I retired on 5 August 2022, my 66th birthday.
My plans were simple. I wanted more time with my family, camping trips, days out, the allotment, photography and the freedom to decide what to do with my own day.
I had paid off my mortgage and cleared my debts. The big purchases had been made while I was working. I knew prices would continue to rise, but I believed I had put myself in a reasonable position.
What I did not anticipate was how severely the cost of living would squeeze that modest retirement.
What £80 a month means to me
Recently, EDF proposed increasing my monthly Direct Debit from £230.89 to £311.15—an extra £80.26 every month.
That matters because I have roughly £80 a month for camping, days out and an occasional meal with my wife. The proposed increase would have swallowed virtually all of it.
I contacted EDF and explained that I was a 70-year-old pensioner living on a fixed income and could not afford the increase. The lady was helpful and agreed to keep my payment at £230.89, provided I submitted regular meter readings.
Credit where credit is due.
Some people might say that camping and meals out are luxuries I could surrender. Technically, I could. But those small pleasures were part of the reason I worked and prepared for retirement. They are part of living rather than merely existing.
Why the triple lock matters
The triple lock increases the basic and new State Pension each year by whichever is highest: average earnings growth, inflation or 2.5%.
It was introduced in 2011 after the value of the basic State Pension had fallen significantly relative to wages. It had been approximately 26% of average full-time earnings in 1979 but was around 16% between 2000 and 2010.
Increasing the pension only with inflation may preserve its immediate purchasing power, but it can still leave pensioners falling behind the rest of society when wages rise faster than prices.
A pension should not merely preserve the same level of hardship. Retired people should retain a reasonable place within the society to which they contributed.
What I mean by the social contract
Whenever I refer to the State Pension as part of a social contract, somebody responds by saying, “You never signed a contract.”
They are correct in the narrow legal sense. I never signed a document guaranteeing that pension rules would remain unchanged forever. National Insurance is not a personal savings account, and governments can alter the system.
But that is not what I mean.
When I started work, the understanding was that you worked, paid tax and National Insurance and contributed while you were able. In return, the state provided healthcare when you were ill, support if you fell upon hard times and a pension when your working life ended.
People called it “paying your stamp.” The language itself encouraged the belief that work and contributions built an entitlement.
I worked for 51 years and used the government's own State Pension forecast when planning my retirement. That forecast influenced when I retired and what income I believed would be available.
I may not have signed a private legal contract, but generations of workers were encouraged to organise their lives around this understanding. That makes it a matter of trust.
Not every pensioner is poor—or a millionaire
During a recent discussion, somebody told me to sell my house. Others quoted the claim that one in four pensioners are millionaires.
I have never claimed that every pensioner is poor. Some are extremely comfortable and should pay the appropriate tax.
However, the millionaire figure refers to older people living in households whose combined assets can include property and the calculated value of private pensions. It does not mean that every person counted has £1 million available to spend.
A home is not disposable income. If I sold my mortgage-free house, I would still need somewhere to live. Downsizing involves legal fees, moving expenses and the cost of another suitable property. Renting for the remainder of my life would create another large monthly bill.
My house is worth approximately £189,000. Selling it would not make me a millionaire. It would make me a man with some capital who still needed a home.
There is another figure that receives less attention. Age UK reported in April 2026 that approximately 3.4 million pensioners—more than one in four—were struggling financially.
Using the wealthiest pensioners to represent everybody is no more honest than pointing to the highest-paid employees and declaring that no working person is struggling.
Was it poor financial planning?
Another person said that taxpayers should not have to support my poor financial planning.
I worked for 51 years, made private pension provision, recovered from serious debt and paid off my mortgage. A divorce affected my pension position, but I rebuilt my finances and checked the government's forecast before retiring.
Life does not always follow a plan made decades earlier. People experience divorce, redundancy, caring responsibilities, illness and economic upheaval.
National Insurance is also a system of social insurance, not an individual investment account. Some people receive a pension for many years, while others die shortly after retiring and receive very little.
We do not tell somebody requiring expensive NHS treatment that they have taken out more than they paid in.
Covid also influenced my retirement
There is another factor I have rarely mentioned.
I caught Covid in 2021 and was very ill. Although I recovered from the immediate infection, I have never felt that I completely regained my previous health and stamina.
I have not received a formal diagnosis of long Covid, so I am not claiming one. I am simply describing my experience.
By the time I reached 66, continuing in my old job for another year did not feel realistic. Retirement was something I had planned and wanted, but my health also helped determine when I needed to stop.
A retirement age written on paper cannot reflect what decades of work, illness and ageing have done to each individual.
People are living longer—but not forever in good health
Increasing life expectancy creates a genuine cost for the pension system. I do not dismiss that.
However, it is misleading to say that previous generations generally died as soon as they reached 65. In 1952, a man who had reached 65 could expect to live for approximately another 12 years, while a woman could expect another 15.4 years.
The latest figures put life expectancy at 65 at another 18.7 years for men and 21.2 years for women. That is a significant increase, and the system must account for it. My own State Pension age had already risen to 66.
But living longer does not necessarily mean remaining fit enough to continue working. Healthy life expectancy is currently estimated at about 60.7 years for men and 60.9 for women, with major differences according to health, occupation, income and location.
Sustainability cannot simply mean repeatedly raising the retirement age and hoping everybody remains fit enough to reach it.
I am not blaming younger people
One commenter accused me of blaming younger generations for a mess supposedly created by my own. That is the opposite of what I believe.
Younger people face expensive housing, insecure employment, debt and rising living costs. I also accept that some pensioners speak unfairly about them, calling them lazy or entitled. I disagree with that just as strongly.
I had one vote at each election. I did not personally control successive governments, deindustrialisation, banking crises, pandemics or international events.
Ordinary younger workers and ordinary pensioners are both affected by decisions made far above them. Encouraging the two groups to blame each other solves nothing.
I want the pension protected for everybody
Some younger people say there will be no State Pension when they retire. I understand why that possibility frightens them.
But it is not an argument for weakening the pension today. It is an argument for protecting a dependable pension for their generation as well.
I am not defending the triple lock only because I currently receive the State Pension. I am defending the principle that everybody who works and contributes should eventually receive a pension connected both to the cost of living and to the prosperity of the country.
Younger workers need decent wages, secure employment and affordable housing. Retired people need sufficient income to live with dignity. Those aims are not in conflict.
I do not want to pull the ladder up behind me. I want to ensure that the ladder remains for everybody who follows.
Reform must be fair
I am not saying that the pension system must never change. An ageing population, longer retirements and fewer workers for every pensioner create genuine financial questions.
I am willing to listen to fair and sustainable reforms, but they must be introduced honestly and give people enough notice to plan.
Reform should strengthen confidence in retirement—not punish people after they have already completed their working lives.
I planned for retirement as carefully as I could. I never expected prices to stand still or believed I had been promised a life without financial worries.
But I did expect the modest life I prepared for to remain within reach.
When we debate the triple lock, we should remember the person who has finished work and is wondering whether they can still afford the small pleasures they retired to enjoy.
We should also remember the person still working today and wondering whether that same opportunity will ever be available to them.