MSE News: Guest Comment: Why women may lose out under the new state pension

hyubh

Curious how the comment thread attached to the article is uniformably saying how wonderful it is. Perhaps unsurprisingly for anyone who knows my posting history here, I broke when it came to an LGPS member moaning about not getting the full single tier ;-)

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/protect/2015/11/guest-comment-why-women-will-lose-out-under-the-new-state-pension#comment-2346534334

ivyleaf

It seems that when the new SP comes in, this will no longer be the case. Perhaps I've misunderstood?

SueB1954

I am 61. Following the 1995 Pension Act my retirement age changed to 64 based on the fact that the then government thought it only fair to phase in the change for women of that age to help with planning. I think it is grossly unfair for George Osbourne to then decide 15 years later to announce that some of us will now retire two years later. Why could he not have left those women out of the equation and keep their original retirement age?

mumps

LHW99 wrote: »

I began work in the 70's, and have been 'caught' by the double raise in pensions. I don't grudge it since pension ages would probably be around 80 now if they had gone up with life expectancies since state pension was introduced.

Information that the reduced stamp was not the best idea was out there, and didn't need too much digging for - I was certainly not financially savvy at that age, but was still aware of it.

Also, women with families are likely to be the ones with credits for HRP on their records, as it was rarer for child benefit to be paid to the male partner - perhaps another 'discrimination'?

I don't think that women who elected to pay the reduced contribution got the HRP, I always thought that was a bit unfair. I worked in payroll back in the 1970s and I know many women didn't want to know about the long term issues with the reduced stamp but I never realised that they were also giving up the HRP. If they were working a few hours a week it didn't even save them any money in many cases but they still lost the HRP.

greenglide

In the 1970s did HRP even exist to be an issue with the small stamp?

Women who worked part time often worked less than 14 hours, or whatever it was, so they could pay the other reduced rate stamp - they only paid the "full rate" in weeks they worked more hours than that and got nothing benefit from it.

Employers had to purchase the right selection of stamps, usually from the post office, each week. We used to send the 16 year old office junior to get the stamps, at a value of how much!, each week!

Break ins at post offices used to steal the NI stamps - they were much more valuable than postage stamps!

p00hsticks

SueB1954 wrote: »

Why could he not have left those women out of the equation and keep their original retirement age?

The reason for the accelerated increase in retirement age for this set of women was so that it was possible to then start extending the retirement age of those who are a bit younger (both men and women) to 66, then 67 and 68 much sooner than was originally intended - a change which is needed to ensure that pensions remain affordable for the country given the increase in longevity.

If he'd left 'those women' out of the equation then the ones who are just a monrth or two younger would end up retiring years later than them, which is arguably even more unfair.

mumps

greenglide wrote: »

In the 1970s did HRP even exist to be an issue with the small stamp?

Women who worked part time often worked less than 14 hours, or whatever it was, so they could pay the other reduced rate stamp - they only paid the "full rate" in weeks they worked more hours than that and got nothing benefit from it.

Employers had to purchase the right selection of stamps, usually from the post office, each week. We used to send the 16 year old office junior to get the stamps, at a value of how much!, each week!

Break ins at post offices used to steal the NI stamps - they were much more valuable than postage stamps!

HRP did start in the 70s, 1978 I think. I think, but it is along time ago, that in any year that you paid the reduced stamp you didn't qualify for HRP.

greenglide

HRP, presumably, started when the old "stamps" were done away with and the "graduated national insurance" started.

In 1977 the "small stamp" for women was removed apart from for people who were already paying it so noone who elected for the first time could have known about HRP.

mumps

greenglide wrote: »

HRP, presumably, started when the old "stamps" were done away with and the "graduated national insurance" started.

In 1977 the "small stamp" for women was removed apart from for people who were already paying it so noone who elected for the first time could have known about HRP.

Exactly so it does seem harsh that a woman working a few hours a week and paying a stamp lost the protecion her HRP should have given her as well as the woman who wasn't doing any work or paying anything but did get the protection. That was a bit of a mouthful!

lizbec

I am one of those for whom retirement age has been gradually raised from 60 to 66. I have no problem with that;of course women and men shouid be treated fairly and equally,and actually I think men's shouid be lowered.
I've worked since the mid 70s and have always known about the consequences of paying the married woman's NI contribution.So I opted to pay the full amount. My understanding is that women over a certain age were not given the option but I'm probably wrong.
The issue for me is the increase in qualifying years. I am now sekf employed and don't maje enough profit to pay NI. But I did make enquiries a few years ago about paying voluntary contributions -and was told there was no need as I already had enough. Now I find I don't have enough and have less time to make up the shortfall. I don't think this has been made known clearly enough.
And by the way -to whoever it was who suggested that paying child benefit predominantly to women is discrimination -this is because it is largely women who give up their career prospects to stay at home to look after the children. And when they don't,they're often accused of damaging their children by abandoning them. There are a few comments on here which strike me as borderline misogynist.....