Guardian readers have responded to an article by Zoe Williams on intergenerational inequality, arguing that the UK pension system is both unfair and financially unsustainable. The letters highlight concerns over public-sector defined-benefit (DB) pension schemes, which place significant pressure on public finances.
Professor Stephen Caddick from West Sussex notes that public-sector DB schemes typically require employer contributions of over 25%, compared to 3-8% in private-sector defined-contribution (DC) schemes. Total inflows from public-sector pensions are around £50bn per year, funded directly by taxpayers, with an additional £5bn needed from the Treasury to cover the £55bn bill for pensions in payment, often index-linked to RPI.
Caddick also points out that many public-sector schemes are unfunded, creating a potentially unlimited liability for future taxpayers, estimated at over £1tn. About 85% of under-30s work in the private sector and will not benefit from these schemes, yet they will likely foot the bill for decades. He calls for greater transparency on the full economic cost of unfunded public-sector pensions and their impact on intergenerational equity.
Mike Pender from Cardiff adds that the state pension alone is forecast to cost £146bn for 2025-26, and that the triple lock makes this expenditure unsustainable. He suggests replacing it with a double lock linked to inflation or earnings, whichever is higher, as advocated by the Social Market Foundation.
Alan Gough from Manchester argues that the state pension is not a benefit but has been paid for by recipients throughout their working lives. He notes that those without additional private provision often need to claim benefits, and that UK state pension levels are low compared to other EU countries.
