MSE News: Women's state pension petition gathers over 50,000 signatures

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

As I said, the logic of it is lost on some!!!!!!

I think the conversation on WASPI has near exhausted itself at this stage.

With respect, that's not your call.

This thread was started by one of the MSE mods explaining about the WASPI petition & inviting posters to discuss.

And that is what we are doing.

Chickereeeee

asaver wrote: »

JezR wrote: »

T.......will have the 35 NI years but will lose out by having been contracted out of state second pension.

Where did your 'lost' contracted out contributions go?

C

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

Then do whatever you want to do to get it reversed, as the rest of us will do or not do as we feel appropriate.

As I have said many many times, people are entitled to do as they wish. That is entirely their individual choice and that is how it should be.

jem16 wrote: »

I'm beginning to think your wife has a connection with WASPI the way you keep going on about it.

Wrong. She has little interest in matters financial and is not even particularly aware of WASPI.

saver861

Pollycat wrote: »

With respect, that's not your call.

This thread was started by one of the MSE mods explaining about the WASPI petition & inviting posters to discuss.

And that is what we are doing.

I think you may have misinterpreted my comment. I merely state that I think the discussion on WASPI has exhausted itself. It's difficult to see any new that to be added at this stage.

I was not suggesting the thread be closed or the discussion should stop - indeed, I have no control over that. The MSE mod would make that decision if a thread should be closed and I don't see any reason why this thread should be closed.

saver861

asaver wrote: »

While I, made redundant and unable to continue my career up to retirement age, will have the 35 NI years but will lose out by having been contracted out of state second pension.

You should not lose out. If you have 35 years at 5 April 2016 then you should get the equivalent full state pension on the old system i.e. about £119. Thats what you would have got if there had been no changes at all. (It only requires 30 years as at April 2016.)

If you have not reached SPA in April 2016, you can then continue to increase your NI years. Each year you can get in between April 2016 and your retirement date will give you just over £4 per week to add to your existing £119.

So, by way of example, if you got 3 years NI in after April 2016 then you pension would be approximately £132 per week.

You would need to be about 8 years younger than your spa in April 2016 to get your existing £119 pension up to the maximum £155.

RickyB2000

saver861 wrote: »

You should not lose out. If you have 35 years at 5 April 2016 then you should get the equivalent full state pension on the old system i.e. about £119. Thats what you would have got if there had been no changes at all. (It only requires 30 years as at April 2016.)

If you have not reached SPA in April 2016, you can then continue to increase your NI years. Each year you can get in between April 2016 and your retirement date will give you just over £4 per week to add to your existing £119.

So, by way of example, if you got 3 years NI in after April 2016 then you pension would be approximately £132 per week.

You would need to be about 8 years younger than your spa in April 2016 to get your existing £119 pension up to the maximum £155.

As I understand it, the only people who 'lose out' under the new state pension are those with less than the current 30 year requirement. The younger you are, the more you lose (compared to current system), as an existing year is worth nearly 17% more than a future year under the new scheme. In fact, as mentioned, for people who have hit 30 years and were contracted out, they have the potential to add more money to their SP than they could have got under the old scheme and do quite nicely out of it.

The young are really the ones who lose out under these changes, they have to contribute for longer (and thus pay in more) for the same benefit. anyone near retirement is no worse off and could be a lot better off as they could get topped up state pension and contracted out private pension.

saver861

RickyB2000 wrote: »

In fact, as mentioned, for people who have hit 30 years and were contracted out, they have the potential to add more money to their SP than they could have got under the old scheme and do quite nicely out of it.

It depends on many variables. Someone at spa next year but has 30 years of contracted out pension will only be able to add one extra year. So, not really any benefit.

For those who have the full 30 years on the old system and have about 8 or so years to spa, could get to the £155. However, they have to either be working or buying in NIC's voluntary.

RickyB2000 wrote: »

The young are really the ones who lose out under these changes, they have to contribute for longer (and thus pay in more) for the same benefit. anyone near retirement is no worse off and could be a lot better off as they could get topped up state pension and contracted out private pension.

Well there will be some who have 40 + years and will still only get the £119 pension if most of those years were contracted out.

One advantage of the younger you are is that you are much more aware of the consequences for the future and having a pension etc. So while you may have to work longer, most people in their 20's and 30's have the opportunity to plan out for their retirement with greater awareness.

RickyB2000

saver861 wrote: »

It depends on many variables. Someone at spa next year but has 30 years of contracted out pension will only be able to add one extra year. So, not really any benefit.

For those who have the full 30 years on the old system and have about 8 or so years to spa, could get to the £155. However, they have to either be working or buying in NIC's voluntary.

Didn't know that, though that is still £200 a year more than they could have got under old system. As well as their contracted out private pension they shouldn't forget about on top. I guess the point was no worse off and potential to be better off.

saver861,69770202 wrote:

Well there will be some who have 40 + years and will still only get the £119 pension if most of those years were contracted out.

One advantage of the younger you are is that you are much more aware of the consequences for the future and having a pension etc. So while you may have to work longer, most people in their 20's and 30's have the opportunity to plan out for their retirement with greater awareness.

Even with 40 + years but contracted out, they are no worse off than they were under the old scheme. And they have the contracted out pension to enjoy. Everyone is expecting to get a free boost in their state pension, but that was not the aim of the changes (as I understand it). Though agree, someone at bang on 30 with 10 years to go is in a better position than someone on 40 but at SPA as the one on 30 can top up to full pension. But again, the 40 year is no worse off than before, just unable to take advantage of the ability to top up (but looked at from a pure fairness point of view, this is unfair).

Agree, the young have time to plan. I was referring more to the 'fairness' of the change, from the point of view of what needs to be put in to get back out again - the young have a greater tax burden to get the same out. Most young people will have no impact, as you say they have plenty of time so shouldn't notice the change and NI payments are not really noticeable. Arguably they did well out of the original reduction from what 44 odd years for men?

hyubh

saver861 wrote: »

while you may have to work longer, most people in their 20's and 30's have the opportunity to plan out for their retirement with greater awareness.

Says someone early-retired on a final salary pension! Fancy a swap? I'll give you my 'awareness' than my 5% employer DC pension is rubbish and that the state pension may well be means tested by the time I'm of the age, and you'll give me (say) 50% of your LGPS pension every month.

neilvw

RickyB2000 wrote: »

Arguably they did well out of the original reduction from what 44 odd years for men?

44 for men, 39 for women until 2010