Home Responsibilities Protection

green1970

Thanks s-d-w - I know there was a choice but I know things were tough then - if there was a way of paying less, then I know they'd have taken it. We lived from week to week and an extra pound or two made all the difference and I wonder whether they were really aware of the effect at the time like you were. They got married seven months before I was born so I hope these few months won't make all the difference between getting the HRP and getting nothing for those 18 years :-(

jancee_2

At the risk of being rather controversial - not everyone *should* be entitled to a full state pension in my opinion. What about those who never contribute, never want to work? There are a lot of them about these days.

Disclaimer: I am a staunch supporter of the Welfare State and willingly contribute to the system to assist those less able. And there are safety nets out there for those who aren't entitled to state pension.

I totally appreciate what you're saying about people who were too proud to claim dole - but in effect you had to declare yourself available for work and the same still applies.

In regard to the Married Womens small stamp I can speak from personal experience. I was offered this chance to pay lower contributions but fortunately my employer followed the rules and informed me of the implications. All employers were told to do this and one was given a booklet with lots of small print in it which one had to sign. Not all employers were as responsible. Being young and probably struggling for cash a lot of women would have just signed up without realising what they were signing.

I suppose the root of the issue is the policy of whichever Government has been in power - do you want both parents to work or not? If you value children having a parent at home then HRP is a good way to get them credits. I'm glad this MWE ended a long time ago though we are still seeing its effects.

seven-day-weekend

Jancee yes, my employers made us fully aware of the implications and I always knew that if I paid the MWS then I would not have a pension.

Retirement seemed a long-way off for a 21-year-old, but some spark of common sense must have aroused itself in me, because after a year I went back to paying full stamp.

I've now just paid my last NI contributions and look forward to receiving my full State Pension in January 2010

I have 24 years Class One contributions, 2 years Voluntary Contributions and 13 years HRP.

EdInvestor

Has the OP checked the position regarding her mother's entitlement to state pension based on her husband's contributions?The point of the MWS was that a wife was already entitled to a 60% pension via her husband, it is not as though she was left with nothing if she paid the smaller amount. This goes up to 100% if she is divorced or widowed.

jancee_2

EdInvestor wrote: »

Has the OP checked the position regarding her mother's entitlement to state pension based on her husband's contributions?The point of the MWS was that a wife was already entitled to a 60% pension via her husband, it is not as though she was left with nothing if she paid the smaller amount. This goes up to 100% if she is divorced or widowed.

Good point EdI - I meant to include this in my rant about MWE. That was the intention - that these women would claim against their husband's state pension.

seven-day-weekend

I thought I'd that in one of my posts and I haven't!:o

OP, if your mother is married, she can claim 60% of your dad's pension when he becomes 65; if she is widowed or divorced she can claim 100%.

This may give her more money than buying back years and being credited with HRP (if indeed she is entitled to it)..

margaretclare

Seems crazy that she's been such a great supportive mother and wife and gets so little yet if she'd gone on the dole when things were tough for us, she'd have a fully funded pension - but I digress.

Just to add to the excellent information given by others - if she had been paying married women's contribution she would not have been able to claim 'the dole' either. What was then widely called the 'small stamp' only entitled a woman to industrial injuries benefit if she was injured at work, not sickness, unemployment or pensions.

Many responsible employers alerted their female workers on marriage to the full implications, many others did not. In my case, I got married, moved to the other end of the country, went into the local Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and made this change, then went and got a job - this was within the first week of marriage. Why did I do this? Someone must have told me that this was what you did - maybe my mother-in-law? I didn't give it a thought - aged 21 in a new marriage, the last thing on my mind was 40 years later and pensions provision. Mention of 'going on the dole' is ironic, though - I had worked at the Ministry of Employment and National Service before my marriage, and when I walked out on that marriage in a matter of weeks, I wanted to 'sign on', and it was then that my former colleagues explained all the implications to me. Fortunately I still qualified because of the previous year's contributions and I soon got another job, but you can be sure I changed back again pretty darn quick! If it hadn't been for that particular set of circumstances I might have been in the situation that many women are finding themselves in now. 'No one told me'. It's quite possible that no one did, but as 7DWE rightly says, it really is a no-brainer when you think it through calmly and logically.