Married Womens' Small Stamp (National Insurance)

EdInvestor

margaretclare wrote: »

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.

Possibly that's why divorcees can claim the 60% pension on the ex's NI record.If that wasn't allowed, the state would in effect have reneged on these formerly married women ( not the husband, who would still have the right to supply a 60% pension to a new wife).

CIS

Possibly that's why divorcees can claim the 60% pension on the ex's NI record.If that wasn't allowed, the state would in effect have reneged on these formerly married women ( not the husband, who would still have the right to supply a 60% pension to a new wife).

Divorcees can receive up to 100% depending on the combination of their and their ex-partners NI record.

Biggles14

margaretclare wrote: »

Well, this is a can of worms.



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

How right you are.

Young girls starting work forthe first time as late as the 60's were paid half the wage of males. Married Women were encouraged to think that their husbands contributions would give them a pension. Indeed, I cant be sure but I dont think it was possible for women to contribute to a pension in their own right at that time. In any case their earnings were so low that they probably couldn't afford a full stamp. Equal pay and equal rights were long overdue. But why not equal pensions for those who had no option?

My wife has recently "retired" and now receives the princely sum of £52 per week. How are women supposed to survive on this?

Is'nt it about time that all you lovely ladies got together and did a "Emmeline Pankhurst", and campaign for equal pensions?

:j

seven-day-weekend

Biggles14 wrote: »

How right you are.

Young girls starting work forthe first time as late as the 60's were paid half the wage of males. Married Women were encouraged to think that their husbands contributions would give them a pension. Indeed, I cant be sure but I dont think it was possible for women to contribute to a pension in their own right at that time. In any case their earnings were so low that they probably couldn't afford a full stamp. Equal pay and equal rights were long overdue. But why not equal pensions for those who had no option?

My wife has recently "retired" and now receives the princely sum of £52 per week. How are women supposed to survive on this?

Is'nt it about time that all you lovely ladies got together and did a "Emmeline Pankhurst", and campaign for equal pensions?

.

:j

But we do have equal access to pension schemes now. I don't see how we can turn back the legislation of forty years ago.

And women had the choice to contribute to the State Pension even then!

Poppy9

My mother would have been 80 this year and certainly knew that paying the "married woman's stamp" would not entitle her to a pension in her own right. She never did anything about it though as she only worked sporadically when needed when we were younger (4 children) and then just did what she called "little p/t jobs" to get her out of the house when we were grown up. She assumed my father would continue to be the financial provider.

As it happens if my mother had taken the decision to pay full stamp then it would have been a waste as she died at 61.

I think whether women who opted to pay the reduced stamp should get a full pension is a tricky one. Most woman knew what the effect of their decision would be but didn't want to spend the money then thinking retirement was a long way off and things might change etc. They chose to spend their money on other things, but not their pension. Plenty of people are still burying their heads in the sand today about making provision for retirement and making a choice to spend their money elsewhere.

What do we do? Do we give them the same 'rewards' as those who planned ahead and chose to spend their money investing for the future or do we condemn then to a poor old age? Should we punish women who chose to raise their family, or should we punish working women by making their contributions subsidise those that could afford to stay at home?

seven-day-weekend

The stay-at-home women who looked after their family would have been entitled to Home Responsibilities Protection after 1976 (if they had been paying Full Contributions before that) so looking after a family didn't necessarily mean they couldn't get a full pension.

I stayed at home for five years, then went to Uni, then had jobs where I didn't earn enough to pay NI at all and I have 13 years HRP. I have also payed NI for 25 years so that I have to pay one more year of voluntary contributions to get full SRP.

krisskross

If I had had my 4 children later then I would have been able to get a full pension in my own right. I would have had the home protection bit from 1963-1986. Wouldn't have left much for me to fund. Still never mind, we all make our choices, if we had crystal balls then perhaps the decisions would be different.

As it is only still married women that lose out on pension because of paying the small stamp, like me they might consider it is a small price to pay for nearly 50 years marriage.

seven-day-weekend

Glad you look at it that way Krisskross! There is nothing like a long marriage with the person you love. We have been married 36 years soon, on October 2nd.

Just to be absolutely accurate, the Home Responsibilities Protection is only given for a maximum of 19 years and didn't start until (I think) 1976. So you would not have got it for the 23 years you mention. However, you could have got it from 1976-1986, if you had been paying the full stamp.

JUst googled it, HRP started in 1978.