Married Womens' Small Stamp (National Insurance)

seven-day-weekend

There have been a few threads/articles about this recently.

It puzzles me that those women who have paid this all their working lives are now surprised that they don't have a pension.

I paid the small stamp for about a year, then changed to the full stamp as I knew the small one didn't qualify me for any benefits or build up towards my pension.

Why do so many people seem not to know this ?

(My husband says I probably knew it because I read the leaflet about it at the time and most people didn't bother. Do you think this could be the case?)

Savvy_Sue

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

(My husband says I probably knew it because I read the leaflet about it and most people won't bother. Do you think this could be the case?)

Yes. Or even if they read it, the implications didn't sink in.

Plus, and I may be confusing two separate issues here, it may also be because when you're claiming Child Benefit, you also get NI conts paid towards your pension under the Home Responsibilities Protection scheme. So, married woman has children, but knows she's getting something towards her pension under HRP. Children grow up, no more Child Benefit, but it doesn't occur to her that she's no longer getting the HRP ...

seven-day-weekend

Hi there Savvy Sue! You don't actually get 'credited' any contributions with HRP; what you get is for each complete tax year that you are in receipt of Child Benefit yoiu get a reduction of the years that you have to pay to receive a full State Pension (up to a maximum of 19 years)., assuming you were not earning enought o pay any otherwise.

My own case for example - I have 13 years HRP so only have to pay for 26 years instead of 39. I have one year of voluntary contributions left to pay before my retirement date of January 2010.

HRP does not apply to those paying small stamp. Here's a link:

http://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk/State_Pensions/Home_Responsibilities_Protection/

margaretclare

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

There have been a few threads/articles about this recently.

It puzzles me that those women who have paid this all their working lives are now surprised that they don't have a pension.

I paid the small stamp for about a year, then changed to the full stamp as I knew the small one didn't qualify me for any benefits or build up towards my pension.

Why do so many people seem not to know this ?

(My husband says I probably knew it because I read the leaflet about it at the time and most people didn't bother. Do you think this could be the case?)

Well, this is a can of worms.

IMHO it is because perceptions, expectations and attitudes - the general zeitgeist - have changed slowly and imperceptibly over the decades. I've also thought for a very long time that it was a mistake when this changed in April 1978, that married women who were paying the 'small stamp' already i.e. married before that date, were allowed to continue paying it. IMHO that 'small stamp' option should have been abolished completely, not only for women marrying after that date, but for everyone. All right, it would have been unpopular, there would have been cries of 'we should be allowed to make our own choices', but look at the legislation we've seen come in more recently which has not been popular in many quarters, the anti-smoking ban is a good example. The point is, many of those women who were married before April 1978 are only just coming up to retirement now, many of them still to retire, and they see women who - as they see it - have done the same as them, and are getting a full pension in their own right. 'It's not fair, I worked all those years and get no pension' is the cry, or 'I have to wait until my husband retires but my neighbour, or friend, or workmate, gets full pension when she reaches 60, I'll only get 60% of my husband's in any case....'

Ideas have changed only slowly over the years, and 1978 was 30 years after the start of the Welfare State, when it was assumed that a woman wouldn't want or need to earn her own pension rights because, as Beveridge put it 'she has other duties....replenishing the population...' A minority report written by two women called Abbott and Bompas was published following the Beveridge Report in 1942, they could see how unfair it would be to women, but their recommendations were ignored.

Many women didn't know that there was a choice, that they could opt to continue paying full NI contributions even after their marriage. I've heard women say 'oh, you were told you had to' or 'everybody just did it'. For very many years women's earnings weren't taken seriously, were dismissed contemptuously as 'pin money' and therefore it wasn't thought necessary or desirable that a woman should earn her own pension rights as well as taking her own income seriously.

It wasn't until the Budget of 1990, as recently as that, that a woman's earnings weren't considered part of her husband's income for tax purposes! Since then we've had independent taxation, and, where the married people's tax allowance still exists i.e. for couples in which one was born before April 1935, it's possible to split this to set against our individual incomes. Many people aren't aware that this option exists either!

Margaret

seven-day-weekend

margaretclare wrote: »

Well, this is a can of worms.

IMHO it is because perceptions, expectations and attitudes - the general zeitgeist - have changed slowly and imperceptibly over the decades. I've also thought for a very long time that it was a mistake when this changed in April 1978, that married women who were paying the 'small stamp' already i.e. married before that date, were allowed to continue paying it. IMHO that 'small stamp' option should have been abolished completely, not only for women marrying after that date, but for everyone. All right, it would have been unpopular, there would have been cries of 'we should be allowed to make our own choices', but look at the legislation we've seen come in more recently which has not been popular in many quarters, the anti-smoking ban is a good example. The point is, many of those women who were married before April 1978 are only just coming up to retirement now, many of them still to retire, and they see women who - as they see it - have done the same as them, and are getting a full pension in their own right. 'It's not fair, I worked all those years and get no pension' is the cry, or 'I have to wait until my husband retires but my neighbour, or friend, or workmate, gets full pension when she reaches 60, I'll only get 60% of my husband's in any case....'

