WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

Pollycat

mumps wrote: »

Yes that is it. My point isn't really about if people were interested or not at the time but that people always go on about the fairness and equality but seem to forget there were other inequalities.

I have had trouble with the link, although a google search brings up lots of references. If I remember correctly the change happened in 2001.

I only said I probably wasn't interested because I wasn't aware of the unfairness you say existed.

If I had been interested, I'm pretty sure I would have looked into it at the time and therefore been aware.

FTR, I worked in the pension section of a large company for a number of years and was a member of the occupational pension scheme (called - IIRC - superannuation).

mumps

Pollycat wrote: »

I only said I probably wasn't interested because I wasn't aware of the unfairness you say existed.

If I had been interested, I'm pretty sure I would have looked into it at the time and therefore been aware.

FTR, I worked in the pension section of a large company for a number of years and was a member of the occupational pension scheme (called - IIRC - superannuation).

I understand why you weren't interested, I was due to family history and I think most people aren't aware of this inequality. I just feel when there is so much talk of fairness and equality it is important to note that there is another side to it.

I can't get the government links to work but this gives details https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Widowed_Parent%27s_Allowance

Of course the awful thing was my poor grandparents burying two of their children within a couple of years and seeing five of their GC left without a parent, sad as it was for me and my siblings my little cousins were hardly more than babies and the financial situation just made it harder so I count my blessings that I had two parents till I was 13 and that my mother was able to manage financially.

GunJack

slightlymiffed wrote: »

GunJack - you are assuming that everyone has an occupational pension. Why is that?

I'm not, tbh, it' a case of whatever your pension, it should benefit from a few more years of contributions (unless already at the max for that particular scheme) whether that's NI, occupational or both.

I get why you may have thought as you did, I have always been in (or dealing with people who do have) occupational pensions, but even if they don't have, they would have been building SERPS/S2P prior to Apr 16 if working.....

...and remember, NI isn't just for pensions, it's also to make you eligible for many benefits should the need arise....

jamesd

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Thanks for your explanation. Apologies for assuming anything jamesd but, just for clarity, can you confirm whether or not you work within the pensions sector? You certainly seem to have been giving specific advice on pension related issues across the MSE forums.

My reason for asking is that I would understand if your own livelihood could be affected were higher rate tax relief on pensions to be axed?"

A "third try lucky?" attempt even after my observation that for years my profile has contained "I do not work in the financial services industry. I'm neither an IFA nor a mortgage advisor"?

Nope, not third time lucky. I don't work in the pensions sector.

After three failed tries maybe you should just give up on trying to impugn my motives and get back to the issues instead of the person?

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Government says there's no money to pay any transitional support to 1950's women but surely any measure which increased tax revenue could help with the 'no money' situation?

Different pots of money. Income tax relief is general government spending, state pensions come from NI.

slightlymiffed

jamesd wrote: »

A "third try lucky?" attempt even after my observation that for years my profile has contained "I do not work in the financial services industry. I'm neither an IFA nor a mortgage advisor"?

Nope, not third time lucky. I don't work in the pensions sector.

After three failed tries maybe you should just give up on trying to impugn my motives and get back to the issues instead of the person?

Different pots of money. Income tax relief is general government spending, state pensions come from NI.

Fair enough - but, (maybe 4th time lucky?) if you don't work in the pensions sector jamesd, are you qualified to give detailed advice to forum members on their pension problems?

Different pots of money? I think you are forgetting,with pension tax relief, there are also lost NI payments involved. According to the Telegraph, the overall cost of pension tax relief, including lost national insurance contributions was nearly £50 billion in 2013-14. Do you agree? I'm no expert (that'll be you ) but are you saying there wouldn't be an NI saving were pension tax relief to be scrapped? And, again, you being the expert, what proportion of that £50 billion in that period would be lost payments to NI?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/12153831/Answer-to-the-pension-tax-relief-question-A-variable-limit.html

slightlymiffed

GunJack wrote: »

I'm not, tbh, it' a case of whatever your pension, it should benefit from a few more years of contributions (unless already at the max for that particular scheme) whether that's NI, occupational or both.

