Married Womens' Small Stamp (National Insurance)

seven-day-weekend

margaretclare wrote: »

Like me.



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).



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

I would have loved to have paid into the LGPS for longer, but although I was employed by them since 1987, I was part-time and at that time wasn't eligible to join.

I rememeber when it was announced that part-time employees must have the same rights as full-time ones, I instantly applied to join.

I was told I couldn't as I didn't have set hours (which was true, I was a relief lollipop lady, filling in as and when. In practice I had work every day and I did have a permanent contract.). I argued that if I had no work I would be paid a minimum of ten hours a week, then I should be able to join the pension scheme based on ten hours. After nearly a year of deliberating they allowed me to do this.

However, the same year I joined the planning department (which I had qualifications for )full-time so in a way you might say my fight had been for nothing because I was then full-time, ....but I'm SO glad I fought and won!.

I then worked full-time for another seven years and part-time for two and then we came to live in Spain.

However, I believe I have maximised my LG Pension as much as I am able. I even started paying AVCs which eventually went towards buying another year into my LGPS.

So i believe that I ahve done the best I can with my pensions, and getting back to my original point: people who have always paid the small stamp shouldn't really be whinging now if they don't have a pension. That was their choice.

Savvy_Sue

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

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/

Well there you are, you see, I hadn't really got how HRP works into my head.

Although in my defence, the small stamp's never been an issue for me because I married too late! :rotfl:

But I think I agree with MargaretClare, they just didn't think!

Although if it was a low paying money and the income was critical to the family budget, you can understand people not wanting to pay any more than they HAD to in NI. Plus there's krisskross's experience: working out that it actually wasn't worth it.

seven-day-weekend

In Krisskross's place, yes, too late. I would have made the same decision in those circumstances.

Otherwise - I suppose if it meant my family had a meal or didn't have a meal, then I would not have paid for the full stamp. I'm glad to say I've never been in this position. Other people may not have been so fortunate.

I wanted this to turn into a good discussion. Looks like it is going that way!!

EdInvestor

Can you "convert" small stamps into big ones restrospectively? For instance at present because of the problems in the DWP computer, you can actually pay 10 years worth of voluntary NICs in arrears.Can you upgrade a small stamp already paid for the period into a full stamp by paying in the voluntary contrbutions?

If someone was due to retire in say 2017, could they pay full NICs from now until then,plus 10 years of back NICS and then add on some HRP from the 80s/90s to get a full BSP?

luxor4t

Oooh, this brought back some memories!

I was 21, fresh from Uni and working for the DHSS on National Insurance Contributions. The 'Married women's election' to choose to pay a reduced NI contribution had recently ended and the abuse I was subjected to was unbelievable. I remember one "lady" screaming and thumping the desk because she had just divorced and so had lost the right to pay the 'small stamp'. The manager tried to explain, but was sworn at.

My mother changed to the full stamp after a lot of thought. Her friend chose not to, and now regrets it. Mum was able to claim benefit before she was retired on medical grounds, had Invalidity benefit and now has had 15 years pension at about 75% of the full rate - much better than she would have had depending on my father's pension.

seven-day-weekend

EdInvestor wrote: »

Can you "convert" small stamps into big ones restrospectively? For instance at present because of the problems in the DWP computer, you can actually pay 10 years worth of voluntary NICs in arrears.Can you upgrade a small stamp already paid for the period into a full stamp by paying in the voluntary contrbutions?

If someone was due to retire in say 2017, could they pay full NICs from now until then,plus 10 years of back NICS and then add on some HRP from the 80s/90s to get a full BSP?

Good ideA! bUT |i WOULDN'T AHVE THOUGHT SO.

aNYONE OUT THERE WANT To TRY?

OOps! Sorry for Capitals!

margaretclare

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

In Krisskross's place, yes, too late. I would have made the same decision in those circumstances.

