The retirees being short-changed £210k on their state pension
Yet the vast discrepancy in life expectancy across Britain means it is often the wealthiest who reap the greatest returns.
Telegraph analysis has revealed that retirees living in well-off areas receive over £210,000 more in state pension payments over their lifetimes than those in the most deprived areas.
Residents of Hart in Hampshire have the highest life expectancy of any local authority in England, Wales or Northern Ireland – just shy of 85 years. This means the average pensioner in Hart will draw their state pension from the age of 66 for 19 years, racking up payments totalling £375,610.
Wealthy areas in London and the home counties including Kensington & Chelsea, Horsham, South Cambridgeshire, Uttlesford and South Oxfordshire follow close behind with a life expectancy of 84 years, long enough to accumulate £347,978 in state pension payments.
By contrast, life expectancy in Blackpool is the lowest of any local authority, at a little over 76 years – a full nine years less than in Hart. The average resident in Blackpool draws their state pension for just 10 years for a total of £165,720 – £209,890 less than residents in Hart.
Life expectancy is only slightly higher – at 77 – in Middlesborough, Hull, Manchester, Liverpool and Blaenau Gwent in South Wales, which would mean total lifetime payments of £185,151.
The calculations assume that residents receive the new 'full' state pension of £11,973 a year, which pensioners are entitled to after making 35 years of National Insurance contributions (NICs) – and that payments rise by 4.5pc every year.
The state pension 'triple lock' ensures that state pension payments rise annually by the highest of inflation, wage growth or 2.5pc.
The analysis reflects the severity of wealth and health inequality across the country – and how changes in the state pension age have a greater impact on poorer retirees.
Workers are eligible to draw their state pension once they reach the age of 66, and they continue to receive payments every week until they die.
The state pension age is due to rise to 67 by the end of 2028, and then to 68 between 2044 and 2046.
However, an ageing population means Britain's state pension bill is ballooning, with spending forecast to hit £145.6bn in 2025-26. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) warned this week that Britons face working until they are 74 unless the Government scraps the costly triple lock.
Raising the state pension age by one year will have roughly the same cost in terms of lost income wherever you live and whatever your life expectancy.
But this amount represents a larger proportion of lifetime state pension income for someone with a shorter life expectancy.
Caroline Abrahams, director of the charity Age UK, said: 'The state pension provides a crucial income to millions of pensioners in all corners of the UK.
'If we're to make sure that all pensioners can pay their bills and enjoy a decent standard of living, we need to make sure that the system works.
'It's clear from these statistics that raising the state pension age will particularly penalise those on lower incomes, who are more likely to live in deprived areas.'
The question is whether people who are likely to die earlier should get to retire earlier.
In some countries, the state pension age varies depending on a retiree's working history. In France, for example, someone who started work rather than going into higher education might be able to access a state pension sooner, as would someone whose profession was considered arduous, such as miners, soldiers and police officers.
But the British system was not set up in this way, meaning any attempt to tailor the state pension age according to postcode, profession or life expectancy would be 'fraught with challenges', according to Steve Webb, a former pensions minister, now partner at consultancy LCP.
He said: 'For example, there would be 'boundary issues' where people living on two sides of the same street could have different state pension ages.
'There would also be issues about people whose life was spent in a prosperous area, but claiming state pension from an address in a deprived area in order to access an earlier pension.
'Similarly, any attempt to have lower state pension ages for those who had more physically demanding jobs are undermined by the lack of data on the jobs people have done over their lifetime.'
Complicating the debate is the fact that pensioners who live longer are more likely to have paid more into the system during their working lives.
People with longer lifespans tend to be wealthier, and wealthier people are more likely to have earned more and made larger National Insurance payments as a result.
Jason Hollands, of wealth management firm Evelyn Partners, said: 'Having a single country-wide state pension age, will inevitably mean that the average retiree in one part of the country may end up receiving more total state pension income than another elsewhere.
'But given the broad link between levels of affluence and life expectancy, it's also possible that they will have claimed fewer benefits during their working lives and paid higher taxes too.'
Mr Webb added: 'There is no doubt that there are huge differences in the total amount of state pension people in different parts of the country can expect to draw over the course of their lifetime.
