New effort to boost women's state pension

EdInvestor

glitterkitty wrote: »

all it is is basically an addition to the 2007 Pension Reform.

What a pity that someone would seek to dismiss the efforts of campaigners for better women's pensions.:(

Rather, we should congratulate people (like Martin) who make the effort to fight for financial justice. In this case, it is Baroness Hollis who deserves the recognition:

The change follows a lengthy campaign by Baroness Hollis, whose work was praised by Mr Purnell.He said: "The Pensions Act will transform pension provision and finally bring equality for women and carers so that by 2010 around 75 per cent of women reaching state pension age will be entitled to a full basic state pension, rising to 90 per cent by 2025 compared to around 35 per cent today.

"Baroness Hollis has championed the cause of those people, mainly women and carers, who are potentially disadvantaged in retirement as a result of not having a full work history."
Lady Hollis said: "I am absolutely delighted. I have had dozens and dozens of letters from women who are deeply distressed that because they did what most people would think was the right thing to do – look after their families or an elderly relative – they lose out in retirement.

Three cheers for Baroness Hollis, and one for the Government for seeing the merits of the proposal.:T:T:T

Oldernotwiser

EdInvestor wrote: »

Then you could go and have a look at the way women were cheated out of accumulating NI years in the past such that only a third of them are eligible for the full state pension.That's compared with 87% of men.

Or perhaps you think it better that the taxpayer funds these women with means-tested benefits rather than giving them a decent pension?

I completely agree with your last point but fail to see why you think that women were "cheated" in the past.

margaretclare

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I completely agree with your last point but fail to see why you think that women were "cheated" in the past.

The word I would use is 'conned'. Conned into thinking that by paying only the so-called 'small stamp' they would still have pensions provision through their husband's contribution and would have no need to make provision for themselves. I don't think any woman was ever told that this would be only 60% of the man's pension and that she'd have to wait until he reached state retirement age.

It has all been based on an out-of-date model of how women, men and couples live their lives. It was assumed that after WW2 all the women who'd been doing vital jobs would meekly return home and be good little housewives, happy to be 'supported' by their husbands. This was the basis on which the 1942 Beveridge Report was written, and this became the bedrock of the National Insurance system and the 'Welfare State'.

In fact this didn't happen. Women have always worked and continue to work, even if that work is part-time and interrupted by childbearing and other things. Why shouldn't a woman accrue pension provision in her own right?

Oldernotwiser

margaretclare wrote: »

The word I would use is 'conned'. Conned into thinking that by paying only the so-called 'small stamp' they would still have pensions provision through their husband's contribution and would have no need to make provision for themselves. I don't think any woman was ever told that this would be only 60% of the man's pension and that she'd have to wait until he reached state retirement age.

My mother was an uneducated working class woman who would have been over 90 if she's lived. Until she was in her 50s she had no employment except cash in hand cleaning work. However, I can distinctly remember her explaining to me ( when she eventually went back into full time work) that she saved a lot of money by paying the married woman's stamp, but that she wouldn't get a pension because of it, although Dad would get a bit extra for her when he retired. If my mother understood the facts about this over 30 years ago, I fail to see how other women who were more educated and active in the workplace could have been unaware of this.

I completely agree with your comments about a woman's need to have her own pension and not to rely on her husband for it. However, I do think that people go around with their eyes and minds closed to things that are important to them. You only have to think of the number of women on here who are completely ignorant of the fact that women's retirement age is going up after 2010, this ignorance being despite the enormous amount of publicitythere has been about it.

seven-day-weekend

I tend to agree with you ONW and have said so before on this forum. I always knew what my options were, however I'm only 58 and it does appear that some people older than me didn't realise for whatever reason that they had any option but to pay the small stamp - they did not know they could do anything else. WHY they didn't know is debatable.

One thing though - didn't any one of the women ever ask themselves what would happen if their husband, who was supposed to be providing a pension for them, died before he had done so?

