New effort to boost women's state pension

McKneff

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.

It has all been based on an out-of-date model of how women, men and couples live their lives.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?

:T :T :T.............................................

EdInvestor

The retirement date is OK, do you have 20 years of full NI qualifying years? (Not MW stamp). If so you should be able to buy up 6 additional years, assuming there are unpaid years after excluding MW years.

GrannyKate

Nice to see something which it looks like I will qualify for. I was 60 last month but I am deferring retirement for a few years. I have always paid the full NI stamp when I have been working and have some years of protection for the years when my younger children were small. I am however three years short for a full pension due to the missing years when my oldest child was born in 1972.
We had to give up work then at 6 months pregnant and there was no way to go back with no family locally and my husband's erratic work pattern.

McKneff

there was something in the Daily Mirror a few months ago that said if you wished to stay working after pension age then it is more cost effective to
take your company pension anyway as the amount that you paid after retirement only added virtually a couple of pounds to your eventual pension.
Now i dont want to pay £60 per month into my pension for an extra 3 years and only get an extra say £5 a month on my pension. It also said it would be better deferring your state pension and then taking the lump sum when yu actually retire. I remember the article well and im sure someone will come along and explain it far better than i can - please

glitterkitty

ok...
You MUST be reaching retirement age between 6th April 2008 and 5th April 2015
You cannot buy back the years where you had MWRRE (married womens reduced rate election), those years are 'lost' (that rule has never changed)
You MUST have 20 qualifying years, and at least 1 of those years must be paid or credited (i.e an actual qualifying year, not an HRP year) if you are reaching retirement age before April 2010, after that, all the years will be credited, so you just need 20 years.
you CANNOT buy back any years that are before 1975. HRP didnt exist until 1978 and HMRC can only go back as far as 1975.

This is subject to change. it has NOT been passed through parliament or given Royal Assent yet. The main idea will stay the same, but some details MAY change.
Nothing will be in place before april 2009. It is not worth ringing HMRC or the DWP as we have all been given the same information, that we are waiting for further details. (what i have listed above is EVERYTHING we know at the moment) Once it goes through parliament, then the details will be ironed out, and you will be able to get more information.

hope this has helped.

EdInvestor

glitterkitty wrote: »

you CANNOT buy back any years that are before 1975. HRP didnt exist until 1978 and HMRC can only go back as far as 1975.

This 1975 limit hasn't been mentioned before.What do you mean "HMRC can't go back before 1975"?

Destroyed all the files, have they?

glitterkitty

EdInvestor wrote: »

This 1975 limit hasn't been mentioned before.What do you mean "HMRC can't go back before 1975"?

Destroyed all the files, have they?

National Insurance as we know it has only existed since 1975, before that it was a whole different thing. The years paid before that do still exist, but as the old system does not exist anymore, and those years are not on the current records, it would be impossible to include them in this proposal.

and the news reports did mention 1975, at least the ITN one did.

oh, and reported post above this. vile.

margaretclare

glitterkitty wrote: »

National Insurance as we know it has only existed since 1975, before that it was a whole different thing. The years paid before that do still exist, but as the old system does not exist anymore, and those years are not on the current records, it would be impossible to include them in this proposal.

and the news reports did mention 1975, at least the ITN one did.

oh, and reported post above this. vile.

Yes, I've reported it too, as well as a similar one on another thread.

I don't understand how 'National Insurance did not exist before 1975'. Back in the 1950s I worked at the 'Ministry of Labour and National Service' and we dealt with the 'Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance'. I recall going to the latter in 1957 when I changed to the MWRRE - fortunately I changed back when I walked out on my first marriage after a few weeks. Lucky that happened, otherwise I'd have been one of those women who was 'conned'! When we got back together again a couple of years later I just carried on paying full stamp because I'd discovered a few of the drawbacks by then. I went to 'sign on' at the MLNS as was, and my former colleagues put me wise to the implications. So it was pure chance. The thinking around in those years - the 50s - was 'oh, it's just what married women do' and of course, many saw it as 'money in their hand now' when money was tight, rather than a far-off retirement date.

EdInvestor

glitterkitty wrote: »

National Insurance as we know it has only existed since 1975, before that it was a whole different thing.

In what way? I paid it both before and after 1975, no difference noted.

Many women may lose out if they can't claim years before 1975 as HRP and the 12 back years will cover the rest 1978-2008. They would only be able to claim 3 years (75-77), not 6..

The years paid before that do still exist

Then what's the problem?All the authoriries need to know is what years are already qualifying and what years are not.Clearly this info exists otherwise they would not be able to calculate how much state pension is due at all.

EdInvestor

DON'T STOP NOW

While these changes are welcome, they don't go far enough. Money Mail says further reforms are needed before women are truly treated equally with men on pensions. We suggest:

■ Extend the proposals to women who have already retired.
■ Make it possible to buy an extra nine years' NI contributions — as originally proposed.
■ Allow women who paid the married women's stamp to buy back those years.
■ Remove the restrictions which means you have to have built up 20 years of contributions to be able to buy back an extra six.
■Write to women spelling out whether it would be worth them paying extra National Insurance contributions.

Justice for all women