State Pension, Age 40, worked since age 16, do I only need to pay in for 10 more years?

IAMIAM

I have checked online and have this....

You need to continue to contribute National Insurance to reach your forecast

Estimate based on your National Insurance record up to 5 April 2025

£166.44 a week

Forecast if you contribute another 10 years before 5 April 2052

£230.25 a week


I presume if I stopped working at age 50/51, I would still get the full state pension at age 68?

Dazed_and_C0nfused

IAMIAM said:

I have checked online and have this....

You need to continue to contribute National Insurance to reach your forecast

Estimate based on your National Insurance record up to 5 April 2025

£166.44 a week

Forecast if you contribute another 10 years before 5 April 2052

£230.25 a week


I presume if I stopped working at age 50/51, I would still get the full state pension at age 68?

You don't actually need to pay any NI to add qualifying years.

But if you add another 10 years and the rules don't change them yes, that is all you need to do to get the standard new State Pension.

Silvertabby

Yes          .

GrubbyGirl_2

Yes, however you currently have 27 more years to work before you are eligible for state pension and a lot can change between now and then.  I'd put money on the state pension age being increased between now and then

Strummer22

GrubbyGirl_2 said:

Yes, however you currently have 27 more years to work before you are eligible for state pension and a lot can change between now and then.  I'd put money on the state pension age being increased between now and then

1. OP won't have to work 27 more years, they have to wait 17 years after contributing another 10 before they can get their state pension. What they do for those 17 years doesn't really matter. Well, not quite true; there's also a short list of things to not do in the next 27 years to make sure they get the state pension, including die. 
2. The state pension age will probably change by then, but it's unlikely to affect someone who is already 40. As with the change from 67 to 68 there will be a 'cut off' (or 'phased cut off') and it'll only affect people younger than this. If you were born in 1977 your state pension age is 67; born in 1979, it's 68. Any future changes will probably only affect those born well after 1985. 

MarlowMallard

2. The state pension age will probably change by then, but it's unlikely to affect someone who is already 40. As with the change from 67 to 68 there will be a 'cut off' (or 'phased cut off') and it'll only affect people younger than this. If you were born in 1977 your state pension age is 67; born in 1979, it's 68. Any future changes will probably only affect those born well after 1985. 

This is not quite definite.  There's some talk of bringing the change to 68 forward into the late 2030's. There's an unwritten convention that changes should not affect those within 10 years of state pension age, but that still leaves it possible they could move it to 68 in the late 2030s, affecting those born in the 1970s.  Then it might go to 69 in the mid-late 2040's. I'd guess there would be a strong PR disaster going to 70, just for the psychological impact of that "7", but who knows. 
My personal opinion is they should stop at 68, axe the triple-lock and link to inflation only, but that is unpopular with today's pensioners so any Govt will be reluctant to do that. 

ali_bear

Increasing the SPA becomes more difficult to justify now that the average life expectancy is no longer increasing. 

Cobbler_tone

The goods news is that you only have 10 more years to qualify for the full state pension. The bad news is you won't get it until you are 97. 

Exodi

ali_bear said:

Increasing the SPA becomes more difficult to justify now that the average life expectancy is no longer increasing. 

But it doesn't matter whether it's justifiable or fair, it matters whether it is popular with people who vote, and the people who vote are pensioners.

They would much prefer the SPA rise to infinity for their children and grandchildren than see their triple lock touched.

You don't need to be a mathematician to realise that a system that always increases more than inflation and average earnings is unsustainable. Couple that with the fact that, like many nations, we have an aging demographic so even linking increases to SP by inflation in the future will be challenging.

Unless the uptake in young voters increaes, or pensioners start voting against their interests, we're stuck. No party will get in on a manifesto promising to axe the triple lock, the status quo will be maintained until the country is bankrupt. Look at the uproar (which is still ongoing) over cuts to the WFP.

Cobbler_tone

ali_bear said:

Increasing the SPA becomes more difficult to justify now that the average life expectancy is no longer increasing. 

I think that will turn out to be a Covid shaped blip.
Babies born today will regularly become centenarian's. The best thing about that statement is that you'll never be able to pull me up on it.    

ali_bear

Debate goes on within the Labour party all the time, it doesn't become an uproar until the Tory-sympathizing media report on it. But you're right the triple-lock is a bribe to the old to vote a certain way. 

Centenarian's what?