I get why you may have thought as you did, I have always been in (or dealing with people who do have) occupational pensions, but even if they don't have, they would have been building SERPS/S2P prior to Apr 16 if working.....

...and remember, NI isn't just for pensions, it's also to make you eligible for many benefits should the need arise....

You are right about SERPS/S2P prior to April but unfortunately GunJack, many/most of the 1950's born women being most affected by these changes to state pension age already have more than the maximum 35 years NI (I have 44) and, those of us currently working but retiring after April this year, will continue to have to pay NI but will not accrue more than the new state pension. Are you beginning to see why some women are complaining?

jamesd

mumps wrote: »

Don't know why I can't get the links to work but if you google 2001 changes to widowed mothers pension you should get alot of hits.

Thanks. Back to part of your earlier post:

mumps wrote: »

when I was a young mum paying the same NI as a man I didn't get the same protection. My husband's NI gave him protection for me and the children if he died, I would have got a widow's pension, I think it was actually called widowed mothers pension. His contributions would have also got a lump sum of £1000. If I died he didn't get the same so I had to pay for an insurance policy to give the same protection he got thrown in with other benefits from his NI.

The House of Commons library has a note describing this, SN00431 Bereavement Benefits, which summarises the previous system in this way:

"Under the old pre-2001 rules a widow could receive benefits based on her late husband's National Insurance contributions. There were no equivalent National Insurance benefits for widowers. However, there were some provisions for a widower whose wife died when they were both over pensionable age.

The system of widows’ benefits which immediately preceded the introduction of the current bereavement benefit system in 2001 consisted of
• a lump sum Widow’s Payment of £1,000
• a Widowed Mother’s Allowance (WMA) if the widow had children or was pregnant.
• a Widow’s Pension for those aged at least 45 when widowed. Unlike its successor Bereavement Allowance, which for those without dependent children only lasts for one year, Widow’s Pension was payable until retirement age. A widow received a reduced Widows Pension if aged between 45 and 54 at widowhood and only got the full rate if she lost her husband at 55 or over. Entitlement to Widow’s Pension continued until the widow drew her Retirement Pension.

The unequal treatment of widowers went back to the introduction of widows' pensions in 1925 and was carried on into the National Insurance system, which was introduced in 1948.

There were several moves at European Community level to bring in equal treatment for widows and widowers. Also, a number of widowers took cases to the European Court of Human Rights."

It quotes the Secretary of State for Social Security on the reasons for the changes:

"The system also fails on four specific counts. First, it is unfair to men: 15,000 husbands bereaved each year get no help at all. That unfairness cannot continue, and it is already being challenged in the European Court of Human Rights - so doing nothing, as some urge, is not an option. Secondly, the system does not provide enough help with the immediate costs of bereavement, such as unpaid bills or funeral costs. Thirdly, money often goes to those who have the least need of it. Widows without children who have substantial incomes can get benefits for years, but a man - who may have growing children and modest means - gets nothing at all. Finally, the present system fails to support the poorest mothers on income support. Widows who have children to care for lose their benefit pound for pound, and so get no financial gain from their widows' benefit.

The reforms that I am announcing today will change all that. Our reforms will, for the first time, get help to men who lose their wives, and on an equal footing with widows."

So, back to your post.

Had he died, you'd potentially have received a lump sum of £1,000, possibly Widowed Mother's Allowance if you had children or were pregnant and if he'd paid in for enough years, possibly a Widow's pension.

Had you died, he'd have received nothing, even if somehow he'd contrived to be pregnant.

So, his NI payments were providing you with potentially very valuable benefits, while yours were providing him with nothing at all in this area. And worse still, there were a minimum number of qualifying years and as a result even if there had been comparable payments, a lot of men would still not have received anything for that reason.