Ideas have changed only slowly over the years, and 1978 was 30 years after the start of the Welfare State, when it was assumed that a woman wouldn't want or need to earn her own pension rights because, as Beveridge put it 'she has other duties....replenishing the population...' A minority report written by two women called Abbott and Bompas was published following the Beveridge Report in 1942, they could see how unfair it would be to women, but their recommendations were ignored.

Many women didn't know that there was a choice, that they could opt to continue paying full NI contributions even after their marriage. I've heard women say 'oh, you were told you had to' or 'everybody just did it'. For very many years women's earnings weren't taken seriously, were dismissed contemptuously as 'pin money' and therefore it wasn't thought necessary or desirable that a woman should earn her own pension rights as well as taking her own income seriously.

It wasn't until the Budget of 1990, as recently as that, that a woman's earnings weren't considered part of her husband's income for tax purposes! Since then we've had independent taxation, and, where the married people's tax allowance still exists i.e. for couples in which one was born before April 1935, it's possible to split this to set against our individual incomes. Many people aren't aware that this option exists either!

Margaret

Yes, I am one of those women just coming up to retirement age but liuckily I made the choice to change to full stamp after only paying the small stamp for a year.

But the fact remains those who are now reaping the effects of not paying the stamp HAVEN't done the same as those who have! The small stamp did not acquire pension rights. You pay your money (or not)and take your choice! So it's NOT unfair, they didn't pay in - the ones getting pensions did.

Now I feel sorry for those who say they didn't know they had a choice, but WHY didn't they know? I always knew. Surely the people who didn't know must be few and far between.

margaretclare

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

But the fact remains those who are now reaping the effects of not paying the stamp HAVEN'T done the same as those who have! The small stamp did not acquire pension rights. You pay your money (or not) and take your choice! So it's NOT unfair, they didn't pay in - the ones getting pensions did.

Of course it's not unfair. However, people don't look at things like that. Some see only what they choose to see. Don't forget, that was the generation that was told 'we will look after you from cradle to grave' and some people actually believed it.

Now I feel sorry for those who say they didn't know they had a choice, but WHY didn't they know? I always knew. Surely the people who didn't know must be few and far between.

Many women will say they 'didn't know, weren't told, everybody did it...' Which means that they were like a flock of sheep, not thinking for themselves, just going along with the general zeitgeist of the time, not questioning anything (which I think was commoner in tht generation - I'm a bit of an aberration myself!) or maybe it was just that their heads were in a pink woolly cloud about the wedding day and everything else that was going on. What young woman, on her wedding day, thinks about drawing her retirement pension? Pretty few, I would think!

I do know of 2 women at least who should have known better, and I met them both while I was still training to be a voluntary CAB advisor. One of them was our tutor. She said that her mother had always paid full stamp but died aged 63, so 'all her contributions were wasted', and this had convinced her that it was a waste of money, might as well have the money in hand now. In fact my mother also died aged 63, but I took the opposite view!! I thought it wasn't a waste of money at all, and in fact I'm now 9 years older than my mother was at her death and, with life expectancy as it is now, will hopefully live a bit longer yet.

The other woman was our Benefits Advisor and she'd spent 25 years working in the DHSS (as was) but she said 'it was always going to be a temporary job, I never thought of it as anything more than "pin-money" (how that phrase comes up!) and so I never changed back'. She of all people was best placed to know the advantages/disadvantages, but she didn't take it on board. Those 2 women will be coming up to retirement in the next year or so and will have to live with the choices they made.

Margaret

seven-day-weekend

margaretclare wrote: »

Of course it's not unfair. However, people don't look at things like that. Some see only what they choose to see. Don't forget, that was the generation that was told 'we will look after you from cradle to grave' and some people actually believed it.



Many women will say they 'didn't know, weren't told, everybody did it...' Which means that they were like a flock of sheep, not thinking for themselves, just going along with the general zeitgeist of the time, not questioning anything (which I think was commoner in tht generation - I'm a bit of an aberration myself!) or maybe it was just that their heads were in a pink woolly cloud about the wedding day and everything else that was going on. What young woman, on her wedding day, thinks about drawing her retirement pension? Pretty few, I would think!

I do know of 2 women at least who should have known better, and I met them both while I was still training to be a voluntary CAB advisor. One of them was our tutor. She said that her mother had always paid full stamp but died aged 63, so 'all her contributions were wasted', and this had convinced her that it was a waste of money, might as well have the money in hand now. In fact my mother also died aged 63, but I took the opposite view!! I thought it wasn't a waste of money at all, and in fact I'm now 9 years older than my mother was at her death and, with life expectancy as it is now, will hopefully live a bit longer yet.

