We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Mums Pension In Jeopardy?
Comments
-
My dad is claiming Pension credit and has stopped work.
He will be receiving a dependant's allowance for your mother now.
If they split up and divorce after she turns 60 they would both separately be eligible for pension credit ( ie 119 pounds each plus housing benefit and council tax).
Once he turns 65, all or part of his pension credit would be replaced by (non means tested) state pension .
Mother would also be entitled as a divorcee to 100% of his state pension entitlement, which would also replace a chunk of her pension credit entitlement.
Entitlement to HB and council tax should be unaffected.Trying to keep it simple...
0 -
Thanks Edinvestor for helping me out, I was approximately right in what I said, but got the amount slightly wrong. I was feeling a bit out of my depth there!
Thanks again!(AKA HRH_MUngo)
Member #10 of £2 savers club
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton0 -
Yes Margaret I too think it is most unfair that you get more apart than you do together. So much for encouraging family values.(AKA HRH_MUngo)
Member #10 of £2 savers club
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton0 -
On the other hand should people be forced to stay in an unhappy, perhaps abusive relationship because they could not afford to live separately?Should pensioners be in a less favourable position as far as benefits are concerned than younger people? Given the inequality still present in the pension area, this would victimise women even more.
The problem as mentioned arises from the attitudes prevalent after the second world war.It's only in the 80s (IIRC) that men and women were first dealt with as individuals re tax and pensions and that significant numbers of married women started working full time.But as time goes by, more and more women will be entitled to pensions in their own right (especially after 2010) and the "dependancy" era will gradually fade away .
Over the transition period, IMHO we need to have some flexibility.Trying to keep it simple...0 -
seven-day-weekend wrote: »Yes Margaret I too think it is most unfair that you get more apart than you do together. So much for encouraging family values.
They will have two lots of bills though, so I don't think it will work out cheaper in the long run.RENTING? Have you checked to see that your landlord has permission from their mortgage lender to rent the property? If not, you could be thrown out with very little notice.
Read the sticky on the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.0 -
EdInvestor wrote: »The problem as mentioned arises from the attitudes prevalent after the second world war.It's only in the 80s (IIRC) that men and women were first dealt with as individuals re tax and pensions and that significant numbers of married women started working full time.
Those attitudes were awful. When I got married in 1980, I had my own house and my husband had nothing, but debts. He moved into my house and I continued to pay the mortgage and bills, so he could pay off his debts. The Inland Revenue wrote to him and asked if he minded his wife receiving the MIRAS and asked him to sign to say that was ok! My husband even signed it! But it never made it to the post box. I threw that form in the bin and wrote to the IR expressing my views on their form.:mad: We never heard anymore, so I guess it wasn't law, but was just the draconian view of some person.
Attitudes have changed for the better now and more and more women are taking financial care of themselves, instead of relying on their marriage. But I still think we should be helping those women coming up to retirement now.RENTING? Have you checked to see that your landlord has permission from their mortgage lender to rent the property? If not, you could be thrown out with very little notice.
Read the sticky on the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.0 -
EdInvestor wrote: »On the other hand should people be forced to stay in an unhappy, perhaps abusive relationship because they could not afford to live separately?Should pensioners be in a less favourable position as far as benefits are concerned than younger people? Given the inequality still present in the pension area, this would victimise women even more.
The problem as mentioned arises from the attitudes prevalent after the second world war.It's only in the 80s (IIRC) that men and women were first dealt with as individuals re tax and pensions and that significant numbers of married women started working full time.But as time goes by, more and more women will be entitled to pensions in their own right (especially after 2010) and the "dependancy" era will gradually fade away .
Over the transition period, IMHO we need to have some flexibility.
No, but married women should be able to claim 100% (the same as a divorcee) instead of 60%, so that THEY are not penalised.(AKA HRH_MUngo)
Member #10 of £2 savers club
Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology: Terry Eagleton0 -
seven-day-weekend wrote: »No, but married women should be able to claim 100% (the same as a divorcee) instead of 60%, so that THEY are not penalised.
But married women only need to pay for the same gas and electric that their husbands are using. Plus a married couple will only have one lot of council tax to pay, whereas people living on their own have to pay 75% of their council tax bill. Two people living together can live a lot cheaper than two people running separate households. We have to be as fair as we can.
I was a full time mother to my children until they left full time education, but will still have much more years towards my state pension than I need, so it can be done. It's just that years ago, people thought marriage was for keeps and that the wifes role was at home.RENTING? Have you checked to see that your landlord has permission from their mortgage lender to rent the property? If not, you could be thrown out with very little notice.
Read the sticky on the House Buying, Renting & Selling board.0 -
-
seven-day-weekend wrote: »No, it has to be one or the other.
Your mum must have paid contributions for a certain time (I think it's ten years) to be eligible for any pension in her own right - HRP on its own will not be enough to qualify.
I also thought that you had to have paid some contributions before you got any HRP, so I was very surprised to be told I was entitled to even £19 as I have never paid contributions.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.3K Spending & Discounts
- 247.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.4K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards