uk pension

[mint]

this is information that i read in the sunday times today.  i and others have posted here re the white paper of last may proposing that you only need 30 years to qualify for a full uk pension

i feel a bit dejected today because the times article says that only people born on or after 06 april 1950 will qualify, even if the white paper becomes law.  i will miss out by a matter of months.  c'est la vie!

thought i'd alert others who may be affected.  oh well, back to the drawing board to think about what i should be doing about providing for my old age

[cooperlola]

I'm a little confuddled myself, Sweet 17.  If the massive pension shortfall - which one imagines will materialise as populations age - gets too serious, why is anybody being asked to pay less into diminishing coffers?  I'm probably being a bit dim.

[Russethouse]

Is there a link ?

[BJSLIV]

If its an article in the Murdoch Times you will find it at

www.timesonline.co.uk

But its down at the moment for work over the weekend.

The reduction in the number of years contribution required is an equality sop. Its supposed to benefit women who have a reduced record due to child care etc.

It will be funded by gradually increasing the  retirement age to 68(?). Some of it will also be saved by offsetting what would otherwise have been paid as pension credit to those lacking a full record. More savings will be made as a result of people paying contributions into new compulsory schemes, which for many will again simply reduce their pension credit.

 

[Ron Avery]

[quote user="sweet 17"]

this is information that i read in the sunday times today.  i and others have posted here re the white paper of last may proposing that you only need 30 years to qualify for a full uk pension

i feel a bit dejected today because the times article says that only people born on or after 06 april 1950 will qualify, [/quote]

 

EDIT To anyone who is re-reading this, I had a really bad day when quoting this, as the truth is the reverse of what I originally posted!!

Its not PEOPLE, its WOMEN born AFTER 6 April 1950 who qualify.  For MEN you have to be born AFTER  6 April 1945 to qualify for the 30 year rule.  Actually nothing has changed as that is exactly what the White paper says.

[Patf]

I read that women born before the date you give can expect their pension at 60. Those born after 1.04.55 will have to wait until they're 65. Can't find a reference to the number of years of contributions, though I've heard that it's not worth paying in all the last years, not sure why. Pat.ps sorry - explanation from Ron above.

[BJSLIV]

The DWP website summary of the proposal to reduce the number of years contributions that are required says

This single contribution condition will come into force for those people reaching State Pension age on or after 6 April 2010.

 

So in effect it applies to women born after 6 April 1950 and men born after 1945.

 

See

http://www.dwp.gov.uk/pensionsreform/pdfs/RIAChapter2.pdf

the link also gives some details of other ways in which a few pennies will be saved.

Of course there is the other change to which PatF refers which is the gradual increase in the retirement age for women.This gradually increases to 65 to equal men, and then further increases to 68, by a date by which time  most of us will have left the forum.[:)]

 

 

 

[KathyC]

[quote user="BJSLIV"]

 

The reduction in the number of years contribution required is an equality sop. Its supposed to benefit women who have a reduced record due to child care etc.

 

[/quote]

You're right about the equality issue but I don't know why you call it a "sop". It will benefit women who have a reduced record because of caring responsibilities. Do you realise that 85% of men are entitled to a full state pension on reaching retirement age but only 30% of women. That's inequality in my book!

[dave]

Hi all,

Thoroughly annoying isn't it.  My birthday is in October, so I just miss the new 30 year rule.  I also have to work until I'm 60years 6 months and 16 days old because they are gradually raising the age for women to 65.

I've started counting......

 

[dave]

Just to clarify I am Dave's better half !

[Teamedup]

30% Well all I can say is that married women who worked voluntarily chose to not pay towards a pension. As a wages clerk I remember well in the 1960's that precise choice. No one made any woman take it, it mattered not one iota to the employer, the pennies stamp or full stamp both had to be put through the books.  Anyway, was it 10/-? a week in their pocket was considered far better than actually getting a pension. In fact they had to sign to do it. My MIL was considered daft by her work mates paying the extra as she wanted a pension. Most women don't actually remember, well don't want to, and are just whingers, I have no sympathy at all.

[Hoddy]

I think you're being a little harsh there, TU. I am one of the women who did elect to pay the full stamp, even after I was married. However, in common with many other women, I chose to stay at home with my children while they were small. Many women take on caring roles for either children of elderly relatives and this results in them finding it difficult to get a full pension. It isn't always down to selfishness.

