The BBC’s Your Voice series on Gen Z retirement planning sets out a stark shift in outlook. Joel, a young engineer-in-progress in his early 20s, has landed his first graduate role in London after years of lower‑paid positions. Instead of splashing his windfall on holidays or a house deposit, he is allocating more of his earnings into his workplace pension. The underlying question: will a state pension exist, at least in the form today, when Gen Z reaches retirement age?
Across the generation born from 1997 to 2012, roughly half say they do not expect the state pension to be available when they retire. The concern grows in a context of demographic and fiscal pressures: a growing old-age population, a shrinking share of working-age people, and chronic strains on public finances. Joel voices a belief shared by many his age: there simply won’t be enough money to fund a generous state pension in the future.
“I don’t believe that I’ll be a recipient of a state pension,” he says. “I know a lot of people my age don’t think they’re going to be… there just won’t be enough money.” Retirement, for now, remains distant, but the conversation is turning from postponement to planning. Joel’s stance is not unique: a sense that the math may no longer work has many young people re-allocating savings toward private or workplace pensions rather than assuming a state provision will support retirement.
The state pension age itself has been on a rising path. At the start of April, the age people can claim began creeping up from 66 to 67 by March 2028. A further increase to 68 is anticipated in about two decades, though the timeline could shift if an independent review suggests earlier change. This calibrated rise matters for Gen Z, many of whom expect to wait longer to access pension income.
Connor, a 27-year-old retail manager, voices a common frustration: “the goalpost keeps moving.” He expects to be around 68 before retirement, but concedes that by the time he could claim, life expectancy and other pressures could push that date further still. These concerns sit alongside rising living costs and static or insufficient private savings, particularly for those with lower earnings or irregular work histories.
The scale of the pension system is substantial. More than 13 million people—roughly 19% of the population—are currently of state pension age. Projections show that by 2050, even with the 68-year‑old cap, the state pension age cohort may exceed 15 million people, approaching a quarter of the population, with numbers climbing toward 17 million by the 2070s. As the number of pensioners grows, the ratio of working people paying into the system falls, complicating financing for the whole regime.
Simultaneously, nearly half of working‑age adults are not contributing to a private pension pot. That means many could end up relying predominantly on the state pension for retirement income, a situation that is already visible in relative pensioner poverty rates, which run around 14%. The combination of rising claimants and lagging private savings fuels concern that a sizable portion of Gen Z may face an uncertain retirement.
The idea of reform has moved to the policy debate. Scrapping the triple lock—a mechanism that guarantees pension increases match inflation, average earnings, or 2.5%, whichever is higher—has gained traction among think tanks and policymakers who worry about intergenerational fairness and affordability. The Resolution Foundation has argued for scrapping the triple lock, arguing that prioritizing pensioner incomes over working-age households may be unfair.
A more radical proposal comes from the Tony Blair Institute (TBI). The think tank, founded by the former prime minister, has floated replacing the state pension with a Lifespan Fund and scrapping the triple lock entirely, extending the option for early access to some pension funds in cases of redundancy or high job churn. Thomas Smith, the TBI’s director of economic policy, contends that Britain’s pension system was built for a different era and may be financially unsustainable in its current form. He argues for a system overhaul that could redefine how retirement is financed.
The debate reaches individuals like Connor, who has faced redundancy at a global cosmetics firm. He notes that the ability to draw a small amount from future pension savings could act as a temporary bridge. Yet this idea is not universally welcomed. Former pensions minister Steve Webb warns that such changes would be a “huge backward step,” praising the simplicity of the current framework and cautioning against replacing it with a complex, intrusive model that could take decades to implement.
The government asserts it will uphold the triple lock for the remainder of the current Parliament, and the Pension Commission continues to review private pension arrangements to ensure secure retirements for tomorrow’s pensioners. Despite these assurances, the Gen Z cohort is unlikely to experience a triple-locked pension, which could intensify the gap between retirement income and rising living costs. Critics fear that the value of the state pension may grow more slowly than food, travel, or housing costs, complicating long-term planning for a generation that may rely more on private savings.
Opting out of pensions has notable consequences. The self-employed and some workers who opt out of auto-enrolment may miss the automatic long‑term savings safety net. For some Gen Z workers, the choice becomes whether to save now for a future state pension or use take-home pay for current needs, education, or housing costs. In some cases, this has translated into a deliberate choice to save privately, invest in index funds, or explore other vehicles. The social and economic dynamics of this shift could reshape retirement norms, influencing how much younger generations save before retirement and how they allocate resources across housing, travel, and health costs.
The discussion is not only about numbers. Perspectives vary widely. Some see the triple lock as a bedrock of protection for those who rely on a predictable income in retirement. Others argue for modernization that factors in longer life expectancy and changing employment patterns. As Gen Z navigates uncertainty, a subset is choosing “grown-up gap years,” or what some describe as mini‑retirements, funded by current earnings rather than future state entitlements. HSBC’s 2025 UK survey highlighted that a majority of Gen Z expects to take at least one extended break, underscoring a generation comfortable prioritizing life experiences over early retirement planning.
Across the country, Gen Z is testing different strategies. Joel’s peers are increasingly aware that a robust private pension or personal savings may be the difference between comfortable living and struggling in retirement. Rising rent burdens, especially for those who rent in urban areas, could widen pensioner poverty unless older cohorts can access larger private pots. The Waspi generation’s experiences—among those born in the 1950s who faced unanticipated pension age increases—serve as a cautionary tale about the risks of abrupt policy shifts and the timing of reform.
In the meantime, lawmakers and institutions remain engaged in a debate about the best way to sustain retirement income for future generations. The government reiterates its commitment to the triple lock while the Pension Commission continues its work on private pensions. For Gen Z, the central question remains: can the state pension be trusted to exist in a form that supports retirement, or will private savings be the sole salvage for many? As Joel notes, the only certainty may be the pressure to save more now, as the math of public pension funding becomes increasingly uncertain.
Additional reporting: Kris Bramwell and Harriet Whitehead Top picture credit: Getty Images Get in touch Are you planning for retirement without the state pension? Contact form BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis.
