Pensioners with younger partners won't be able to claim pension credit under new rules - MSE News

margaretclare

If it was designed for the working class, why were domestic servants excluded?

JezR

Possibly because by then the overwhelming number of domestic servants were women.

lisyloo

Personally I think welfare there are far too many people on benefits and they should be limited to the disabled only but that's another thread.

Our parents got far too much as disabled couple IMO.
pension credit, AAx2 (£85 each), council tax benefit.
They were on £600 per week.


Yes they did have costs, but it didn't cost double to get the washing/cleaning/shopping done.
The supermarkets deliver for free anyway.

Nick_C

Yep. My mum got DLA when she went into sheltered accommodation. She didn't need it. She didn't spend it. But social workers see it as their duty to claim the maximum benefits possible for their clients.

Pollycat

jem16 wrote: »

Silvertabby must be a 50s' born woman if she's expecting her state pension in 3 years' time.

She's just like both of us 50s' born women who don't agree with either Waspi or Back to 60.

Silvertabby wrote: »

Yes on both counts - 1956.

Apologies, Silvertabby
I've got you mixed up with someone who used to post on the WASPI threads about being born in 1960 and therefore outside WASPI's ask.

jamesd

poppy10 wrote: »

These boomers have been receiving gold-plated triple-locked pensions which the working age population have to pay for. Absolutely no reason why the state pension rises should be higher than the average working wage rise.

The state pension normally increased as pay did until Thatcher's government switched to inflation instead. Since relative poverty is related to pay and pay on average increases by about 1% above RPI inflation the result was a gradual increase in pensioner relative poverty.

The effect of the triple lock is to gradually recover some of the decrease in pension purchasing power compared to wages. The earnings-related portion of the old state pension still increases only with CPI inflation so the effect is concentrated on the lower income portion of state pensioners.

Pensioner relative poverty is concentrated in women who have outlived their spouse.

ayupmeduck

Oh well probably want be a state pension when I'm 68+

There goes our claim out the window with a 21 year age gap my partner Will always be on UC.

I better start working on a retirement plan

ex-pat_scot

ayupmeduck wrote: »

Oh well probably want be a state pension when I'm 68+

There goes our claim out the window with a 21 year age gap my partner Will always be on UC.

I better start working on a retirement plan

The SP age of 68+ applies to those born between 1968 and 1978 ie aged 41 to 51 now. You would hit SP in 20 to 30 years' time.


Either your partner is 21 years younger than you (which is what I infer) ie aged 20 to 30, or 21 years older ie 62 to 72.


If your partner is indeed 21 years younger, then are they / you expecting to be on UC from now for the next 20-30 years' time, and then get an uplift with pensions credit, and that this is somehow an injustice?


I would perhaps ask a controversial question, from my understanding of the circumstances: why are you expecting your partner to be never contributing? If there are carer issues then I apologise for being blunt and insensitive, but on the face of your message there is the expectation that the "state" (ie taxpayers) should be supporting your partner for 20+years on UC then providing additional money through pensions credit.

margaretclare

Pensioner relative poverty is concentrated in women who have outlived their spouse.

Or women who made no provision for themselves.


It has always been possible for a woman to make her own provision, as I described in an earlier post.