A new proposal to radically reshape retirement in Britain has put the future of the UK State Pension into the political spotlight.

The Centre for a Better Britain (CFABB), a think tank with links to Reform UK, has published a 183-page report titled Boosting Britain.

The report contains more than 150 recommendations covering pensions, taxation, banking regulation, investment and the structure of government.

One of its most significant proposals is to gradually replace the current State Pension model with individual investment accounts and a means-tested retirement safety net.

However, the headline claim that the think tank wants simply to “abolish the State Pension” needs some qualification.

CFABB’s actual proposal is for the existing system to gradually evolve into an Australian-style, non-contributory and means-tested safety net, while preserving State Pension rights people have already built up.

The report does not propose suddenly stopping payments to existing pensioners.The proposals are attracting additional attention because CFABB was founded by Jonathan Brown, a former Reform UK chief operating officer.

Reform UK figures have described the wider report as a contribution to the economic policy debate, but the document itself is a think-tank proposal rather than an enacted policy or government decision.

CFABB also explicitly describes the paper as a contribution to debate rather than a legislative programme.

What Has the Think Tank Actually Proposed for the State Pension?

The biggest change would be a shift away from Britain’s predominantly taxpayer-funded State Pension towards retirement savings accumulated by individuals during their working lives.

Under CFABB’s model, every worker would eventually have a Lifetime Investment Account.

The report proposes:

The account idea is partly modelled on Australia’s superannuation system, where compulsory retirement saving plays a much larger role.

Instead of workers changing jobs and potentially accumulating several separate workplace pension pots, CFABB argues that the individual would retain the same Lifetime Investment Account throughout their career.

That would represent a fundamental change from the system people currently use to build their State Pension through National Insurance qualifying years.

Would Existing Pensioners Suddenly Lose Their State Pension?

No such immediate change is proposed in the report.

This is one of the most important distinctions for pensioners following the story.

CFABB states that existing State Pension accruals would be preserved while the system gradually moved towards the new arrangement.

That means the proposal is not described as cancelling every current pensioner’s entitlement overnight.

Instead, the long-term ambition is to reduce future reliance on a universal State Pension by creating much larger individual retirement funds during people’s working lives.

The remaining state-backed pension would operate as a means-tested safety net, meaning entitlement could depend on a retiree’s financial circumstances rather than simply their National Insurance contribution record.

Exactly how the transition would work across different generations would require substantially more detail before such a system could become government policy.

For people approaching retirement under the current rules, checking a BR19 State Pension forecast remains relevant because the think-tank report has not changed existing pension legislation.

The full new State Pension is currently £241.30 a week for 2026/27, subject to an individual’s National Insurance record and transitional rules.

Why Does CFABB Want to Change the Pension System?

The proposal is primarily based on CFABB’s argument about the long-term cost of an ageing population and the way current pensions are financed.

DWP figures show that State Pension expenditure reached £146.1 billion in the financial year ending 2026, up from £136.4 billion a year earlier. It is the largest single area of DWP benefit expenditure.

Jonathan Brown has argued that the present model places substantial costs on today’s working population because current taxes help finance current pension payments.

At a briefing accompanying the report, Brown characterised the existing system as being “essentially a Ponzi scheme”. That is Brown’s description and argument, rather than an official classification of the UK pension system.

CFABB’s alternative is designed to make individual investment accounts carry a larger proportion of future retirement provision.

The report argues that larger long-term investment pots could simultaneously increase retirement income and provide more capital for investment.

Someone planning retirement today, however, remains subject to existing State Pension, workplace pension and private pension rules. Options such as pension drawdown also remain entirely separate from CFABB’s proposal.

The Pension Plan Is Part of a Much Bigger £75bn Reform Package

The State Pension proposal is only one part of Boosting Britain.

The document proposes a much wider restructuring of Britain’s tax and financial system.

Among its recommendations are abolishing or substantially changing Inheritance Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Stamp Duty Land Tax, stamp duty on shares, Air Passenger Duty and the Digital Services Tax. It also proposes reducing the headline Corporation Tax rate from 25% to 15% over eight years.

CFABB says reforms of this scale could remove up to half of the existing tax code.

The package has been reported as carrying an estimated £75 billion fiscal cost, although the think tank argues that tax reductions should not proceed until equivalent public-spending savings have been identified.

Its proposed spending reforms include closing existing public-sector pension schemes to new entrants, who would instead participate in the Lifetime Investment Account system. Current accrued entitlements would be treated separately.

CFABB also proposes eventually phasing out National Insurance as Lifetime Investment Account contributions increase.

Is This Now Reform UK’s State Pension Policy?

Now Reform UK's State Pension Policy

That distinction is important.

CFABB has clear personnel and organisational links with Reform UK, but Boosting Britain should not automatically be treated as identical to the party’s official election platform.

CFABB was founded by former Reform UK chief operating officer Jonathan Brown. The think tank’s work has therefore attracted particular interest over whether some recommendations could eventually influence Reform policy.

When CFABB published the report, Reform UK deputy leader Richard Tice and Treasury spokesman Robert Jenrick said it represented a “serious contribution” to the debate about economic growth and said the party would carefully review some of its recommendations.

That statement stops short of adopting every recommendation.

The report itself is also explicit that it is not a legislative programme. CFABB says some proposals may not be politically acceptable in the short term and presents the document as an attempt to stimulate policy debate.

Therefore, there is currently an important difference between:

A think tank proposing fundamental State Pension reform and Parliament approving legislation that changes or ends the current State Pension.

The first has happened. The second has not.

What Would the Proposal Mean for UK Pensioners?

For existing pensioners, the immediate practical position has not changed.

State Pension payments continue under current legislation, and the amount an individual receives continues to depend on the applicable pension system and their National Insurance record.

The proposal matters more as an indication of how some policymakers and think tanks are beginning to debate the long-term structure and affordability of retirement provision.

CFABB’s plan would ultimately create a very different relationship between the individual and the state.

Workers would accumulate more of their retirement income in personal investment accounts, while government support would become more focused on retirees who lacked sufficient resources.

That raises significant policy questions around investment risk, contribution levels, transition arrangements, lower earners, people with interrupted careers and what would happen during periods when investment returns were poor.

Those details would become especially important if a political party chose to turn the proposal into a fully costed manifesto commitment.

For now, people can still check the latest State Pension increase and plan around the rules currently in force.

The immediate development is therefore not that the UK State Pension has been abolished, but that a Reform-linked think tank has placed a far-reaching alternative on the political agenda: a lifetime investment system, 15% retirement contributions and a smaller, means-tested State Pension safety net replacing much of the existing structure over time.