New effort to boost women's state pension

jamesd

The DWP page says how this is to be paid for: everyone paying class 3 contributions is going to have to pay more for them, regardless of whether they are benefiting from this or not.

Any sign yet of details on just how much more people will have to pay?

glitterkitty

jamesd wrote: »

The DWP page says how this is to be paid for: everyone paying class 3 contributions is going to have to pay more for them, regardless of whether they are benefiting from this or not.

Any sign yet of details on just how much more people will have to pay?

nothing yet, since i work on one of the helplines which will be dealing with the payments (deficincy notices for national insurance) we'll probably find out soon i hope!

the amounts go up every year anyway in line with inflation etc... plus it all depends on how many weeks in any given year a person is short of NI. one person may be 52 weeks short and have to pay £392.20 (which is the current amount for 06/07) and someone else may only be 1 week short and have to pay £7.55. Both of them getting 06/07 as a qualifying year as a result.
however, as this proposal is not in place yet, there have been no set desicions made for how this is going to work, if there will just be a set amount or if it will be worked out the same as the current gaps are worked out.

EdInvestor

margaretclare wrote: »

#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.

But it conveys no spouse (or multiple ex spouse benefits).Check how much it would cost you to buy these bells and whistles on the open market, they are not cheap!

#SERPS can be inherited both ways.

I stand corrected on this, and very pleased to hear it.:)

Another area of discrimination BTW is tax allowances. Although women can retire at 60, they have to wait until age 65 to get the higher retired people's age allowance.

Whereas if men stop working at 60, they are instantly eligible for pension credit and free NI conts, as if they were not, it would be discriminatory against men. :mad::rolleyes:

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

One of the most mean and nasty little aspects of the Government's attitiude to women and family duties is the fact that the minute someone who receives carer's allowance turns 60 and becomes eligible for her state pension, her carer's allowance is cancelled.

EdInvestor

glitterkitty wrote: »

the amounts go up every year anyway in line with inflation etc... plus it all depends on how many weeks in any given year a person is short of NI. one person may be 52 weeks short and have to pay £392.20 (which is the current amount for 06/07) and someone else may only be 1 week short and have to pay £7.55. Both of them getting 06/07 as a qualifying year as a result.

I'll bet you're all really looking forward to dealing with the sums affecting all those women with the broken years NI conts which I mention above.

For some women, getting these part-paid old years up to full-year status may actually be quite cheap, as it should be.

Milarky

EdInvestor wrote: »

Another area of discrimination BTW is tax allowances. Although women can retire at 60, they have to wait until age 65 to get the higher retired people's age allowance.

Whereas if men stop working at 60, they are instantly eligible for pension credit and free NI conts, as if they were not, it would be discriminatory against men.

So, when women are only eligible at 65 for the state pension, that would logically increase the 'discrimination' against them compared to now?? Or will men no longer gain access to pension credit at 60 - but rather 65? I can't see how a tax allowage given to all on the basis of the same age is 'discriminatory'?

Meanwhile, can I ask anyone on this thread if the new provisions include making up qualifying years on the basis of part-years NI (eg '39/52nds' + '41/52nds' = '1 QY + 28/52nds'?) contributions? I understand that was in the Turner Report/Government Response a few years back

[Thanks]

glitterkitty

EdInvestor wrote: »

I'll bet you're all really looking forward to dealing with the sums affecting all those women with the broken years NI conts which I mention above.

For some women, getting these part-paid old years up to full-year status may actually be quite cheap, as it should be.

ahh it'll be easy enough, even if they do still go with the part years! its pretty easy to work out for part years to be honest, but we'll see what they decide to do.

Milarky - it hasnt been decided yet

EdInvestor

The BBC reports:

The Treasury has told the BBC that the cost of paying the higher pensions - around £600m up to 2050 - would be recouped by raising the cost of the contributions which are bought.Calculations suggest they could increase from £8.10 a week to £13 - putting the cost of six years' contributions at more than £4,000.

Milarky

EdInvestor wrote: »

The BBC reports:

That's got to be 'funny money' surely? So a (relatively small?) group of one-off affected pensioners benefit - by paying class 3 contributions at a rate which, taken with the increased contributions paid by other people (who aren't in the group, so are merely 'buying' their pension at the standard accrual rate) thereafter - and therefore not a one-off increase in the rates???

That means that the 'value' injected into these pensioners has come at the expense of other pensioners - meaning that the 'value' of buying your pension via class 3 - although better than the all the alternaitves, no doubt - is less good than it was.

This is 'inequitable' (I think the economists say) because look at which groups have been designated to pick up this bill. Logically all NICs should be increased - and only class 3 - already the dearest? - increased last.

But then 'equity' never was this government's intellectual underpinning was it?

jamesd

Milarky wrote: »

Or will men no longer gain access to pension credit at 60 - but rather 65?

This is being completely eliminated. The reduction to 30 years needed for full basic state pension more than compensates for the loss.

Milarky wrote: »

So a (relatively small?) group of one-off affected pensioners benefit - by paying class 3 contributions at a rate which, taken with the increased contributions paid by other people (who aren't in the group, so are merely 'buying' their pension at the standard accrual rate) thereafter - and therefore not a one-off increase in the rates???

That means that the 'value' injected into these pensioners has come at the expense of other pensioners

Correct. Those who are not in the affected group but have missing years - particularly recent missing years - are the ones who will be paying the extra cost for this.

It's somewhat better than charging everyone who's retired or everyone in the whole population, since at least those who don't need to buy any extra years won't have to pay more. Well, that's the claim. I'm not sure that I believe it until I see the numbers for estimated cost and estimated extra revenue.

It would be interesting to know the extra cost if this group had to fund the proposal from their own payments.

McKneff

i was told yesterday that it didn't apply to the women who paid married womens stamp. Only the years where no NI was paid at all.
I was married at 18 in 1968 and paid MW stamp, i thought at the time that that was one of the perks of being married. No one told me of the implications re pension, sick pay etc. until i found out 25 years later that when i was long term ill i did not qualify for sick pay because of this. luckily i was in a job which paid for 6 months, by that time i was back at work and then started to pay full stamp because i had researched the matter.
i was told yesterday that i could buy back (up to 6 years) of NI where i didnt work at all, ie when the children were small, or have i ben misinformed?
I officially retire in October 2009