How many years NI contribution for a state pension.

GSD4ME

Hallo,

I know that it used to be that women had to pay 39 years N.I. contributions to qualify for a full state pension. I seem to remember that the Turner report wanted to decrease this to 30 years.

Has that happened?

I certainly cannot make up 39 years contributions, but if I pay NI from now until retirement I can make the 30 years. Basically I need to know if it is worth paying NI for the next 10 years as I personally feel it is money I might as well burn for all the benefit it has ever brought me.

seven-day-weekend

I don't think it is going to happen for a good few years.

Have you got any home responsibilities protection? This is for years when you were unable to work due to caring responsibilities You must have been receiving child benefit or (I think) carers allowance. If you have, it reduces the amount of years you will have to pay.

I suggest you get a State Pension Forecast, this can be done online, I'll see if I can find the link (or someone else will post it).

seven-day-weekend

http://www.thepensionservice.gov.uk/atoz/atozdetailed/rpforecast.asp#more

Andy_L

The Turner report is a report to inform Parliament's decisions (at least that's the theory) when & if his recomendations are actioned is the big question.

I personally feel it is money I might as well burn for all the benefit it has ever brought me.
Do you feel the same about any other insurance policies you haven't claimed on?

EdInvestor

The Government announced in the Pensions White Paper that after 2010 people will be able to retire on full basic state pension with 30 years contributions.This applies mainly to women.

Howver I wouldn't stop paying NI yet on that basis as it hasn't yet been fully set in stone.

GSD4ME

Thanks for all the helpful replies.

I have got a pension forecast and it says I have 22 years already so I could make the 30 if I carry on paying.

As far as "is NI worth it" the answer is a definite NO.

I have never been able to claim anything, nor my father when he lost his job at 57, nor my husband even when he was made redundant and was out of work for 6 months. He filled in the damn claim form, which was about 30 pages long, four times and every time he did the social service people moved the goal posts and said he could not claim. They seemed to think it was some sort of a joke. I got the distinct impression that they were determined not to pay us anything because we were clearly educated, middle class people.

It even reached the stage where the women who was in charge of his case phoned in the middle of the day and said "I have been sitting here thinking and you can't claim because of... " Nice to know that public servants, paid out of my taxes spend their days trying to find ways to stop hard working taxpayers making a claim when they fall on hard times. :mad:

Anyway enough of a rant!! I am just getting to the stage where I think that those of us who work and pay tax and are honest, well we are the daft ones as there seem to be enough freeloaders, people who avoid taxes, car tax, TV licence etc. and get away with it.

Ignore me, I am getting old and grumpy!! Give me a beer. :beer:

CIS

NI is deffinetley worth it, remeber that in return for paying to get the benefits system to back you up if your deemed eligible, a free NHS and a pension, all for around £20-£30 a week ,for most people. The civil servants involved can only apply the rules that exist, they dont set them.

And on the other hand, its not optional (in most cases ) to pay.

With class 3NI , you pay around £370 p/a and get around £120 p/a back in return, guaranteed for life - 3 yrs of pension and you've made back you investment.

seven-day-weekend

GSD4ME wrote:

Thanks for all the helpful replies.

I have got a pension forecast and it says I have 22 years already so I could make the 30 if I carry on paying.

As far as "is NI worth it" the answer is a definite NO.

I have never been able to claim anything, nor my father when he lost his job at 57, nor my husband even when he was made redundant and was out of work for 6 months. He filled in the damn claim form, which was about 30 pages long, four times and every time he did the social service people moved the goal posts and said he could not claim. They seemed to think it was some sort of a joke. I got the distinct impression that they were determined not to pay us anything because we were clearly educated, middle class people.


It even reached the stage where the women who was in charge of his case phoned in the middle of the day and said "I have been sitting here thinking and you can't claim because of... " Nice to know that public servants, paid out of my taxes spend their days trying to find ways to stop hard working taxpayers making a claim when they fall on hard times. :mad:

Anyway enough of a rant!! I am just getting to the stage where I think that those of us who work and pay tax and are honest, well we are the daft ones as there seem to be enough freeloaders, people who avoid taxes, car tax, TV licence etc. and get away with it.

Ignore me, I am getting old and grumpy!! Give me a beer. :beer:

I have never claimed any State Benefits either. I couldn't even get a reduction on a college college course, when I was working but earning less than unemployment money! (Whereas if I HAD been unemployed I would have got it free).

But I'm so glad I will have my full State Pension (plus an Occupational Pension ) to look forward to, instead of the bare mimimum I would have if I hadn't paid in. My friend only has £45 a week State Pension as she has never paid the full stamp and has had to rely on her husband's contributions. With both my pensions I'll be getting 2.5 times as much as her, when I'm of Retirement age. Even if her husbad dies (God forbid) and she has her money made up, I will still be about £35 a week better off than her.

So yes, IMHO, they ARE worth paying.

EdInvestor

It would cost you about 100k to buy the income provided by the basic state pension as an annuity on the open market these days.

Either annuities are the world's greatest rip-off, or the state pension is a bargain.

bristol_pilot

Annuities ARE the world's greatest rip-off, IMO. Anything that millions of people are compelled to buy from a small pool of providers is never going to be good value.

Milarky

It's been noted here already that whilst the Gov't White Paper (Response to Turner) 'proposes' to make a 'full' (basic state) pension available based on 30 years 'from' April 2010 they may only seek to phase this change in from that date and not go straight from 44 (men) or 39(women) to 30 (both). The 'exact' quote is:

Security in retirement: towards a new pensions system (pp104, bullet 1)
We will:
reduce the number of qualifying years needed for a full basic State Pension from 44 for men and 39 for women to 30 for all those reaching State Pension age from 2010;

Notice that they don't actually say they will give a full basic pension to someone with 30 (but not 39) q.y. in 2010. What they do use is the word 'all', which taken in its apparent context seems to oblige them to make it '30 for all'. I do hope this is so anyway. But how about this construction?

We will:
reduce the number of qualifying years needed for a full basic State Pension from 44 for men and 39 for women for all those reaching State Pension age from 2010

It is illogical in any case because (a woman) reaching 60 in 2009 say with 29 years would only get 29/39ths if claiming their pension that year. But since anyone is permitted to defer drawing their pension then simply by waiting one year this full rate could be then be accessed. So where do they mean to 'draw the line'?

(And people are supposed to take comfort from these dithering reforms?)