They're taking away all my pension!

Dunroamin

jackyann wrote: »

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

My late mother was born in 1915 and always paid the married women's stamp when she worked. When I asked her about this in the 60s/70s she told me that it meant that she wouldn't get her own pension but she did it because she preferred to have the money in her purse at the time.

She wasn't an educated, well read or well informed woman so, if she knew this, it really must have been common lnowledge.

mumps

margaretclare wrote: »

But that is the case now, and has in fact been the case for any woman who married after April 1978. No choice. You pay the full rate.

There is also the consideration that NICs are not only paying for ultimate retirement, but for other benefits in the meantime. That was the 'lightbulb' moment I had all those years ago, I hadn't even though of retirement then - it was about unemployment benefit (as was).

Well obviously there is not choice to make now but there was then.

I have never been unemployed and have always had a job with excellent sick pay and maternity pay. From my point of view I really got nothing for that 19 years 9 months. The big problem I see is that because rules keep changing people don't feel they can plan, number of years contributions go up and down, retirement age changes. To make an informed choice you need some certainty.

I don't really agree about people not having the information back then, lots of people just aren't interested. I have always worked with payroll/personnel and I can assure you that when you try to inform people about tax, pension or other things they should know about they just aren't interested. I got married at 17, left school at 15 and found out about the married womans stamp when I got married the information was there if people wanted to know.

mumps

Dunroamin wrote: »

My late mother was born in 1915 and always paid the married women's stamp when she worked. When I asked her about this in the 60s/70s she told me that it meant that she wouldn't get her own pension but she did it because she preferred to have the money in her purse at the time.

She wasn't an educated, well read or well informed woman so, if she knew this, it really must have been common lnowledge.

Exactly, she made an informed choice. It might have been that she needed the money in her purse and I know many older woman in my family who made that choice, and it was a choice not just something they did because everyone else did.

jem16

mumps wrote: »

Exactly, she made an informed choice. It might have been that she needed the money in her purse and I know many older woman in my family who made that choice, and it was a choice not just something they did because everyone else did.

It was certainly the choice my mother made. She earned so little that she didn't want to pay the higher NI. She knew what it meant with regards to her pension entitlement later.

mumps

jem16 wrote: »

It was certainly the choice my mother made. She earned so little that she didn't want to pay the higher NI. She knew what it meant with regards to her pension entitlement later.

Many women had to make hard choices didn't they. I don't understand why people want to make out they were just stupid or complacent or something. I look back at the women in my family and the hard lives they had and I feel proud of them and all the other women who put feeding and clothing their children first.

Dunroamin

mumps wrote: »

Many women had to make hard choices didn't they. I don't understand why people want to make out they were just stupid or complacent or something. I look back at the women in my family and the hard lives they had and I feel proud of them and all the other women who put feeding and clothing their children first.

I agree, but it is annoying when people talk as if the pension age changes have taken them completely unawares or as if they still expected to get the same benefits having paid the cheap stamp as if they'd paid in full.

atush

I don't think we are making out they were stupid or complacent. ust uninformed.

But plenty who paid the married women's stamp and then come here to moan about it saying they didn't know (like those who say they didn't know the change from 60-65 was announced in 1995).

It happens.

mumps

Dunroamin wrote: »

I agree, but it is annoying when people talk as if the pension age changes have taken them completely unawares or as if they still expected to get the same benefits having paid the cheap stamp as if they'd paid in full.

I think for alot of women around my age, I am 59, it isn't so much the original change they resent it is being caught in the second one. I still can't fathom why increasing the pension age by one year means some of us had 18 months added to our pension age. I actually thought it was more than that as I had been given the wrong date originally. It is complicated as if I was a few hours older I could retire at 64 years 6 months rather than 64 years 9 months and if I was 12 weeks younger than I am I could retire at 64 years 6 months i.e. at the same time as I can retire now. The increase is calculated in 3 month chunks. People keep telling me it is worth it as I will get the new flat rate pension but that won't make any difference to me as since I left LG I haven't had a private pension so my S2P means I would get almost exactly the same anyway (within a few pence according to my forecast.)

I do agree about people expecting to get the same when they paid less, that is a bit much.

My plan now, but who knows what will change, is to save my LG pension when I get it later this year and retire in probably 2 years. I will qualify for Carers Allowance due to my husband's disability which will bridge the gap until I get my SRP. We will see what plans they have in store for me!!!!!!!!!!!!! Nothing good I imagine but I daresay I will get by. To be fair I am in a good position financially but have responsibilities for some family members who aren't so well placed. What with a sick husband, grandchildren who need alot of support due to divorced parents and the child of my later years still being a student I think I might have to work till I drop.

mumps

margaretclare wrote: »

I didn't make an informed choice the first time, in February 1957. I did a few months later that summer and I consider myself extremely lucky to have had former colleagues who put me straight. Otherwise I'd have been in the same boat as so many women are now and will continue to be, apart from those who got married after April 1978.

I got married in 1970 and made an informed choice, obviously I now know I wasted alot of money in the next 20 years. Hindsight is almost as much use as the crystal ball.

gadgetmind

Dunroamin wrote: »

she told me that it meant that she wouldn't get her own pension but she did it because she preferred to have the money in her purse at the time.

Hey, so it's not just young people!