the group as a whole. It’s the same pie, cut unevenly: the sad truth is that most end up with less so that a few can have more. What is guaranteed, win or lose, is the fee: a total annual charge of around 1%, compounded over a working life, can strip a third or more of the final pot compared with a zero-fee alternative.

The triple lock’s drift is a feature, not a flaw

The triple lock guarantees the state pension rises by whichever is highest of inflation, average earnings, or 2.5%. For much of the period since 2008, the 2.5% floor did the work; in 2026/27 strong earnings growth did. Either way, the effect is to gradually allocate more of the pension share by rule rather than by gamble.

That drift is good news for young people. The UK currently splits pension provision roughly 50/50 between rule and gamble. Most large continental European systems rely far more heavily on statutory or earnings-related public pensions, leaving a much smaller role for individually invested pots. Every uprating that nudges the UK toward that pattern moves a young saver’s eventual retirement further from forty years of investment risk and closer to a guarantee.

The private system’s pressure runs the other way, and it’s growing.

The private system wants to grow, and wants the competition gone

Fund managers and platforms earn a percentage of assets under management, so more money flowing into private pensions, and staying there longer, is revenue for the financial sector, regardless of outcomes. Nobody collects a fee on the state pension in the same way, and that single fact drives two behaviours. The first is growing the private pool: lobbying for more generous tax relief, higher default contribution rates, a narrative in which relying on the state pension looks naive. The second is removing the free, rule-based alternative altogether, since every pound that stays in the state pension is a pound the industry can never charge for.

When this excess growth runs into resistance from working-age taxpayers, it produces the political backlash you’d expect, a pushback against a pension share that’s grown too large. But the backlash lands on the wrong target. Private expansion is the actual cause. Yet the answer reached for is to shrink the state pension instead, on the grounds that it’s the “unaffordable” one. That punishes the best investment most people will ever make.

A better way: shrink the private share

If the pension share really has grown too large, the fix is to shrink the private share, not to means-test the state pension. Exactly how is a separate question: taxing private pension income harder, trimming the tax relief that inflates the pot in the first place, or scaling back compulsory contribution rates would all work, since each slows the pool the industry draws its fees from. Take tax as one example. Private pension contributions already attract relief at the saver’s marginal rate, so a pot large enough to count as excessive usually belongs to someone whose relief going in was worth more than an average saver’s. Recovering more of that through income tax when the pension is drawn just closes the loop on relief already given, through a system that already exists for the purpose. It needs no new bureaucracy.

Means-testing the state pension does the opposite: it treats the cheap, certain half of the system as the problem, and it comes with a poverty trap built in. Joel’s own suggested fix, raised in the article, is means-testing, and to his credit he flags the timing problem himself, warning it would be unfair if it “only applies to people in 50 years and not now.” But means-testing conflates two separate questions: should everyone get the same state pension, and should after-tax retirement income be more equal? The state pension already answers the first by paying everyone who qualifies the same amount. The tax system already answers the second. Layering a new assessment process on top of that, one that withdraws the state pension from someone precisely because they also saved privately, taxes them twice over: once in the consumption they gave up to save, again when the saving itself gets penalised. That’s the textbook poverty trap, and precisely the “fiendishly complex, highly intrusive” outcome Steve Webb warns about.

Why this argument is happening now

None of this would be an issue if the economy were growing fast enough for everyone’s slice to grow with it. Britain instead has a pincer: the number of pensioners is rising faster than the working-age population producing for them, while productivity growth has been close to flat since 2008. The gamble half adds to that squeeze rather than sitting outside it: every pound it takes in fees is a pound retirees never see again. Universal, unconditional benefits are reliably taken up by almost everyone entitled to them; means-tested ones are not, and the people who fall through that gap are disproportionately the poorest pensioners, not the wealthiest.

Joel’s sense that the numbers don’t add up, and Connor’s sense that the goalposts keep moving, are both fair readings of that constraint. Raising the pension age is a real allocation decision, working longer in exchange for more output. It’s usually dressed up as a question of affordability rather than a political choice about how much of a longer working life gets handed back as retirement. Weak productivity, not the triple lock, is why the pension share can’t simply expand to make everyone comfortable, and shrinking the cheapest, most certain part of the system won’t change that either. The up and coming generation feels shortchanged for a real reason. They’ve just been pointed at the wrong culprit.

What the debate is really about

The question was never whether today’s workers will accumulate enough financial assets. It’s whether tomorrow’s workers produce enough, and whether society allocates an adequate share of it to retirees. Once that share is set, there are only two ways to divide it: by transparent public rule, or by decades of investment risk whose fees are certain even when the outcome isn’t.

This isn’t a debate about funding pensions. It’s a debate about how we distribute current production. The triple lock is the best pension investment most young people will ever make. It’s time we started defending it on that basis.

Chat about this and any other MMT topics on Discord with the growing New Wayland community . New members can click this invite link which will add the server to your Discord account