The new Citizen’s Pension proposed does not mean that means testing will be abolished, only that for pension top ups benefit. The Councils will still have to means test all pensioners who are eligible for claiming Housing and Council Tax benefits. The government propose that only pensioners reaching pension age in 2015 will receive this new pension and that the current system will continue running alongside it until the last person dies. (I have seen a date of 2080 mentioned) So not simplifying things, just creating more unnecessary work. I feel that he new pension should be paid to all pensioners and include something to cover Housing and Council Tax.
There is a simple solution to this. Notionally credit every pensioner with the amount proposed for the Citizens pension and increase annually by CPI. In addition, notionally credit all pensioners with a Universal Housing and Council Tax benefit and adjust annually by an index which reflects the increase/decrease of housing costs and Council Tax. Let's assume that these figures are £140pw for the Citizen’s Pension and £120pw for the Housing Benefit. The government already propose increasing the personal allowance to £12500 p.a, the new pension would be say £13520 and 40 hours at the minimum wage would be £12646 so why not align them all at the higher rate of £13520 for personal allowances so that those working on the minimum wage and all pensioners on this basic pension receive their income tax free.
On the principle that pensioners existing pension entitlements should be preserved and they should be no worse off than they would be under the current system, the difference between what they would receive under the old system and the new Citizens system can be clawed back up to the amount of this difference by deducting up to this amount from the Citizen’s Pension .The portion of another pension that relates to their own personal contributions should be disregarded. and would be taxed as it currently is, as would the remainder of the State/ Private Pension funded by the State or their employers that had not been clawed back.
Example 1: A pensioner who has paid NIC’s for 30 years is entitled to a pension of £120 p.w under the current system. Under the new system he would be entitled to a minimum of £260 p.w., so a difference of £140 p.w. He also has a pension from the NHS of £420 p.w. He has personally contributed 7% of his earnings and the NHS has contributed 14% so proportion of pension attributable to the NHS contributions is £280 pw, As the £280 p.w is greater than the difference between the systems, £140 p.w., the full £140 would be clawed back. He would be paid £120 p.w. State Pension and £420 p.w. NHS pension The same as now.

Under current arrangements, married couples and co-habitees of either gender receive less Housing Benefit than as individuals so the difference should also be clawed back in the same way.. As of the date of introduction, NIC could be abolished and tax rates adjusted to compensate for the loss of this income to the Exchequer. 30 years of NIC contributions would entitle a pensioner to the full pension as it does now but in the future, years of NIC payments should be replaced by years of residence with a year of NIC payments counting as a year of residence.The Danish already have a similar pension system and at much higher rates, so it must be affordable as their per Capita GDP is much the same as for the UK.
Existing subsidised pensions should also be abolished and employers or State contributions should be added to salaries so that they are taxed in the normal way. All tax reliefs on pension contributions should be withdrawn so that all persons can invest in say ISA's rather than pensions. These reliefs only benefit the higher rate taxpayer anyway and pensions based solely on a persons contributions are not a good deal for a basic rate taxpayer. Over time, these new higher salaries will be adjusted by market forces.

At the moment Housing Benefits are very complicated, are administered by the local Councils and vary depending on Postcode. Means testing will still be required for non pensioners and some means testing of the poorest pensioners will still be required, but to a much lesser degree. Where the Universal part of Citizen’s Pension for Housing and Council Tax is inadequate, discretionary housing payments could still be made to the poorest pensioners much as they are now.

So what do these suggestions achieve?
A reasonable pension for everyone who has either paid NIC's or been resident for 30 years.(excluding years of residence when NIC's could have been paid)
Abolition of means testing for most pensioners with huge cost savings and no involvement of DWP with means testing, just Councils.
Abolition of NIC's and the cost of administering these.
A reduction in Council Tax as Councils would no longer have the same amount of work to do to administer Housing/Council Tax Benefits for pensioners and some of the liability would be passed to the State.
£37 billion of extra income from abolition of pensions tax reliefs.
For those who can save or want to save, full access to all their savings some of which can be saved in tax free ISA's
Force high earners to pay tax on all their income rather than avoid this by paying into pensions with much too generous contribution limits.
Allow low income pensioners to receive all the benefits that many previously did not claim for.
Boost the economy as disposable income would be increased.
Allow pensioners to retire rather than work past their normal retirement age thus freeing up jobs for the younger generations.
Increase Income Tax receipts for HMRC
Encourage persons with modest incomes to save. At the moment, because of the way Housing Benefits are given to the poorest pensioners there is no incentive unless you can save at least £200000. If you had all this in tax free ISA,s paying 3% interest you would receive £6000 p.a, Less than a pensioner who had saved nothing and claimed Housing and Council Tax benefit of £120 p.w (£6240).

•