How many years NI contribution for a state pension.

CIS

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'?

The rules would be applied based date of pension age, not date of claim - but I agree with you - to do the implementation proprerly, it needs to be phased in - not done overnight.

EdInvestor

They have subsequently indicated in Commons questions that they do intend to make the change overnight, despite the likely complaints of unfairness, as they want a "big bang" - a clear cut dramatic improvement.

I suspect Gordon Brown wants to be a popular PM (among the ladies at least )

Milarky

EdInvestor wrote:

I suspect Gordon Brown wants to be a popular PM (among the ladies at least )

As they say in the 'INTEL' community these days, it has ''the earmarks of GB. ''[Remember the '£100 for help with council tax bills' fiasco where payments based purely on an age threashold were sent out to little old ladies in nursing homes too.] Life is too short to do it right so they'll do it NuLabour-rite.

But I agree that's good news if you can arrange to move your D.O.B. - better that more people get the boost than fewer as would be the case if phased. For those that get no boost there is the pension credit as fall-back. That just leaves a small number of 'hard cases' (People born 6th April 1945 (men) or 1950 (woman) living in Bucks on modest-small second pension incomes and with low Labour-voting tendencies)

GSD4ME

I read in a newspaper a few years ago about the problems with women paying N.I.

They gave the example of a woman who had paid 17 years N.I. and when she retired she got 17/39s of a full pension, but when her husband retired a few years later her pension stopped as they now got the married couples' pension between them. The thing is they would have got the married couples' pension even if she had paid nothing, so in theory her 17 years of payments were a waste of money.

I do not know if this is true, but it was in a quality broadsheet and not in a tabloid. If it is true, it seems to me that any married woman who pays less than the full 39 years worth of N.I. is wasting her money. At least if the 30 year rule comes in there is more chance of more women paying the full number of years, as I would have though that probably the majority of women who had raised a family, gone to university etc. etc. do not work for 39 full years.

seven-day-weekend

GSD4ME wrote:

I read in a newspaper a few years ago about the problems with women paying N.I.

They gave the example of a woman who had paid 17 years N.I. and when she retired she got 17/39s of a full pension, but when her husband retired a few years later her pension stopped as they now got the married couples' pension between them. The thing is they would have got the married couples' pension even if she had paid nothing, so in theory her 17 years of payments were a waste of money.

There is no such thing as a 'married couple's pension'. In the case you quoted it appears that the woman could get more pension by claiming off her husband's contributions than she could by claiming it from her own 17 years.



I do not know if this is true, but it was in a quality broadsheet and not in a tabloid. If it is true, it seems to me that any married woman who pays less than the full 39 years worth of N.I. is wasting her money. At least if the 30 year rule comes in there is more chance of more women paying the full number of years, as I would have though that probably the majority of women who had raised a family, gone to university etc. etc. do not work for 39 full years.

As I said in my original post, if a woman has had time out to raise a family, then if she has received Child Benefit, she will have Home Responsibilities Protection which reduces the amount of years she has to work. If she has been to University she will have insurance contributions credited. So she does not need to actually work for 39 years.

In my own case, I have 22 years paid, two years credited (University), one year's voluntary contributions (last year) and 13 years HRP. I have one more year to contribute to get my full pension. I have not worked 39 years, I have worked 22. 22 years worked + 2 years credited + 1 year voluntary contributions + 13 years HRP = 38 years and I have one more year left to do.

CIS

I do not know if this is true, but it was in a quality broadsheet and not in a tabloid.

We used to sit and laugh at the attempts of some these 'quality broadsheets' ( I used to be a technical state pension forecast advisor)

seven-day-weekend - you do realise that HRP isnt added on to your qualifying years ?

22 years worked + 2 years credited + 1 year voluntary contributions + 13 years HRP = 38 years and I have one more year left to do

In your case you would have 25 qualifying years out of 26yrs (39yrs - 13yrs HRP), 97%.

seven-day-weekend

Hi CIS - it still works out the same - I have one more year to do!

I only need 26 qualifying years instead of 39, but I was attempting (not very successfully, obviously!) to show the OP how it all added up and that you did not necessarily have to 'work' for 39 years. You could work and pay contributions, be credited with them, pay voluntary ones, and also have the amount of qualifying years reduced.

She appears to me to be thinking that if you have time out to raise a family etc, then no way are you going to be able to get the 39 years in and therefore you may as well not bother and claim off your husband's contributions. I was trying to show her it doesn't work like that.

Thanks anyway for pointing that out, you have said it clearer than me!

CIS

Thats okay, was just checking - I dont like to leave people in any confusion if I can help

GSD4ME

Thanks for the replies.

Is the point made in the newspaper true? Do you not get any more pension whether or not you have paid women's contributions?

Also I spent 4 years at University and it certainly has not been included in my 22 years total N.I. contribution. I will chase that up.

Thanks for the advice.

CIS

The 'married persons pension' is a misnomer in that it is a value rather than a pension, ie it only refers to the £84.25 + £50.50, that a couple would get between them (if he has 100% and none of them have additional/graduated pension), its doesn't refer to one pension paid for the couple.

The woman would get 17/39th = £37, paid to her from the moment she claimed, this is her own pension and she wont loose it regardless of anything else, what she gets when her husband retires in a top-up on top of her own pension to take it to the 60% figure - if the woman had not paid contributions, or had no pension in her own right, she would still get the 60% but, considering that most women are around 5 years younger or so than their husbands, they would get no money for 10yrs, until he retired.

In those 10yrs, she could get a minimum total pension of ~£20K for those 17yrs she had, those 17yrs could easily outsrip the NI she paid to get those 17yrs - in fact its possible to accrue 17yrs without paying a penny in NI.

Being at university is no different from any other period, unless you where eligible for benefit credits or you worked, you wont get a qualifying year, most students dont claim benfits and dont work enough, thats why most dont have qualifying yrs for whilst they where at uni.