They're taking away all my pension!

abandhev

Thanks for the help, but with only 7 years, as the years paying married woman's stamps don't count - I only have 7 years left till retirement age, so that would on;y come to 14. Unless I can wor, and earn enough to pay the stamps, can't afford to buy them, on the reduced income we are on now. Same goes for buying up past years.
But thanks for bothering to help!

jamesd

If you could afford to buy them you can almost certainly buy six past years to get to 20 total. That would get you 20/35 * £144 = £82.28 a week in your own name under the proposed new rules or £73.43 under the current rules.

But if you just don't have the money you're stuck. And given the amount of the difference in payout it might not pay to do it anyway, even if you could afford to do it.

What good news there is is that the means tested benefits systems will continue and those might end up helping in some ways. Please do be sure to claim all you are eligible from in means tested benefits, they are there to help and there's no reason to be reluctant to claim.

xylophone

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2322572/MPs-lifeline-women-stand-lose-66-week-married-persons-state-pension-scrapped.html

might be of interest to anybody reading this thread.

abandhev

Thanks - still not sure if it applies when you only paid the married woman's stamp for a few years. After advice from his office, I am emailing my MP, to get clarification.

jackyann

As we know, Margaret Clare, many women were not given the proper information in a form that they could understand.

When martin started his financial education campaign, I wrote to tell him that my mother received financial education at her "intermediate" school in the 1930s. She passed that on to us girls. The only financial education I remember from the 50s was being encouraged to buy savings stamps! But I remember my mother getting me to work out how much benefit we would get from the butcher's Christmas Club versus the same amount in a savings account.

Although the rules have changed out of all recognition, my mother's attitude of seeking out information and working out what it means has stood me in good stead all my life.

I do feel for those women who made poor decisions as I do think the information was badly presented.

Cacran

I am in a similar situation to the OP.
I worked from 1970 to 1984 but did choose to pay the full stamp. I don't think that they took into consideration what had been contributed before I was 21 (1976) but I could be wrong about that.
I left work n 1984 when my daughter was born. I was a stay at home mum as my husband worked continental shifts and we did not have any family living near to support us with childcare. I had my son in 1988 and still stayed at home. In 1997 I got a job at his school but it was only about 6 hours a week and the wage was too small to need me to pay a stamp. My daughter left full time education when she was 18 (2002) and my son was still at school but left at 16 (2004). I should have been covered from 1984 to 2004 for my stamp as I was in receipt of Child Benefit.
I still continued working at school now just 7 & 1/2 hours a week so still do not pay stamp.
My husband gave up work when he was 55. He took a redundancy package and draws a reduced works pension. He gave up work as all the males in his family died at age 58 and he was convinced the same would happen to him. He was traumatised as his brother, who he worked with, had a massive heart attack at work, fell down a ladder and smashed his head on a wall. He subsequently died. Every day at work was a reminder to my husband as he did exactly the same job in the exact same area, where it had happened.
We had savings and adding to his redundancy package,( we live quite basically ,following all Martin's advice) we live off the pension, my wage and interest from investments.
We have been affected by the pension changes in a big way. Years ago, we carefully planned our finances. We obviously thought I would get my pension at age 60 but in actual fact will not now get it until I am 66. Effectively we have lost 6 years of my full pension. I feel as though we have been robbed. I only have a very small works pension to look forward to as I have not earned much money so could not contribute much.
I have lots of friends who have been affected by the same pension changes and think it is awful. I am not in the best of health and would not be able to cope with getting another full or part time job.
We are now tied up with looking after our granddaughter so that her single mother can work. Nursery fees are so great and she is a nursery nurse who work long hours for little pay.
My husband could try for employment but that would leave my daughter at a loss.
There are so many youngsters unemployed and so few jobs going. I think that the government want people to work until they die so that they will never have to pay old age pension. They will pay unemployed youngsters for only 6 months, then put them on a 'scheme' but they will no longer be counted as unemployed. No wonder lots turn to crime or kill themselves. They must feel they have little future. They don't earn enough to save for works pensions, and may never get to state pension age. What on earth is going to happen?:(

Mojisola

Cacran wrote: »

We have been affected by the pension changes in a big way. Years ago, we carefully planned our finances. We obviously thought I would get my pension at age 60 but in actual fact will not now get it until I am 66. Effectively we have lost 6 years of my full pension. I feel as though we have been robbed. I only have a very small works pension to look forward to as I have not earned much money so could not contribute much.

These changes were set in motion years ago (I think it was in 1995) so there's been plenty of time to adapt plans for retirement.

atush

Mojisola wrote: »

These changes were set in motion years ago (I think it was in 1995) so there's been plenty of time to adapt plans for retirement.

I agree, and while I feel for you in most of your post, the change from 60-65 was made way back more than a decade ago, and you are only out one year of pension.

That and the fact your OH gave up work from mental stress, does not mean at the time he could not have gotten another (safer) job rather than stay at home with a reduced pension.

jem16

margaretclare wrote: »

But doing even a part-time job should have been accompanied by paying full NICs to get the benefits that went with them, not only long-term pension, but unemployment and sickness.

I asked my mother why she had paid the married woman's stamp and she said she earned so little in her part-time job that paying the normal NI would have made the job pointless.

I'm not saying she was correct but that was her answer.

mumps

I think people take up a position and don't see there are other views. I have worked most of my life in local government, secure job and good sick pay. When I get to SRP age I will have paid full stamp for 49 years and 9 months. I need 30 years so I could have paid the married woman's stamp for 19 years and 9 months and benefitted from that money when my children were small and my mortgage was a big burden. Just to say everyone should have paid the full stamp is an over simplification. If I could go back I would pay the reduced stamp for those 19 years and 9 months and be just as well off in retirement. A crystal ball is a wonderful thing.