Mums Pension In Jeopardy?

Edinburghlass_2

http://www.thepensionservice.gov.uk/atoz/atozdetailed/retirement.asp

seven-day-weekend

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

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.

Don't care. It's still discriminatory.

I also have my full State Pension to come, on my own contributions (and am still married to my husband).

ALIBOBSY

O.K just a few things to clarify, under the old pension rules you had have at least a number of years equal to 25% out of your working life to get a min pension ie. paid or credited conts years/working life years req for full pension as a % = at least 25% this is your Cat A basic pension, but you may also have some graduated pension or serps which you can claim anyway.
For a women this would be ?yrs/39yrs so the min req would be 10 years. Therefore for the OP his mum working 1 yr would only be useful if she had 9 yrs already and wanted to top up to the min level, this could be done by working or paying conts.
You can claim any pension due in your own right at 60 until your husband turns 65 when you would get a combined pension based on the married womens 60% plus other bits like serps or graduated pension from the wifes own pension. However if the husband is claiming any benefit where he gets "adult dependancy increase" which is a payment for the mans partner she can't have her catagory A basic pension as well. Yes divorcee's do get a higher pension and I have seen a claim where we believed the couple deliberately divorced to get the extra! They admitted it off the record to my supervisor but as its not illegal (or wasn't at the time) nothing we could do. They were going to remarry after "waiting a couple of years". The same applies to widdows who also get an increase to 100% (if your husband had qualified for 100%). The new rules for people retiring after 2010 mean that not only do you only need 30 yrs to qualify each yr gets 1/30th of a pension. Instead of HRP which only applied for full years (ie caring april to april qualify part year caring nothing) you will get a full single credit for each week you care. This is good news for me whilst at home with 3 kids but not so good when I can't retire till 68
ali x

ALIBOBSY

Just reread the thread and eds post is right if they split now both get separate pensioner credit claims adjusted to include state pension when he turns 65.

ali x

EdInvestor

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Don't care. It's still discriminatory.

I also have my full State Pension to come, on my own contributions (and am still married to my husband).

One siuspects that women who paid the full stamp would disapprove of women who only paid the small stamp or nothing at all getting a 100% BSP on their husband's NICs, even if it did end discrimination between married women and divorcees.


Maybe a fairer arrangement would be to split the total amount on divorce - that is, if he gets 100% of the BSP and she gets 60% based on his conts, then after a split they would get 80% each. That would bring it into line with the law covering other pensions on divorce. But what would happen if the husband remarried a second wife who had no pension of her own?How much could she claim? 60% of 100% or 60% of 80%?

Alternatively, perhaps those women who paid full NICs should get more.

You can quickly see this could get quite complicated

seven-day-weekend

I don't see why a divorced woman with no pension should get more than a married woman with no pension. I don't care how many bills they have to pay. Why should somebody be penalised for staying married?

If the divorced woman can get 100%, so should the married woman. Or both of them should get 60%.

I think it's totally wrong that a married woman should get less than a divorced one.

seven-day-weekend

EdInvestor wrote: »

One siuspects that women who paid the full stamp would disapprove of women who only paid the small stamp or nothing at all getting a 100% BSP on their husband's NICs, even if it did end discrimination between married women and divorcees.


Maybe a fairer arrangement would be to split the total amount on divorce - that is, if he gets 100% of the BSP and she gets 60% based on his conts, then after a split they would get 80% each. That would bring it into line with the law covering other pensions on divorce. But what would happen if the husband remarried a second wife who had no pension of her own?How much could she claim? 60% of 100% or 60% of 80%?

Alternatively, perhaps those women who paid full NICs should get more.

You can quickly see this could get quite complicated

Yes, ther is that too.

It's very difficult isn't it? Yes I think that people who paid the full stamp should get more than those who chose not to. Otherwise what have they paid for?

But I also do not see why married women with no pension should be penalised and those with no pension who have got divorced given extra.

So give them all 60% and the rest maybe to be made up with means-tested benefits .

EdInvestor

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

So give them all 60% and the rest maybe to be made up with means-tested benefits .

I agree with that. Making the BSP up to 100% on divorce because of higher costs makes it appear to be a benefit, when it's not.

djohn2002uk

Margaret, SDW and Ed. Like the 3 witches of McBeth, at it again. Why don't you stop worrying about what somebody else is getting all the time. Good luck to them I say. Don't know much about Ed but I seem to have read that Margaret and SDW don't miss much when it comes to claiming for things and I begrudge you nothing, but please stop whingeing when you read of someone else getting something.

keaskin

I agree that it is discrimination that if you get divorced you get 100% pension as i to thought this was a goverment for family values,if still married you should also be able to claim from husbands stamp if you have a shortfall,why after forty years of marriage should people be penalised for staying married.

It is the state pension centenary and there is a website for a national supporters campaign,they are campaigning for higher pensions for all and equal rights for women.you can join in and send your veiws ect, and this also would include fairer rights for married women with little or no pension,the more that write in about this they will add it to the agenda ,so tell people you know to join and give this goverment the news that pensioners power is here to stay. :mad: :mad: WEBSITE IS BELOW.

http://www.npcuk.org/pension100/index.html