Hoddy

[mint]

thanks to those posters who have clarified that we are talking about WOMEN and not men.  i was a bit careless; no real excuse, just a bit cross to have missed out!

as it happens, i wasn't banking on it.  who would do that with pensions?  my poor husband had the bulk of his pension funds wth Equitable (the mutual company) and lost approximately 35% of his pension.  there again, we hear about others even more unfortunate whose companies have lost all of their pension funds and some are now having to go back to work

perhaps we should start another thread about whether pensions are deemed to be a good way of saving for your old age or not?

[KathyC]

[quote user="dave"]

Hi all,

Thoroughly annoying isn't it.  My birthday is in October, so I just miss the new 30 year rule.  I also have to work until I'm 60years 6 months and 16 days old because they are gradually raising the age for women to 65.

I've started counting......

 

[/quote]

No, you're just in time for the new 30 year rule. I'm the same age as you (September) and will get my pension in the following April. We're pretty lucky; we benefit from the fewer years needed but don't have to work until we're 65 . Perfect timing - thanks mum!

[KathyC]

[quote user="Teamedup"]30% Well all I can say is that married women who worked voluntarily chose to not pay towards a pension. As a wages clerk I remember well in the 1960's that precise choice. No one made any woman take it, it mattered not one iota to the employer, the pennies stamp or full stamp both had to be put through the books.  Anyway, was it 10/-? a week in their pocket was considered far better than actually getting a pension. In fact they had to sign to do it. My MIL was considered daft by her work mates paying the extra as she wanted a pension. Most women don't actually remember, well don't want to, and are just whingers, I have no sympathy at all.[/quote]

I think that there are two issues here, reduced rate contributions and women's caring responsibilities. There are groups campaigning that the drawbacks of not paying the full stamp were not fully explained to them and in many cases that's likely to be true. People are more aware of these kind of financial issues these days and I have a certain sympathy for anyone who's in that position. Also, as you need to have been married before 1977 to have had this option, we're largely talking about a generation who've already retired, not the ones who'll benefit from the new rules. I don't know how anybody can deny that women are far more often the ones who give up work to look after children, elderly parents and older husbands; that's now being recognised by the need to work fewer years. As it doesn't take anything away from people who have worked for 39 years I don't see any need for anyone to feel aggrieved.

[cooperlola]

Kathy, my mother, who brought the two of us up, and also worked part time, is now 85 and living on her (meagre) NHS pension.  How could she have possibly known, Teamedup, that she would be divorced at the age of 40, and then have had to make her own way having not paid into a pension up until that point?  Yes, women were "given the option" (hah,hah) but does anybody really know what awaits them in life and in that generation most expected to be cared for by their husband's provision.  Short-sighted?  Hmm, possibly.  But it was, as Kathy says, a generation thing.  So many of my contemporaries got divorced, that it never occured to me to do anything other than pay as much into my own pension fund as possible so I would never - and will never - have to rely on that of my OH.  But I have my mother's experience to draw upon.  In the past the advice, and the wealth of experience of such things, was not so great.

[BJSLIV]

This calculator works out  the UK State Pension date for ladies born after 5 April 1950.

In effect the age it becomes payable  increases 1 year for each year between 1950 and 1955.

http://www.thepensionservice.gov.uk/resourcecentre/statepensioncalc.asp

 

[hastobe]

[quote user="cooperlola"]Kathy, my mother, who brought the two of us up, and also worked part time, is now 85 and living on her (meagre) NHS pension.  How could she have possibly known, Teamedup, that she would be divorced at the age of 40, and then have had to make her own way having not paid into a pension up until that point?  Yes, women were "given the option" (hah,hah) but does anybody really know what awaits them in life and in that generation most expected to be cared for by their husband's provision.  Short-sighted?  Hmm, possibly.  But it was, as Kathy says, a generation thing.  So many of my contemporaries got divorced, that it never occured to me to do anything other than pay as much into my own pension fund as possible so I would never - and will never - have to rely on that of my OH.  But I have my mother's experience to draw upon.  In the past the advice, and the wealth of experience of such things, was not so great.[/quote]

