WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

GunJack

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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?

If you've been working that long and earning serps/s2p I'd be suprised if your SP wasn't already over the newSP anyway... and as I said earlier, paying NI isn't just about pension entitlement, I'll have to pay ni for at least 17yrs for no additional SP

...and you could always pay into a personal pension during the extra years of work, to get that bit more in retirement when you get there..same as a man in the same situation...

greenglide

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.

From next year WPA ends as well and all bereavement benefits are replaced by a "Bereavement Support Payment" - lump sum plus monthly payment for a year or so, very much like the current Bereavement Allowance. Under the new benefit anyone with children gets a higher payment but still only for a fixed period of a year or so.

See the legislation in the Pensions Act 2014 which brings this in. It didnt get the same limelight as nSP in the same bill!

slightlymiffed

Pollycat wrote: »

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:

Thanks for the clarification Pollycat and the quoted MSE disclaimer - although I still welcome jamesd's clarification. I personally would never act on advice given by someone on a forum - but as a conspiracy-theorist, I wouldn't would I?

I think that most casual observer would agree that jamesd is able to quote Hansard chapter and verse (:() and quote very detailed research information very quickly. This is unusual.

He is either a genius or.... oh never mind, I will stick with my conspiracy theories!

edinburgher

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I think that most casual observer would agree that jamesd is able to quote Hansard chapter and verse (:() and quote very detailed research information very quickly. This is unusual.

He is either a genius or.... oh never mind, I will stick with my conspiracy theories!

Occam's razor. Jamesd is obviously deeply interested in a range of financial topics and had probably researched the topics discussed previously (hence ready access to pertinent links). That and search engines can make anyone seem like a genius...

missbiggles1

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification Pollycat and the quoted MSE disclaimer - although I still welcome jamesd's clarification. I personally would never act on advice given by someone on a forum - but as a conspiracy-theorist, I wouldn't would I?

I think that most casual observer would agree that jamesd is able to quote Hansard chapter and verse (:() and quote very detailed research information very quickly. This is unusual.

He is either a genius or.... oh never mind, I will stick with my conspiracy theories!

Most of us Google pretty well - perhaps you should learn?

Pollycat

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Thanks for the clarification Pollycat and the quoted MSE disclaimer - although I still welcome jamesd's clarification. I personally would never act on advice given by someone on a forum - but as a conspiracy-theorist, I wouldn't would I?

Neither would I.
But I'm certainly not a conspiracy-theorist.
Just sensible enough to realise that it's not a good idea to take what some random stranger posts on t'internet.

If I ever ask for advice on here, I take notice of what replies I'm given (most of which provide pointers to the information I'm looking for) then do my own research.

mumps

jamesd wrote: »

Thanks. Back to part of your earlier post:

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.

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.

So it wasn't fair and equal then. To protect my family I paid insurance for 30 years so it cost me a significant amount, I can't remember the exact figures but I know there was a cost for the lump sum and then a further cost for the monthly pension. Men are having the unfairness of women retiring earlier addressed but the unfairness to women like me is just ignored. We can't turn the clock back and give me the protection but I think it should be acknowledged that the "it's fair" or "It's equality" does work both ways.

I'm not sure how you are rating the value of maternity allowance compared to a pension. The maternity allowance was only 13 weeks when it was introduced, at that time widow's pensions were for life but were later changed so that is was only while children were dependant so could be up to 18 years, quite a discrepancy, not that I think maternity allowance should be for 18 years just looking at comparing what it is worth to the recipient. Of course more women would get maternity allowance than some sort of widow's pension, I'm not advocating we should be like Black Widow spiders, I don't know if they really kill their mate but I'm sure you get the reference.

I will get my pension 3 months earlier than a man born the same day as me but 3 months later than a woman born a day before me, well 8 hrs before me in fact.

At the end of the day regardless of the rights and wrongs of it all I think the notice for the 2011 changes was too short for women who were already making arrangements for a change in their state pension age and I think this is the difference for women born in 1960 as they have got more time to prepare.

I don't know if ten years is the right amount of notice but in this case the double whammy makes the time unreasonable. In my case I have retired at roughly the age relevant to the 1995 changes and to some extent that is offset by the fact that I am claiming Carer's Allowance. I have been my husbands carer for roughly 25 years but was earning too much to claim it so I don't feel too bad about claiming it for a couple of years.

I wonder if a man got pregnant would he then get maternity benefit? I don't think the MATB1 mentions gender just for confirmation of pregnancy. Might happen one day.

Thinking about it he would probably make a fortune selling his story so probably wouldn't need the maternity benefit.

slightlymiffed

jamesd wrote: »

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

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.

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.

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.

Apologies - I actually meant to say NI lost (and not NI savings) - I had edited my post.

This government has repeatedly stated 'there is no money'. There clearly could be.

Are you saying then that this article in the Telegraph is wrong? I'm assuming you don't know how much of this £50 billion would be the 'loss' to NI - as you are suggesting I find out.

'Improve the quality of my future responses'? How pompous.

I'll look forward to your answer on that £50 billion.

jamesd

edinburgher wrote: »

Occam's razor. Jamesd is obviously deeply interested in a range of financial topics and had probably researched the topics discussed previously (hence ready access to pertinent links). That and search engines can make anyone seem like a genius...

A little secret may help. Back when I was at university there was a course on researching things. That was followed by a summer project work assignment that would count significantly towards the final result for the year. My work was far better than the rest and so good that I was asked if I'd really read the papers that I referenced. I had. My secret? I was listening in class when the then Science Research Library of the British Library was mentioned and I paid it a visit. A single anthology provided all of the key papers in the relevant area.

saver861

GunJack wrote: »

yes, actually... if you'd have noted this from one of my other posts, I did say that SP should only be a part of your planning,

I expect for most it is only part of their planning ....

GunJack wrote: »

so if the other parts stay the same (and of course you continue working) why is 6 years notice not enough?

Why would any notice be necessary on that basis?

Financial planning is just that ... creating a numerical model. On the basis of having a pension at a certain age, that model will produce a number. If the SPA gets changed, people will need a certain period of time to make the alterations necessary to adopt to the new circumstances.

Some will have built in extra resilience such that a change to SPA would have minimum impact. Others will have to meet unexpected circumstances, such has job loss, health issues, etc etc.

Each persons circumstances are individual but I think you are off the mark by saying 6 years or less is an acceptable notice period to SPA. Your personal circumstances might fit that model, but the government has to cater for the majority. The DWP themselves state 10 years as an acceptable notice period.