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

dunstonh

I am now sekf employed and don't maje enough profit to pay NI.

Whilst you may not pay class 4, are you paying class 2? It is class 2 that qualifies you.

p00hsticks

lizbec wrote: »

The issue for me is the increase in qualifying years.

The number of qualifying years only dropped from 39 to 30 for women five year ago, so the increase to 35 is still less than you should have been aiming for for a good part of your working life.

zagfles

p00hsticks wrote: »

The number of qualifying years only dropped from 39 to 30 for women five year ago, so the increase to 35 is still less than you should have been aiming for for a good part of your working life.

Also for the SE the 35 years now gets you the full single tier, the previous 30 (or 39) only got you the basic state pension. 30/35 of the single tier is more than the full basic. The changes are very good news for the SE.

mumps

lizbec wrote: »

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.....

I think this, the highlighted bit, illustrates the big problem. The rules keep changing, people think they know where they stand and then they find out the rules are changing again.

I am a 1953 birth date and was perfectly happy about the first change to the SRP age but the second one added 18 months to my retirement date and not enough time for people to plan. I have retired anyway but I know several women born in 1953/54 who are struggling, these seem to be the years that were most affected at shortest notice.

SnowMan

lizbec wrote: »

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.....

I think the comment you are referring to says something completely different.

LHW99 wrote: »

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'?

In families where the mother looked after the children and the father worked then the woman would normally get a credit for their state pension because the mother was normally paid the child benefit.

In families where the father looked after the children and the mother worked then the man would often not get a credit for their state pension because the child benefit was often paid to the mother.

If there are more cases of men not getting credits than women, (where child benefit was paid to the parent who was not caring for children) then that is clearly potential discrimination.

I don't know if numerically that is the case but that could be right. I've certainly seen a case of a man not getting home responsibility protection (HRP) credits and losing significant state pension because they were caring for the children but the child benefit was paid to the mother (albeit they have lost out as a family) but can't recall seeing one the other way around.


There are many issues where there is still sex inequality such as women being paid less for equivalent jobs, and I would like to think most of us would support action to do something about that. And many of us have said that the more recent notifications of further increases to SPA were too short.


But it is reasonable for people to point out issues of contrived discrimination against women where no such discrimination exists and those pointing this out have been men and women on this thread. Arguing that women are discriminated against because they are more likely to be contracted-out through public sector schemes, is an example of silliness that should be challenged.

lizbec

I agree with a lot of what you are saying and did say I think both genders should be treated equally. Nevertheless - certainly when I was receiving child benefit -it was predominantly women who gave up their work and career prospects to care for children. This isn't -as some on here have hinted -"women having it all their own way" If there are men in the same position then that's equally unfair. 2 wrongs don't make a right.
In answer to a previous question,it was class 2 contributions I wanted to top up but was told I didn't need to. Now I find I do need to! It is this constant changing of goal posts to which I object. I know they've been moved for men too. Which is also unfair!

mazzy

I also have a 1953 birthdays after April unfortunately so had the extra 1now
onths added on relatively short notice second changes. I was hoping to retire at 63 with DC pension + SP that would have given me the same income that I was getting whilst working.

Unfortunately I had to have both knees replaced this year having been struggling with the pain for a few years. My job was running a canteen which I had done for 31 years but it had taken its toll standing all day and I do have arthritis. When the first knee kept locking and I realised replacement was on the cards.

I asked my employers about taking my pension 18 months early and as it didn't make that much difference i went down that route and retired in April as that was when the first knee was replaced. It took a lot of pressure off me during recovery knowing that I didn't have to return to work and as the other knee was rapidly going downhill it would have been impossible to return to standing all day. I could have gone on the sick I suppose and strung it out but I am not like that. In
any case my husband had retired in December and was happy I was joining him.


I get about half the salary I was earning £465 a month not a lot by some peoples standards but we have never been high earners and live accordingly. My
husband gets £180 a week paid every 4 weeks, he was opted out into a DB scheme that now
has about eighty thousand in it that we have yet to decide what to do with he
obviously gets less than he would have it he hasn't opted out for some years but we do have the DB money to use as we choose especially under the new rules.




I took lump sum of thirty six thousand so use some each month to top up my
income until SP kicks in when I reach 64 8 months. I was concerned about my
NI contributions as I wasn' t sure if my part time hours before this job had counted. I had been secure in thinking 30 years was enough, I know it had
previously been 39 years but not when I had been doing my calculations. Until i
started using this site iI had head in the sand mentality like so many others. I have since started trying to educate my friends who just want to bemoan their
fate without trying to understand any implications.

I checked my contributions to find they had not included my at home ones on the assessment so put them right on that. Hopefully its all sorted and in 2018 I will start getting SP only the basic as opted out into FS pension all working life but I will still be over £100 a week I think so that will stop the drain on my savings.