Any divorce settlement now will split  include a settlement in respect of the pension fund.  It is acknowledged that men usually have far better pension provisions than women due to the fact that the female partner will have had time away from work raising children.  The split can either be as a cash settlement (either kept or transferred to the wife's pension fund) or a future right to a share of the husband's pension.  The danger with the latter route is that if the woman marries again she will forfeit that right.  (The above applies to protect the husband if he has the lower pension fund)

....so then you end up with two people on low pensions.....[:)]

Kathie

[Teamedup]

Are we talking about the same thing here. I'm doubt a part time job paying  a bit less than a £100 a week would have any NI contributions these days, so anyone doing such work wouldn't be  participating towards their pension now, never mind in the past. And I'm pretty sure in the past that part time work didn't  have full contributions either. 

I'm talking about married women working full time and  it was a choice and they made that choice, no one else. They knew what they were getting more money at the time and just didn't care, as I have said, they crowed about it.

[Catalpa]

[quote user="Teamedup"] They knew what they were getting more money at the time and just didn't care, as I have said, they crowed about it. [/quote]

These experiences scarred you badly, didn't they? [blink]

[BJSLIV]

You don't escape that easily from the grasp of National Insurance!

Anyone earning £97 a week has to pay NI. Anyone earning over £84 a week is credited as if they had paid.

As far as the married women's stamp is concerned I think both sides of the argument are right to a certain extent.

Women certainly were fully aware that they were saving money, and were pleased to have a bit extra cash in hand. Those who had to pay full rate were equally peeved when the option to pay reduced stamps was withdrawn. There was similar disappointment when the right to cash in their superannuation payments, the so called marriage gratuity, was withdrawn.

What they weren't aware of was the forthcoming turmoil as regards marriage and job economic security.

Up until the seventies the majority  of women expected to be able to depend on their husbands income whilst he was working, and his pension after that, perhaps picking up a little pin money along the way.

I think the same shortsightedness may well apply today to those who do not join employers pension schemes, especially schemes such as the civil service and local government.

 

 

[KathyC]

My mother also paid the married women' stamp and probably understood the implications as she worked for the Revenue. However, I'm sure that the thought of divorce never crossed her mind and the extra money in her purse was needed for essentials. As BJSLIV says, similar attitudes exist now to starting pension provision early and with far less excuse.

I never understand why people feel so hard done by when something benefits someone else without worsening their own situation. It seems rather petty to me.

[mint]

don't get me wrong; i don't feel aggrieved in any way.  i won't go into all the circumstances here but they were such that i was unable to clock up the relevant number of years.  i did say i wasn't banking on the money; but is there anything wrong in being a bit wistful?

of course i don't grudge anyone who benefits.  that's life, isn't it, the luck of the draw in many ways.  we can plan all we like but, as one american sage says, "life gets in the way!"

i also realise that if, for example, they had moved the date a few months and i would have benefited, then there would still be hordes out there who would miss by a margin.  wherever you draw a line, there are going to be people on both sides of it.

i don't like people assuming that i somehow am unhappy with my lot or that i grudge other people their good fortune.  far from it, i am most happy to be in my relatively fortunate position and i am looking forward greatly this year to moving to france

[Patf]

Have you had a pension forecast sweet 17? You might find that you haven't lost that much by having less than the necessary 39 years. I had quite a bit  less than that - can't find the actual documents since we moved - and my weekly pension is not much less than the maximum £84.25. Pat.

[Teamedup]

I am not scarred at all. I used to think that the women were actually stupid and short sighted, but there you go. When I eventually met my husband and ofcourse his mother, she had obviously been very upset by all the stick she got for paying, but she was always rather smug later about having a lot more money than her former colleagues when she did retire.

This has nothing to do with women or men who decide to stay at home and look after kids, that is something else that is quite different and is perhaps being addressed now. But that too is a choice, one I made, and I understand the consequences. I don't feel that there anything has been unfair to me.

The repercussions of  not paying can be very very important if someone moved to France and worked the rest of their career here. Even if they have worked all their lives, the choice of not paying is classed as not having a work history and affects getting a french pension badly. A few years of saving a quid or so a week can mean that the french pension is half of what it should be. And that is a lot of money.