Otherwise - I suppose if it meant my family had a meal or didn't have a meal, then I would not have paid for the full stamp. I'm glad to say I've never been in this position. Other people may not have been so fortunate.

I wanted this to turn into a good discussion. Looks like it is going that way!!

You would be surprised how many women were - supposedly - working only for 'pin money', the husband was the breadwinner etc etc, when all the time, often it was the woman's earnings that put a meal on the table or bought the kids' shoes. The illusion that women only worked to buy pins - whoever did, in fact? - went on for an awful long time, and was one of the insults often thrown at working women.

Margaret

margaretclare

luxor4t wrote: »

Oooh, this brought back some memories!

I was 21, fresh from Uni and working for the DHSS on National Insurance Contributions. The 'Married women's election' to choose to pay a reduced NI contribution had recently ended and the abuse I was subjected to was unbelievable. I remember one "lady" screaming and thumping the desk because she had just divorced and so had lost the right to pay the 'small stamp'. The manager tried to explain, but was sworn at.

I'm really pleased to be reminded of this. You see, when DH married his second (ex) wife in 1988, she was already divorced and was working as a medical secretary, so she wouldn't have been able to pay the 'small stamp' then - that option was long gone. So assuming his ex was divorced from first husband after April 1978, which is likely, she won't have been paying the 'small stamp' if indeed she ever did. So she will have had to earn her own pension contributions.

You may say, it needn't bother me if she's getting her own pension topped-up from his contributions, which may be the case, and certainly, it doesn't bother him. I just think it's not at all fair. A 'clean break' divorce should mean just that - a clean break. I've felt for many many years that a woman -whether single, married, divorced or widowed - should have her own pension provision, earned in her own right.

Now that's going to be controversial!!

My mother changed to the full stamp after a lot of thought. Her friend chose not to, and now regrets it. Mum was able to claim benefit before she was retired on medical grounds, had Invalidity benefit and now has had 15 years pension at about 75% of the full rate - much better than she would have had depending on my father's pension.

There are a lot of women that I know of, now regretting the choices and decisions that they made in the past. To be fair to them, they expected, were told, believed, that 'somebody' would take care of them, whether their husband or the state. And it has turned out not to be the case.

Margaret

seven-day-weekend

margaretclare wrote: »

I'm really pleased to be reminded of this. You see, when DH married his second (ex) wife in 1988, she was already divorced and was working as a medical secretary, so she wouldn't have been able to pay the 'small stamp' then - that option was long gone. So assuming his ex was divorced from first husband after April 1978, which is likely, she won't have been paying the 'small stamp' if indeed she ever did. So she will have had to earn her own pension contributions.

You may say, it needn't bother me if she's getting her own pension topped-up from his contributions, which may be the case, and certainly, it doesn't bother him. I just think it's not at all fair. A 'clean break' divorce should mean just that - a clean break. I've felt for many many years that a woman -whether single, married, divorced or widowed - should have her own pension provision, earned in her own right.

Now that's going to be controversial!!

There are a lot of women that I know of, now regretting the choices and decisions that they made in the past. To be fair to them, they expected, were told, believed, that 'somebody' would take care of them, whether their husband or the state. And it has turned out not to be the case.

Margaret

Yes I agree to a certain extent Margaret, but the one thing they DID know was that they would have no pension in their own right.

So why have a hissy fit about it now, when on retirement they find they have no pension?

And if they are claiming off their husbands' contributions they will have to wait until he is retired I'm afraid. This happened to my MIL, she was 15 years older than my FIL, and when he died at only 55 she was 70 and still not getting a pension. (She did get one when he died though).

I agree with something you said tearlier, the option to pay reduced stamp should have been phased out altogether in 1978. But there we go, hindsight is always 20/20 isn't it?

krisskross

My husband is 5 years older than me so I didn't have to wait for my pittance. I am actually happy that I don't get more. After tax I get the grand sum of £80 a month now, so if it was more it would be more income tax. Now I do know that it is a percentage but it already seems a lot on pension income.