MSE News: Women's state pension changes petition smashes 100,000 signatures - and may

hyubh

phillw wrote: »

Well you don't get a full pension.

If you contracted out because of being in an occupational scheme that was contracted out, you got an occupational pension (typically of much higher value) instead. What you 'lost' was for people who didn't have such a thing.

Alternatively, if you contracted out into a personal pension for the period when that was possible, that was your free, individual choice. In neither case should younger people be paying for an inflated state pension you were never entitled to have before, i.e. it is perfectly fair that you do not get the 'full' single tier SP.

At the transition you get the higher of the old and new calculation, with most getting the old because the new calculation is much lower.

Yes, which doesn't mean they are losing out.

When they have finished the transition then people will be worse off.

Yes, for those who would have been contracted in all their working lives under the old system anyway!

This will affect people more if they contracted out and then were put into a situation where they cannot make up for those years.

What do you mean? If the gap between the new state pension being introduced and your own state pension age is small, then you will be getting basically what you would have got under the old system; conversely, if you have many years to go, you will be progressively, in effect, cancelling out your contracted-out deduction in a way that was impossible under the old system. If you are such a person, you may well be one of the prime beneficiaries of the new system!

phillw

LHW99 wrote: »

So why does your premium go up, even if you have to put in a 'no fault' claim?

I don't understand your question as a no fault claim is a previous claim and I said that those do affect how much they charge.

There are several theories why:

1. You live in an area where there are a lot of risky drivers.
2. Your driving caused the accident to happen. e.g. you are hesitant at a junction and pull away and then stop and the person behind you drives into you. The person behind will blamed, but your behaviour is likely to attract another accident.
3. They know that other insurance companies will put the premium up, therefore they can too.

1 & 2 sound feasible, however my experience with insurance companies is that they will do whatever they can to put you in a position where your premium will go up. The common trick is knock for knock as the insurance industry get to push two insurance premiums up, another is if you claim through your fully comprehensive insurance and they don't recover the excess then they aren't out of pocket, it's only you that is out of pocket and you have a higher premium as well (and loss of no claims bonus).

phillw

hyubh wrote: »

if you have many years to go, you will be progressively, in effect, cancelling out your contracted-out deduction in a way that was impossible under the old system. If you are such a person, you may well be one of the prime beneficiaries of the new system!

Unless you're self employed now, having to look after a loved one, or don't earn enough and don't qualify for benefits. You paid for something and now you're being told you're going to have to pay for it again, some people won't be able to do that. People who worked hard and thought they were doing the right thing will get less money than people who just did a trivial low paid job and were always going to rely on the government to look after them in their old age.

Women complaining because they will have to work an extra six years is a joke in comparison.

greenglide

So why does your premium go up, even if you have to put in a 'no fault' claim?

Because all claims cost the insurance company, irrespective of blame.

"No fault" does not mean that the other party or their insurers paid. If the other party paid your insurers may be informed but there isnt any claim.

saver861

dunstonh wrote: »

I wonder how many more signatures the petition may have got had it been worded correctly and focused only on the unfair issue.

Yes - imagine if someone or some organisation had took the lead and done a petition on the 2011 changes?

I wonder why that did not happen?

molerat

phillw wrote: »

Unless you're self employed now, having to look after a loved one, or don't earn enough and don't qualify for benefits. You paid for something and now you're being told you're going to have to pay for it again, some people won't be able to do that. People who worked hard and thought they were doing the right thing will get less money than people who just did a trivial low paid job and were always going to rely on the government to look after them in their old age.

Women complaining because they will have to work an extra six years is a joke in comparison.

I am confused, how are you being asked to "pay again" for something ? In April you will get a pension statement figure, as you can every year, of what you have earned to date. If you have a "full house" of 30 years under the current system all you could do to increase that was work and earn additional pension amounts. Under the new system your figure in April will be either the higher of what you would have had anyway or the figure under the new system. The good point now is that if your figure, arrived at by either method, is below the new maximum of £155.65 you will be able to top this up by working, receiving benefit credits or paying class 2 self employed or class 3 voluntary contributions, something you would not have been able to do under the old system. You are only being asked to pay for something on top of what you already were entitled to.

MrsM comes out a winner under the new system. She is was never contracted out and only has 27 years plus a little grad. 27 years new pension is worth about £16 more per week than her old entitlement. I have 39 years but was contracted out for the majority of my working life and will get exactly what I was expecting when I gave up work long before the new pension was formulated. The good thing is that I can now top this amount up to close to the full new amount by either working or making VCs, something I would not have been able to do before.

The only down side is that I will have to wait 6 months longer for it than planned in 2009 but then I am a man so I don't count in the equality stakes !

phillw

greenglide wrote: »

"No fault" does not mean that the other party or their insurers paid. If the other party paid your insurers may be informed but there isnt any claim.

In clear "no fault" claims then it can be better for you to contact the third party insurance company. I made the mistake of talking to mine, the claim line was operated by an ambulance chaser firm of lawyers who passed me onto my insurer in india after they had determined it was a 50:50 case. I ended up going direct and got a better courtesy car and my own choice of repairer who did a much better job than what the garage my insurance company wanted to use had proposed. I closed the claim and eight months later when it came up for renewal they had forgotten to contact the other insurance company for confirmation and so their computer wouldn't let them quote me anything reasonable at all as according to them I had an open claim.

If you go through your insurer then some will only recover your excess if you pay them for legal cover and if they don't recover your excess then you have a claim on your file.

phillw

molerat wrote: »

The good point now is that if your figure, arrived at by either method, is below the new maximum of £155.65 you will be able to top this up by working, receiving benefit credits or paying class 2 self employed or class 3 voluntary contributions, something you would not have been able to do under the old system. You are only being asked to pay for something on top of what you already were entitled to.

I'm sure there are winners with the new system. You appear to be arguing over semantics, I said "pay again" and you say "top up".

The new calculations for someone who contracted out are lower than what the old basic state pension was. In the transition they are using both calculations, but after that you will have to put more money in to get what you would have done before. Do you understand now?

If the contracted out people weren't going to be worse off then they would have offered to transfer them back in.

jem16

phillw wrote: »

The new calculations for someone who contracted out are lower than what the old basic state pension was. In the transition they are using both calculations, but after that you will have to put more money in to get what you would have done before. Do you understand now?

You're wrong in your understanding.

I have 41 years NI contributions but all contracted out bar the 3 years for age 16-18.

Under the current rules that entitles me to £115.95 - the basic state pension.

Under new rules it entitles me to £76.

Due to transitional rules I will get the higher of the two, so I will get £115.95 - my statement actually says £119.83 as that is what it will be on my retirement date.

So if I don't work after April 2016 ( or make voluntary contributions ) I get exactly what I had expected to get and do not have to pay any more.

However if I do pay after April 2016 I can make that up to £144.73 which is more than I was expecting to get so I'm a winner.

molerat

phillw wrote: »

I'm sure there are winners with the new system. You appear to be arguing over semantics, I said "pay again" and you say "top up".

The new calculations for someone who contracted out are lower than what the old basic state pension was. In the transition they are using both calculations, but after that you will have to put more money in to get what you would have done before. Do you understand now?

If the contracted out people weren't going to be worse off then they would have offered to transfer them back in.

You pay nothing extra to get exactly what you would have got under the old rules, you pay extra to get more.