I was initially annoyed when the changes happened but they had to be. We are managing OK and now enjoying retirement. Had other knee done a month ago so still recovering from that. Still have to tackle what to do with husbands DB money, I think I have to transfer it into a different scheme to do drawdown but have put it off while we thought about it.

jem16

mazzy wrote: »

My husband gets £180 a week paid every 4 weeks, he was opted out into a DB scheme that nowhas about eighty thousand in it that we have yet to decide what to do with he
obviously gets less than he would have it he hasn't opted out for some years but we do have the DB money to use as we choose especially under the new rules.

I think you may have your DC and DB terms mixed up. A DB ( Defined Benefit ) scheme doesn't have a pot of money and the new rules don't apply to it. A DC ( Defined Contribution ) scheme does have a pot of money and the new rules do apply to it.

From what you are describing you had a DB scheme - ie a final salary scheme - not a DC scheme as you said earlier.

So does your husband have a DC scheme? He was also contracted out of SERPS/S2P?

I took lump sum of thirty six thousand so use some each month to top up my income until SP kicks in when I reach 64 8 months.

Were you in the LGPS by any chance? If so the commutation rate of 12:1 is dire and you may well have been better just taking a lower lump sum and the higher pension, especially as you seem to be using the lump sum to augment your income.

I was initially annoyed when the changes happened but they had to be. We are managing OK and now enjoying retirement. Had other knee done a month ago so still recovering from that. Still have to tackle what to do with husbands DB money, I think I have to transfer it into a different scheme to do drawdown but have put it off while we thought about it.

I'm glad it's all working out for you in retirement. Perhaps it might be a good idea to take some professional advice about your husband's DC pot so that you can ensure you get the best out of it.

mazzy

Thanks for reply Jem. I did put DC instead of DB for my pension. I was not in LGPS scheme. I worked for John Wiley. I was very happy with their scheme sadly for many years before 9/11 it was non contributory. We then had to start contributing at the rate of 1% following year 2% and so on until we reached 6% and it stayed at that until iI retired. I do feel very lucky to have been in this scheme it was at a rate of 1/60ths which gave me a reasonable pension. I think it has cost me about 2.000 a year less by taking lump sum which I did know was not the most sensible thing to do but as three of my brothers have had heart attacks, one of whom died age 65 and until last year I was a lifetime smoker I weighed the odds and took the money.

The monthly sum I get along with husbands SP and a bit of top up from savings maintains the same lifestyle we had. I have always been a good manager of our income, we don't have a new car or expensive holidays but live a good life within our means. I guesstimate we will have used around 15 thousand of lump sum money when my SP kicks in to cover the income shortfall. We will also take lump sum from my husbands DC pension and then drawdown as and when we
want a bit extra making sure we don't go over tax allowance. That should keep us going for a fair while in reasonable comfort.

We do have savings in ISA's too and are contemplating some premium bonds. I am going also well aware that things can change a lot if and when one of us dies, sadly a lot of people don't take that into account when suddenly their income drops but most of the bills stay the same. I think we have it covered and hope not to find out any time soon.

I am a bit loathe to pay out for FA as we are not talking large pension really, thinking of just transferring husbands to HL for drawdown purposes and to take 25% lump sum.

Tranquilday

I feel I must make a comment here. I was born in 1955 so am bang smack in the middle of this. I started work, full time,in 1972 after leaving school. I remember discussing the "married women's stamp" as it was referred to and was told that if I was planning to get married and have children the "married women's stamp" was the way forward. I had no plans to do either so I choose to pay full stamp. I bought my first home when I was 20 in 1975 and we struggled to pay the mortgage and bills. We sold that place and purchased our second home, we had 2 children and were crippled by the mortgage rate of 13%. We had no spare money for pensions let alone being able to feed and clothes us properly. We sold that home to buy the one we live in now (1986) this house needed complete modernisation and the money had to go into the house rather pensions. I had work place pensions with the Equitable Building society (enough said). I do receive a pension from FAS for the Equitable but it is GBP63.38 a month instead of GBP300 I should have been receiving and that is through no fault of mine,the other pension with my employer was raided to fund the office move back to London. My employment is in the shipping industry where redundancies are rife and I haven't been able to work longer than 7 years with any one Company and build up a pension before they closed/got taken over. I do not recall ever receiving any letter from the Government back in 1995 advising me they had changed my retirement date. So, basically, I have not been in a financial position to build up a pension pot. Family responsibilities have seen to that. Can I say that I am still working in shipping aged 60,still do the cooking,washing,ironing,shopping when I get home. To be perfectly honest I am tired of it all.