'However, people in more prosperous areas are likely to have paid in larger amounts over the course of their working life.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Campaigners fight Musk's plans for UK ‘energy power grab'
Thousands of activists are threatening to disrupt Elon Musk's bid to gatecrash Britain's energy market, urging regulator Ofgem to block the billionaire's plans. The campaign group Best for Britain, known for fighting against Brexit, has collected more than 8,000 letters from protesters who want to 'stop Musk's energy power grab'. Their opposition has emerged in response to Tesla's plans to launch its own electricity provider in Britain in the coming months, taking on the likes of Octopus Energy and British Gas. Details of Tesla's plans to sell power to UK households were first revealed in The Telegraph, which reported earlier this month that the US electric car maker had applied to Ofgem for an electricity supply licence. The public has until Friday to submit a response to Tesla's application, with Best for Britain attempting to build opposition by overseeing an online campaign against Mr Musk. In a pre-written letter which can be signed by activists, the campaign group says that the billionaire 'should not be allowed anywhere near our energy supply'. The group says that Mr Musk's recent work for Donald Trump and his cost-cutting department of government efficiency (Doge) 'should be unacceptable and disqualifying qualities for entrance into our energy markets'. Soros-backed group Best for Britain had previously campaigned against Brexit but has since reinvented itself as an 'internationalist' organisation and pollster. The group has been funded by George Soros, the Left-wing billionaire whom Mr Musk has repeatedly accused of funding anti-Tesla protests. Naomi Smith, Best for Britain's chief executive, said: 'We've all had a front row seat to Musk's malign influence: turning Twitter into an incubator for Right-wing hate, promoting baseless conspiracy theories and helping Trump secure a second term as US president – something that continues to change our world in profoundly dangerous ways. 'British people are rightly against Musk being anywhere near our electricity supply and that's why we are encouraging more people to make their views known before Friday by using our online tool to write to Ofgem and say they oppose this power grab.' Ofgem is supposed to consider each submission made to electricity licence applications. Best for Britain's boilerplate letter, which only requires signatories to write their name, states: 'Elon Musk's purchase of Twitter (now X) has enabled the rapid spread of misinformation, hatred and conspiracy theories in the UK and across the wider world.' It urges Ofgem to 'reject Tesla's application and protect our country from the influence of such a volatile individual', with thousands of letters set to be delivered to the regulator later this month. Tesla is seeking to push into Britain's electricity market after launching an energy supplier in Texas three years ago. Its operation could integrate with the thousands of households that already own Tesla Powerwall batteries in an attempt to create a 'virtual power plant' that can power houses at peak demand. The company also offers Tesla owners cheaper electric car charging. Sales of Teslas have slumped in Britain in recent months, which has been partly attributed to a backlash against Mr Musk's support for Mr Trump.
Times
an hour ago
- Times
In-fighting will only speed up the demise of British horse racing
Racing is up in arms. Many trumpets are being sounded as the sport's often-divided battalions form up behind the British Horseracing Authority's (BHA) organised 'strike' on September 10. But they need to be very careful of an early fallout with the betting industry as they assault a beleaguered Treasury desperate for extra cash. They must remember it is not fury, but figures that will win the day. I have long felt that without radical reform racing faces an existential crisis. Another 6 per cent betting tax and already serious leaks to the black market will only grow, bookmakers' profits on racing will decline, as will the £380million they provide racing via marketing, sponsorship, media rights and the Levy. All this will only hasten the game's decline. Disturbing, then, to see cracks in the bookmaker-racing relationship as we go into four of the best racing days of the year in the Sky Bet Ebor Festival. For the BHA chose not to tell the bookmakers about the strike — which is expected to cost the industry about £700,000 — in advance and a fair degree of umbrage was taken, most notably by Michael Dugher, the former Labour MP and present chairman of the Betting and Gaming Council, who talked of 'folly' and had earlier spoken of 'lions led by donkeys' as he castigated the National Trainers' Federation's support of the Social Market Foundation's (SMF) condemnation of online casino betting. But while Dugher is an important figure and his Racing Post article contained the magnificent line, 'In the end the crocodile gets round to eating us all', he is surely being disingenuous when he tries to equate betting on racing (taxed at 15 per cent) with that on gaming and online casinos (21 per cent). Of course they have bookmaking costs, but they don't involve communities all around the country, let alone being integral with a national heritage with 300 years of history. It's a disagreement, but the last thing we need is a full-blown row. Good, therefore, to hear a rather milder reaction from Seb Butterworth, strategic racing director of betting behemoth Flutter, the owner, among many other things, of York sponsor Sky Bet and of Paddy Power, who back ITV Racing. 'We are concerned that some in racing are cosying up to the anti-betting lobby, and the SMF, who have no genuine interest in the long-term future of the sport and would rather see it and betting banned,' Butterworth said. 'If bookmakers are hit with a tax rise — betting or gaming — racing's finances will be impacted. We at Flutter are already looking at where we spend money given this huge uncertainty.' Good also that on Sunday, the Jockey Club chair, Dido Harding, was out at Pontefract to impress on the importance of racing's grass roots. Given half a chance there is nothing some in racing would like to do more than to pick a fight with both the bookmakers and a Labour government. But while big demonstrations of support on 'strike day' are important to express solidarity, treasuries with massive black holes to fill are hard-hearted listeners. They have ignored plenty of other pleas in the past. By far our best bet is to find someone to persuade them that raising the tax rate would cut the tax take. Step forward someone better equipped than anyone on the planet to link the racing and bookmaking case: the 55-year-old Glasgow-born Jim Mullen, former CEO of Ladbrokes Coral and now in the driving seat at the Jockey Club. 'It's actually quite a simple equation if you understand cash,' Mullen said. 'The modelled impact of a 'tax harmonisation' highlights a loss of £66million a year to the sport and that would be felt everywhere. It would mean less cash going into prize money, staff wages, rent and rates, diesel for horseboxes and maintenance for training yards, studs and racecourses — everything from leaking roofs to making vital improvements. 'It's a sum so significant that some businesses, even racecourses, at the heart of our sport would almost certainly be forced to shut down in time, simply due to a lack of financial resources. These would be businesses that you couldn't just start up again, because the assets are taken over by other ventures and the process of replacing them is even more substantial when starting afresh. That requires more cash and, with the tax rate so high, there simply wouldn't be a business case to do so, by which time it's too late. 'People might think that it's hyperbolic to claim that a simple adjustment to tax rates on horse racing bets will have such a devastating impact on the wider sport, but this is the reality. It's why we are asking the government to stop and think properly about the real consequences of what they are proposing.' To govern is to choose. Having a go at what are easily termed as 'greedy bookmakers' or 'fat cat' owners may certainly seem an easy option. But the law of unintended consequences has already given this government a couple of nasty bites in the behind. It doesn't need another one. Neither do we.