The other woman was our Benefits Advisor and she'd spent 25 years working in the DHSS (as was) but she said 'it was always going to be a temporary job, I never thought of it as anything more than "pin-money" (how that phrase comes up!) and so I never changed back'. She of all people was best placed to know the advantages/disadvantages, but she didn't take it on board. Those 2 women will be coming up to retirement in the next year or so and will have to live with the choices they made.

Margaret

Yes, I was brought up to always think for myself as well.

My mum and one sister didn't work outside the home after marriage, so the question of their NI did not arise. My other sister (20 years older than me) did (after her children were at school) and she paid the full stamp and got her own pension and a NHS pension.

I did pay the small stamp for a little while, but that was just because I was young and silly. When I thought about it properly, I realised I could carry on paying it and then draw from my husbands' contributions ( the same as my mum and sister), but then I thought, well why should I do that when I can build up a pension of my own?

It was one of the best financial decisions I have ever made. My SRP will be my main source of income when I am retirement age (January 2010). I only paid into the LGPS for just under ten years so that will not be not a huge amount and I will not be drawing it until 2014.

My husband has his Teachers' Pension which he is already receiving and a full State Pension due in 2014.

krisskross

I am one of those that only paid the small stamp following marriage in the 60s.

I was phoned by someone at the then DSSS in the late 80s asking if I wanted to convert to paying full stamp. She did the figures and even with paying full stamp from then on I could not get more than the 60% I would get on my husband's contributions as a pension so i decided against it. In fact I get £212 a month SRP but because of my occupational pension still pay £130 monthly income tax. I am actually glad I didn't pay more NI otherwise I would be filling the Government coffers a bit more.

margaretclare

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

My mum and one sister didn't work outside the home after marriage, so the question of their NI did not arise. My other sister (20 years older than me) did (after her children were at school) and she paid the full stamp and got her own pension and a NHS pension.

Like me.

I did pay the small stamp for a little while, but that was just because I was young and silly. When I thought about it properly, I realised I could carry on paying it and then draw from my husbands' contributions ( the same as my mum and sister), but then I thought, well why should I do that when I can build up a pension of my own?

I am afraid that I was one of those I wrote about earlier, with my head in a pink woolly cloud and not thinking about the future. I changed to the small stamp within days of my first marriage in February 1957, got a job within days as well - no honeymoon and I was expected to stay at home and look after FIL.

In fact I left within a matter of weeks, was gone completely by June that year. I realised then the disadvantages of my decision. I needed to claim unemployment benefit and I could then, but by another contribution year I wouldn't have been able to. So I changed back. I did 3 years as a student nurse and never thought of changing back again even when we got back together (he couldn't stand living at home either, with MIL after his father died in 1958).

It was one of the best financial decisions I have ever made.

Yes, me too. In addition, paying into the NHS pension scheme.

It means, now, that DH and I have full SRP in our own right, he has SERPS plus an annuity. I have some SERPS too and several small annuities (one of them has just paid for our new brick garden wall).

I think the SRP plus SERPS/S2P should form the bedrock of anyone's pension planning, anything else can go on top.

Margaret

Mrs_pbradley936

I know that when all of this started people did not divorce as often but was the system changed because of the divorce rate? What I mean is if a man has/had two or three ex-wives would all of them be able to have a claim via his contributions?

margaretclare

Mrs_pbradley936 wrote: »

I know that when all of this started people did not divorce as often but was the system changed because of the divorce rate? What I mean is if a man has/had two or three ex-wives would all of them be able to have a claim via his contributions?

No, I don't think it had anything to do with the divorce rate.

I was around when many of these changes took place during the 1970s, in fact, women's independent taxation was one of the issues I was involved in, as well as payment of Child Benefit directly to the mother as opposed to extra tax allowances for the dad.

Going back to Beveridge again, it was envisaged that married women wouldn't be at work in such numbers because 'they had other duties' as he put it, but in fact, married women continued to work, and there was such a labour shortage, skills shortage in the 1950s/60s that women had no difficulty finding jobs (that's why the 'Windrush' generation because of the labour shortage) and gradually perceptions and expectations began to change. Women started demanding their rights! The idea of women's work as 'pin money' gradually began to change, to be replaced with the idea that women could have a career and a pension in her own right.

There was other legislation around at the time - the Sex Discrimination Act and the Equal Pay Act, both in 1975. I was quite active in the Women's Movement right through the 1970s and I remember all these changes and the gradual shift in expectations and attitudes.

You've raised an interesting point, though. My DH has been divorced twice. His first ex married again twice after him (4 times in all) so she won't be claiming against his contributions. His second ex - we just don't know, and he's not at all interested. In theory, if I hadn't got a full SRP in my own right I would be able to claim 60% of a pension against his contributions, as well as his second ex (if she does, we don't know) but as I have a full SRP the question doesn't arise.

Margaret