I'm glad for all women to have the opportunity to have a decent pension in their own right and I think those that paid the small stamp should be able to now pay the contributions to have a full one. I DON'T think however they should just be given it as that is not fair to the ones like you, me and Margaret Clare who have paid.

madmaxine47

I would be quite happy to pay the £2500 required to get the full pension, I was told that I would be wasting money by paying the full stamp as my husband is 6 years older than me and as he would be 65 before I reached retirement at 60 I would get the pension anyway. I was not told that it would only be 60%.

glitterkitty

EdInvestor wrote: »

What a pity that someone would seek to dismiss the efforts of campaigners for better women's pensions.:(

Rather, we should congratulate people (like Martin) who make the effort to fight for financial justice. In this case, it is Baroness Hollis who deserves the recognition:





Three cheers for Baroness Hollis, and one for the Government for seeing the merits of the proposal.:T:T:T

personally i think its great, but a lot of what is in the media is exaggerated. its about time they changed it, but the majority of what is in the media this week has already been in place for 18 months, and went through parliament in July 2007
the ability to buy back the extra 6 years is the only new thing, however it does still have a lot of limitations. many women still wont qualify which is a shame.

it definately wont be in place before april 2009, that is the 'go live' date for this.

EdInvestor

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I completely agree with your last point but fail to see why you think that women were "cheated" in the past.

It's not only the married women's stamp issue.

The current state pension rules discriminate severely against anyone who does not have a full time long-term working career - which by the nature of things impacts far more on women due to family responsibilities.This is why 87% of men get the full basic state pension but only a third of women do

#You need a minimum of 10 years full NI contributions to get any state pension at all
Any years earned under that level are wasted.
#NI years are calculated such that a "broken year", - eg where a mother doesn't work in school holidays - doesn't count
# You don;t pay NI under a minimum income level - so part timers, often women frequently don't accrue NI years when they work
#Carers have no entitlement to NI credits
#Home responsibilities protection only started in 1978, years looking after children before that aren't' counted.
#HRP years do not count in themselves as NI years , they just reduce the number you need, so are also often wasted.

Thene there's the question of the status of the female version of the state pension - this actually impacts on men as well.

# Though payable from age 60 (but not for much longer), it is a pale shadow of the man's pension payable from age 65

#It has no right to a 60% spouse pension and no dependant's allowance for an underage spouse (excpet in very limited circs)

#No divorced or widowed men can claim a pension on the basis of an ex wife's contributions

#A husband cannot inherit his late wife's SERPS/state 2nd pension


All these issues will be dealt with after 2010 when equal rights are finally introduced. About time too.

Meanwhile we have the increasingly visible problem of the women who have retired in the run-up to 2010, many of whom will be severely disadvanatged compared with those only a year or two older.

The new six years measure is welcome but this "cliff edge" problem needs further attention - all women should be allowed access to the six years not just those retiring from now.

margaretclare

Ed, you're wrong on 2 points of this:

#A pale shadow of the state pension that men get - no, it's exactly the same. The basic amount is £90.70 which is what DH and I both get individually.

#SERPS can be inherited both ways. I have looked into this, because although DH has a much larger amount of SERPS given that he was never contracted-out, I also have some, which he could inherit from me. See this leaflet: http://www.thepensionservice.gov.uk/pdf/serps/serpsl1jan08.pdf

This makes clear that, e.g. for us, because of our ages, we can both inherit 100% of each other's SERPS. My 'additional pension' as they call it, by which they mean SERPS, is £27.67 a week, because I was contracted-out for much of my career, but this applies to earnings after 6th April 1978.

glitterkitty

EdInvestor wrote: »

#NI years are calculated such that a "broken year", - eg where a mother doesn't work in school holidays - doesn't count
#Carers have no entitlement to NI credits

that is also not quite true... it only doesnt count if not enough money is earned or credits paid for the full 52 weeks of the year. a woman may well have a qualifying year when she only works term time dependant on her earnings over the full year

also, carers allowance pays NI credits. of course the person must be eligible for carers allowance to get the credits