Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

molerat

xylophone wrote: »

Has she obtained a statement yet? If not, you might wish to suggest she does so? https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-statement

I think it is more a case of her believing the state pension not existing in its current "for all" form.

My plans in 2009 were made without taking the SP into consideration and looking at it as a nice bonus at some undefined flexible point in the future. Between us it will give an extra £700 net per month on what we currently live on and with being able to purchase extra years post 2016 that will be extra £900 pm. We use savings to supplement current income but actually manage to put more back in than we use so getting rid of that extra could be difficult. That is one reason why I am not vocally against the 2011 changes that have affected us both. Yes we will lose money but the total is less than the cost of a new car or new kitchen. If retirement plans have not got the flexibility to be able to replace those items in an emergency scenario then those plans were not thought out well enough.

p00hsticks

PensionTech wrote: »

Jo Cumbo of the Financial Times (I strongly recommend her Twitter feed) did some research into this very thing:

Josephine Cumbo 18 Dec 2015
I've done an archive search of National Newspapers 1994-1996 using search terms "women, state, pension age and 65). 214 articles returned.
Articles in terms of number of listings: Times (57); FT (48), Independent (38); Guardian (34) Observer (19) and Daily Mirror (4) London Evening Standard (4); Sunday Mirror (2) and Daily Mail (1)
170 articles were categorised as "political/general news" by the archive. This is just National Newspaper, not regional or magazines.

So just one article in the Daily Mail and none apparently in the Daily Express, the Sun, the News Of the World or The People (although the numbers quoted for each individual paper seem to add up to 7 less than the total ?) - I can't recall if 'Today' was still around in 1995 ?

and therin perhaps lies the issue - it's all very well saying it was well reported in the broadsheets, but how many women in the affected age group would have habitually read the Financial Times or the Observer ?

Goldiegirl

p00hsticks wrote: »

So just one article in the Daily Mail and none apparently in the Daily Express, the Sun, the News Of the World or The People (although the numbers quoted for each individual paper seem to add up to 7 less than the total ?) - I can't recall if 'Today' was still around in 1995 ?

and therin perhaps lies the issue - it's all very well saying it was well reported in the broadsheets, but how many women in the affected age group would have habitually read the Financial Times or the Observer ?

Shamefully, I read the Mail in the 90's, and I knew about the 1995 changes. As I remember, there was a lot about it in the Mail on Sunday, which isn't included in the research.

bmm78

Something I alluded to in the previous post is that the media searches should have been focused on the end of 1993, rather than at or around 1995.

I'd be very surprised if there wasn't reasonable coverage of the matter on the 1st December 1993 papers the day after the budget.

I can remember that the Sun used to cover the budget extensively (in their own inimitable way). This is the budget we're talking about; probably the most visible platform for government policy issues outside of general elections. It's a crossover event for the masses. The broadsheets will obviously provide more detail, but not necessarily any more coverage.

Nick_C

molerat wrote: »

... and with being able to purchase extra years post 2016 that will be extra £900 pm ...

Hi Molerat (or anyone else who has studied this!) As you've looked into this, I wonder if you would mind confirming that I am thinking along the right lines.

I can't get my SRP until June 2023. I have already retired. I'm not paying NICs.

I got an on line estimate from https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/checkmystatepension

This says I'll be entitled to £132.35 based on my contributions to date. My understanding is that I will be able to increase this to £155.65 by paying voluntary NICs for 6 years. (6 * £4.44 + £132.35). Or I could increase it to £154.55 by paying NICs for 5 years (5 * £4.44 + £132.35), which seems like the better option.

Is this right?

Am I right in thinking It would seem to be better to wait until April 2021 and pay all five years at once, as the price doesn't go up if you don't pay in the year it is due?

saver861

Nick_C wrote: »

This says I'll be entitled to £132.35 based on my contributions to date. My understanding is that I will be able to increase this to £155.65 by paying voluntary NICs for 6 years. (6 * £4.44 + £132.35). Or I could increase it to £154.55 by paying NICs for 5 years (5 * £4.44 + £132.35), which seems like the better option.

Is this right?

Well 5 years would be the better option as you are at near max in any case so paying over £700 for year six would take a long time to break even.

Nick_C wrote: »

Am I right in thinking It would seem to be better to wait until April 2021 and pay all five years at once, as the price doesn't go up if you don't pay in the year it is due?

The latest date possible is best - but they can go up!!

missbiggles1

xylophone wrote: »

Has she obtained a statement yet? If not, you might wish to suggest she does so? https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-statement

(Trademark question mark because, of course, you might not wish to make such a suggestion.....):) https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5395417 post 42....

Yes, she's had a statement - she just doesn't think she'll actually get it.

missbiggles1

p00hsticks wrote: »

So just one article in the Daily Mail and none apparently in the Daily Express, the Sun, the News Of the World or The People (although the numbers quoted for each individual paper seem to add up to 7 less than the total ?) - I can't recall if 'Today' was still around in 1995 ?

and therin perhaps lies the issue - it's all very well saying it was well reported in the broadsheets, but how many women in the affected age group would have habitually read the Financial Times or the Observer ?

The Budget changes (which is where this started out) are very well covered on all TV news programmes as well as in the press.

molerat

Nick_C wrote: »

Hi Molerat (or anyone else who has studied this!) As you've looked into this, I wonder if you would mind confirming that I am thinking along the right lines.

I can't get my SRP until June 2023. I have already retired. I'm not paying NICs.

I got an on line estimate from https://www.tax.service.gov.uk/checkmystatepension

This says I'll be entitled to £132.35 based on my contributions to date. My understanding is that I will be able to increase this to £155.65 by paying voluntary NICs for 6 years. (6 * £4.44 + £132.35). Or I could increase it to £154.55 by paying NICs for 5 years (5 * £4.44 + £132.35), which seems like the better option.

Is this right?

Am I right in thinking It would seem to be better to wait until April 2021 and pay all five years at once, as the price doesn't go up if you don't pay in the year it is due?

A lot will depend on the amount of years you currently have accrued and your contracted out status. If you have less than 35 years it may be worth buying pre 2016 years as they are held at special rates until 2019 (or the price due in the year paid until 2023). Post 2016 years will only be payable at their "current" rate for 2 years, the rate usually increases with inflation.

MrsM has less than 35 years and is missing some post 2006 years so we will be buying them in 2019 at "special rates" with money currently held in an interest bearing account. I have >35 years so will be topping up after 2016 using the 2 year rule.

xylophone

Yes, she's had a statement - she just doesn't think she'll actually get it.

Well there's not much that can be done about her lack of confidence in the Government - I suppose she'll be able to hang out the flags when NSP day dawns for her!:)