So broadly you're right that men's NI got men benefits for their wives that women didn't get for their husbands.

Of course approximately no men ever got Maternity Allowance, introduced in 1948, for their NI contributions, that even now being restricted to female recipients, so women were getting something for their NI that men couldn't in practice get. As of course, were and are single women for the part of their NI that was partly funding the NHS when it comes to pregnancy-related treatments.

mumps wrote: »

In the interests of equality and fairness do you think I should get my insurance premiums repaid to me? ... I am assuming as people as so keen on fairness and equality no one will object to this?

While I agree that you were getting different and lower benefits for your NI in the area mentioned, I think that women in general were receiving different benefits that cover the difference in value.

Even today there are around three times as many women as men getting the replacement Widowed Parents' Allowance in part because of such things as the minimum qualifying period that ends up barring many men from getting it. Though at least in that case since it is a qualifying period it can be argued that women just didn't pay in enough to get it while the men did. Due of course in large part to still existing societal male-female role difference that expects men to go out to work more than women, even as single parents.

Pollycat

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Fair enough - but, (maybe 4th time lucky?) if you don't work in the pensions sector jamesd, are you qualified to give detailed advice to forum members on their pension problems?

Lordy! Lordy!

Do we need qualifications to post on MSE now? :rotfl:

There is a code of conduct for mortgage brokers and travel agents but as jamesd has pointed out more than once, he is neither.

But I think this part of MSE rules covers your concerns:

All info is the opinion of posters – it’s not our view. We have an amazing forum with a huge wealth of helpful info. Yet remember it's open to all, and sometimes messages are posted that are misleading or downright wrong. Most users are helpful but there are always a few bad apples. Don't rely on information being accurate or complete. If you do, it's at your own risk. Please do your own research before acting.

jamesd

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Fair enough - but, (maybe 4th time lucky?) if you don't work in the pensions sector jamesd, are you qualified to give detailed advice to forum members on their pension problems?

Your fourth try is no more successful than your first three. I have no formal qualifications specific to the pensions area.

My qualifications, while in other areas, and willingness to do lots of research have proved very useful, though.

jamesd

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Different pots of money? I think you are forgetting,with pension tax relief, there are also lost NI payments involved.

There are no lost NI payments involved in pension tax relief.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

According to the Telegraph, the overall cost of pension tax relief, including lost national insurance contributions was nearly £50 billion in 2013-14. Do you agree?

No. NI isn't a tax, it's an insurance payment and any NI reduction is not a reduction in payments solely for pensions. Had they instead written about government revenue I'd broadly agree since NI is revenue.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I'm no expert (that'll be you ) but are you saying there wouldn't be an NI saving were pension tax relief to be scrapped?

Right. Not even a penny of direct tax saving. That word direct is in there because people might choose to retire earlier and thereby reduce the NI take.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

And, again, you being the expert, what proportion of that £50 billion in that period would be savings to NI?

I think that it would be good for you to do the looking up of the numbers. HMRC is the place that provides them. partly because that might improve the quality of your future responses due to better research before posting.

The tax and NI savings come from things like reduced corporation tax, income tax and NI.

For employees the NI bit comes into play if they are in a salary sacrifice scheme. Those reduce their contracted pay and the employer instead pays part of the saved payroll income tax and NI into the pension, or reduces the pay by less to keep the contribution the same. A basic rate employee in a salary sacrifice scheme can potentially end up gaining 20% income tax, 12% employee NI and 13.8% employer NI, to get them more relief than a top rate tax payer would get in income tax alone outside a salary sacrifice scheme. Employee NI in the higher and top rate income tax band range is 2% not 12% so those employees gain less than basic rate employees from the NI aspect of salary sacrifice.*

*for simplicity I'm assuming one job and no significant income outside the job.