Extra National Insurance Contributions.

FLORIDABOY

Hi there,
I am getting somewhat confused about whether I need to pay for some extra National Insurance contributions.
when I check on the Gov.uk site, I am showing 42 years of full contributions. However, when I check my pension forecast, it shows my estimated pension is £174 per week. If I contribute another 5 years, my pension will be £203 per week.
My understanding from what Martin Lewis said a few weeks ago was that if you have at least 35 years of full contributions you would receive the full state pension.
Any help or advice will be much appreciated.
Many thanks.

MallyGirl

I am sure that Martin didn't say quite what you think you heard about the 35 years. That only applies if all the years are from 2016 onwards and we are not 35 years past 2016 yet. If you have pre and post 2016 then you are under transitional arrangements between the old and the new rules

MallyGirl

Have a read of this thread

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6442489/state-pension-ni-contributions-confusion/p1

and then provide the info as per the request in there and people can tell you if there is any point in plugging the gaps. If you plan to work for another 5 years then you will get the full amount so it is only worth exploring the gaps if you plan to retire earlier

molerat

You understand wrong. 35 years only applies to those born this century.

You were obviously in a contracted out work pension which reduced you new pension starting amount to no less than what you had accrued under the old scheme at April 2016 and are able to make that up with post 2016 contributions.  As your forecast shows you need another 5 years of contributions to reach the maximum. Have you got any part filled gap years from 2016-17 onwards ?

FLORIDABOY

Yes I have empty years 19-20, 20-21,21-22 due to retirement.

xylophone

Yes I have empty years 19-20, 20-21,21-22 due to retirement.

If you are no longer making  contributions or receiving credits, then voluntary contributions for the "empty" years can be made.

If 22/23 is also "empty" that it too can be filled and you can contribute for the current year.

https://www.gov.uk/voluntary-national-insurance-contributions

p00hsticks

MallyGirl said:

I am sure that Martin didn't say quite what you think you heard about the 35 years. 

I've heard Martin use the phrase '35 years -ISH' and I wish he wouldn't !
Far better to simply say that the number of years will vary depending on your particular circumstances and encourage people to check their own forecasts. 

Silvertabby

p00hsticks said:

MallyGirl said:

I am sure that Martin didn't say quite what you think you heard about the 35 years. 

I've heard Martin use the phrase '35 years -ISH' and I wish he wouldn't !
Far better to simply say that the number of years will vary depending on your particular circumstances and encourage people to check their own forecasts. 

I watched that programme, and he did keep saying "35 years - ISH" giving the impression that most people would only need 35 years, but that a few may need a couple more or less.  The whole programme could have been very misleading to those who believed his every word to be the absolute truth.  It was probably this programme - and his urging that 'everyone' should contact DWP/Future Pensions as a matter of urgency, to see if they could improve their pensions, that caused the current shambles.  He even seemed quite proud of the fact that the DWP website crashed during his programme.

Back to the "35 - ISH" years, from this board alone the minimum/maximum years have been reported as 28 years and 50 years.

FLORIDABOY

Silvertabby said:

p00hsticks said:

MallyGirl said:

I am sure that Martin didn't say quite what you think you heard about the 35 years. 

I've heard Martin use the phrase '35 years -ISH' and I wish he wouldn't !
Far better to simply say that the number of years will vary depending on your particular circumstances and encourage people to check their own forecasts. 

I watched that programme, and he did keep saying "35 years - ISH" giving the impression that most people would only need 35 years, but that a few may need a couple more or less.  The whole programme could have been very misleading to those who believed his every word to be the absolute truth.  It was probably this programme - and his urging that 'everyone' should contact DWP/Future Pensions as a matter of urgency, to see if they could improve their pensions, that caused the current shambles.  He even seemed quite proud of the fact that the DWP website crashed during his programme.

Back to the "35 - ISH" years, from this board alone the minimum/maximum years have been reported as 28 years and 50 years.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was a bit mislead by his quotes.

Silvertabby

FLORIDABOY said:

Silvertabby said:

p00hsticks said:

MallyGirl said:

I am sure that Martin didn't say quite what you think you heard about the 35 years. 

I've heard Martin use the phrase '35 years -ISH' and I wish he wouldn't !
Far better to simply say that the number of years will vary depending on your particular circumstances and encourage people to check their own forecasts. 

I watched that programme, and he did keep saying "35 years - ISH" giving the impression that most people would only need 35 years, but that a few may need a couple more or less.  The whole programme could have been very misleading to those who believed his every word to be the absolute truth.  It was probably this programme - and his urging that 'everyone' should contact DWP/Future Pensions as a matter of urgency, to see if they could improve their pensions, that caused the current shambles.  He even seemed quite proud of the fact that the DWP website crashed during his programme.

Back to the "35 - ISH" years, from this board alone the minimum/maximum years have been reported as 28 years and 50 years.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was a bit mislead by his quotes.

I have a pensions background, so he didn't mislead me - but I could see a lot of viewers being mislead due to a sense of misplaced trust!

To be honest, I spent a lot of time shouting rude words at the screen.....

p00hsticks

Silvertabby said:

FLORIDABOY said:

Silvertabby said:

p00hsticks said:

MallyGirl said:

I am sure that Martin didn't say quite what you think you heard about the 35 years. 

I've heard Martin use the phrase '35 years -ISH' and I wish he wouldn't !
Far better to simply say that the number of years will vary depending on your particular circumstances and encourage people to check their own forecasts. 

I watched that programme, and he did keep saying "35 years - ISH" giving the impression that most people would only need 35 years, but that a few may need a couple more or less.  The whole programme could have been very misleading to those who believed his every word to be the absolute truth.  It was probably this programme - and his urging that 'everyone' should contact DWP/Future Pensions as a matter of urgency, to see if they could improve their pensions, that caused the current shambles.  He even seemed quite proud of the fact that the DWP website crashed during his programme.

Back to the "35 - ISH" years, from this board alone the minimum/maximum years have been reported as 28 years and 50 years.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who was a bit mislead by his quotes.

I have a pensions background, so he didn't mislead me - but I could see a lot of viewers being mislead due to a sense of misplaced trust!

To be honest, I spent a lot of time shouting rude words at the screen.....

I couldn't watch it all as it was driving me up the wall!