Times
2 hours ago
- Times
Heritage organisations warn PM of crippling cost of membership law
Some of Britain's leading cultural institutions including the National Trust have warned the prime minister that they face being 'crippled' by new consumer rights rules. The legislation could be catastrophic for the business models of charities and museums because it contains a 'loophole' allowing abuse of their financially important membership schemes. Charity membership schemes will be subject to a 'two-week cooling off period', allowing people to cancel them and get a refund, under the provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCCA). The heads of the National Trust, Tate, Historic Royal Palaces and other organisations wrote to Sir Keir Starmer on July 31, saying charities must be treated differently to commercial organisations. They warned Starmer in a letter leaked to The Times that the legislation puts in jeopardy the entire relationship 'between government and civil society'. When the law is enacted next year, somebody could buy an annual Tate membership on a Saturday morning for £120, which would automatically grant them and a guest free access to paid-for exhibitions even if they were sold out. That Saturday they could visit the Emily Kam Kngwarray, Do Ho Suh and Leigh Bowery exhibitions at Tate Modern — which would cost non-members £60 in total — and visit the Edward Burra show down the river at Tate Britain, costing £18, before resigning their membership the following day. They would then be refunded the entirety of their £120, having saved themselves £78 in entry fees. They could also have used a 10 per cent discount at Tate's shops and had access to its members' rooms. A National Trust annual family membership costs £168.60 and the family members could, for example, visit Waddesdon Manor and Cliveden, an hour's drive away, before resigning their membership and recouping their fee. A family of two adults and two children who were not members would normally pay £105 for these two visits. In the letter to the prime minister the leaders of the organisations said the DMCCA would create significant legal and administrative risks. 'Not only has it put at risk our ability to claim gift aid on memberships, but it creates onerous new burdens,' the signatories, led by Hilary McGrady, the National Trust's director-general, wrote. 'The proposed cooling-off period would create a loophole that could allow people to join charities as members and enjoy benefits, such as free entry to sites, for a two-week period before claiming substantial refunds for the rest of the year. 'This threatens to cripple the very future value of membership itself as a functional model of income generation for charities with visitor models — currently worth hundreds of millions [of pounds] to charities across the UK every year,' the letter, also signed by the heads of the Victoria & Albert Museum, the Royal Horticultural Society, the Royal British Legion and the Wildlife Trusts, said. The leaking of the letter indicates a growing frustration at the Labour government from within the arts and heritage sector. One insider said they had been fruitlessly battling the government for months to try to secure an exemption for charities, adding that implementation of the provisions would be 'catastrophic'. Membership schemes have become hugely important for museums and galleries during the past 15 years as state funding has decreased dramatically and corporate sponsors have been deterred by activist campaigns against private sponsors such as fossil fuel companies. • Can Britain's museums remain free for much longer? The DMCCA, introduced by the previous Conservative government and being enacted by Labour, is intended to provide protections for consumers signing up to, for example, digital media subscriptions. In September last year the government minister Justin Madders confirmed that Labour would be proceeding with the legislation, which received royal assent under the Conservatives. The provisions affecting charity memberships are intended to target so-called 'subscription traps' where people are 'misled' into signing up for a free, or reduced-price trial and then end up stuck with a costly subscription, the government said previously. Madders said it would 'protect small businesses, save consumers money, boost innovation and drive growth'. The Department for Business and Trade said of the act last November: 'Subscriptions can be for anything from magazines to beauty boxes, with many subscriptions having complicated or inconvenient cancellation processes such as phone lines with long waits and restrictive opening hours that can leave consumers feeling trapped.' • Why can't we fund the National Gallery without help from China? The letter to Starmer, also signed by the Woodland Trust and Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, states that, as charities, their work is 'in support of the wider public good' and 'not a private service that can only be purchased for the individual enjoyment of customers'. It added: 'The public benefit we deliver as a result of the relationship between us as charities and our members has long been reflected in law and by HMRC, differentiating between charitable memberships and subscriptions for commercial services such as gym memberships, and acknowledging their status as charitable donations, not subscriptions to goods or services.' The Department for Business and Trade has been contacted for comment.
