They're taking away all my pension!

Frogletina

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.

Hi Margaret

Maybe you or someone else can shed some light on what is confusing me at the moment.

If the pension credit level is over the maximum state pension amount, what difference does it make for someone who has not paid a full stamp, assuming they have not got a company pension as well?

Frogletina

margaretclare wrote: »

Not sure on this one. If you're assuming you'll get 60% of the full SRP based on your husband's contributions you may be in the same state as the OP who wrote 'they're taking all my pension'.

The basic state pension amount is not considered to be enough to live on, that's why it can be 'topped-up' by pension credit which is means-tested. There are different rates for single people and for couples.

Over to the better-informed who may know this!

Thanks Margaret

It doesn't affect me as I'll get a full pension and have my company one too. I was just curious.

Mojisola

State pension - max £110.15 a week.

Guaranteed pension credit - £145.40 (single people) or £222.05 (couples)

Mrs_Mum99

I agree with you, Mumps, I too am 59 and am affected by the second wave of State Pension Age increases. I was due to receive payment at 63yrs 7mths and this went up 2 years ago to 65yrs 4mths. I work one day a week, no pension scheme. With such a short timeframe, how am I supposed to plug a gap of nearly 2 years?

jackyann

I'm sorry if anyone thinks that I am implying that women who chose to pay the married woman's stamp were stupid or complacent. I have not said that and certainly didn't mean to imply it.
Some posters have said that if their mother (or other woman in their family) knew about the options, then it must have been common knowledge. I understand what they are saying, but having worked in many different areas, among many groups, my own perception is that the information was patchy.
Some women who may have only had basic education were given information, or sought it out themselves. I maintain that some women, of all kinds, were not given that information, or did not have their options explained properly at that time.
Some women made the choice to pay the "small stamp" for the reasons many posters have explained. Of course I respect the decisions those women made. I am only upset about those who were misled.

As we see from many posters here, many people have been confused or misunderstood information.

I also agree that all changes to pensions should be signalled at least a decade in advance.

gadgetmind

jackyann wrote: »

I also agree that all changes to pensions should be signalled at least a decade in advance.

Does that also apply to private pensions?

Barely a budget passes where major changes aren't made to rules, restrictions, caps, etc. and these often come into effect immediately.

grey_gym_sock

i think it should depend a bit on the kind of change.

10 years notice would be helpful for changes which involve the date you can start drawing your pension being delayed. that does apply to both the state and private pensions.

raising the state pension for women from 60 to 65 had decent notice. it's not such good notice for the next rise to 66.

raising the minimum age to take private pensions from 50 to 55 had very little notice, ARAICR.

10 years for absolutely all changes isn't really necessary.

gadgetmind

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

10 years for absolutely all changes isn't really necessary.

Perhaps not, but it is highly desirable.

Pensions are a long term commitment, that require long-term thinking and planning. Ephemeral politicians with their under-informed knee-jerk sticks in the spokes need to have some kind of pension bill of rights imposed upon them to greatly reduce their inappropriate meddling.

grey_gym_sock

well, even 10 years isn't long enough for knowing whether a pension is a good place to put money. this is something that puts me off from putting too much in a pension.

ideally, perhaps there should only be a finance act every 3rd year, with proposals for consultation in the first 2 years. rates and allowances could be set every year, but rule changes only every 3rd year.

most of the incessant rule changes are HMRC's idea. the politicians add a few more changes, or just add a political spin to what HMRC wanted to do anyway.

gadgetmind

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

well, even 10 years isn't long enough for knowing whether a pension is a good place to put money. this is something that puts me off from putting too much in a pension.

Not counting our family home, we're 50:50 between pensions are non pension. This feels comfortable to me.

most of the incessant rule changes are HMRC's idea. the politicians add a few more changes, or just add a political spin to what HMRC wanted to do anyway.

A lot of it feels like political point scoring, particularly all the Special Annual Allowance madness a few years ago.

Come on guys, we just want to save some of our income for our old age, so some messing around for no good reason!