Pension query, please!
Options
Comments
-
I find this a bit rich, when it was a chosen option to pay less in.
If it’s a true comment on the system then those women colluded with it for many years and kept the profits.
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2008/jan/05/pensions.statepensions
The State Pension system throws up many anomalies.
And since the above was written there have been yet more changes.
And remember that for many women, paid child care was simply unaffordable.
I hope nobody is suggesting that only the well off should have dared to have children.0 -
Is there any option for you to buy some added years? You can do this even when you are receiving your pensions.0
-
Is there any option for you to buy some added years? You can do this even when you are receiving your pensions.
Which may well be a very good idea, but she can only do this by getting money from the husband who is unlikely to want to help. The good news is that when he pops his clogs she will then get her "full" pension.0 -
DairyQueen wrote: »I agree. I don't think many women of my mum's generation understood the implications. The reduced NI contribution appears to have been viewed as a kind of 'married woman's benefit'. Indeed, some employers defaulted women into the opt-out on marriage.
Recently, I asked my parents why they had made no pension provision for my mother. Their response? "It never occurred to us". Needless to say my dad has a decent SP and receives annuities from other pensions. Having worked for almost 40 years from the age of 14, my mother has zilch except her entitlement to the reduced married woman's pension.
Rinse-and-repeat for my aunts.
A very different world.
My aunt certainly knew - she said that she had had to sign a declaration stating that she was aware that paying the 'married woman's stamp' would mean that she wouldn't be entitled to a State pension in her own right. However, in her case, the difference in NI contributions was the difference between being able to pay the mortgage or not.
In my mum's case, I know that she would have only thought about the cash in hand at the time - to her, being given the choice of paying less to the government was a 'no-brainer'. When I got married in the early 1990s she made of point of telling me that I must claim my stamp back as 'married women didn't have to pay it'. She would have never understood my choice to pay full whack - so I just said that it was no longer an option, as it had ceased for new claimants in the 1970s. She was so incensed (on my behalf) that she threatened to write a strong letter of complaint to the government. I think I talked her out of that.
Further back, when I started work in the 1970s, a couple of married colleagues made a great drama every pay day about the extra 'free' money they got by being married. Another colleague, who was married but had opted to pay full stamp, told them they'd be sorry when they retired because they wouldn't get a State pension. They just laughed at her and said that they'd get 'dole' instead.0 -
.told them they'd be sorry when they retired because they wouldn't get a State pension
Not wholly accurate because they would when their spouse drew his - it just wouldn't be a full basic state pension.
It is quite possible that some women would have been quite content with this, particularly if they and /or spouse were due a good occupational pension.0 -
“ told them they'd be sorry when they retired because they wouldn't get a State pension.
Not wholly accurate because they would when their spouse drew his - it just wouldn't be a full basic state pension.
It is quite possible that some women would have been quite content with this, particularly if they and /or spouse were due a good occupational pension.
OK, but you know what I mean ! And intending to 'draw the dole instead' does seem to rule out good occupational pensions for either of them.0 -
Yes, I knew what you meant.:)draw the dole instead'
The "dole" was the old term for unemployment benefit. This would not have been available to persons who had reached SPA.
If the women had become unemployed, the small stamp wouldn't have entitled them to UB.
I should think that it was just a throwaway remark on the basis that they were confident that in one way or another they'd have enough to get by when the time came.
And very many women did expect that their husband would be the major contributor (in the purely financial sense) and very many husbands expected to be just that.
Different times, different outlooks.:)0 -
No your pensions are individual and based on your own NAtional insurance payments.
You would have had credit for the years when looking after the children so something else is amiss.
We’re there other years that you didn’t pay NI before or after the children were grown up?
Yes... I only ever did part time work after I married... no stamp, so no pension...?:(0 -
When exactly did your husband reach state pension age?
Are you claiming a Cat B state pension on your husband's contributions?
https://www.ageuk.org.uk/globalassets/age-uk/documents/factsheets/fs19_state_pension_fcs.pdf
Sorry... it's been quite a while and I've been going through some difficult situations... I haven't a clue what you are asking me... I'm afraid I don't understand how the whole pension thing works... I just assumed my husband's pension would be shared once we retired...
I'll take a look at the link... thank you!0 -
DairyQueen wrote: »The full basic state pension, for those reaching state pension age prior to the change in rules in April 2016, is currently £129.20 per week. The maximum basic for those reaching state pension age after that is currently £168.60.
However, currently people are either receiving their SP under the old rules or are in transition, and state pension amounts vary hugely. Your husband's SP suggests that he has been contracted-in to the state second pension (now ended) during his working life. This variable amount is paid in addition to the individual's entitlement to the basic pension.
All of his state pension is the result of his working history. He receives nothing on your behalf.
I am speculating but your SP looks very like the value paid to married women who opted to pay reduced NI before the option to do so was abolished in the late 70s (aka 'married woman's stamp'). If this applies to you, then you never earned any SP in your own right as you never paid the extra NI required to earn it. Instead, you receive a reduced SP based on your husband's NI contributions.
This is the legacy of a paternalistic society that assumed married women were taken care of by their husbands.
Without wishing to offend, it would appear that your husband still adheres to those paternalistic notions of yesteryear. Unfortunately, there is nothing you can do to increase your own pension. However, perhaps a frank discussion with him on the merits of equality and fairness may help.
His SP is so much higher than yours because your income was compromised by being the carer of his and your children. Presumably he ate the meals you cooked, wore the shirts you ironed and lived in the house you cleaned. Your contribution to your partnership is equal to his and you should have equal access to the financial fruits of that partnership.
Btw, you are not alone. Every married woman in my family aged over 70 was/is equally reliant on their spouse's pension, and for the same reasons: low pay due to childcare; non-pensionable, part-time earnings; and sacrificing a decent state pension in order to contribute a few extra pounds each week to a tight, household budget.
Gosh... thank you so much... now THIS seems to be what's happened... I didn't have a clue about pensions... My husband worked very hard in a well paid job in the film industry. Yes, I waited on him hand & foot throughout... always a meal on the table when he came home...his work took him around the world and I stayed behind... I think we 1950's born women got a rough deal, really...and I don't think we were made aware of how our future(s) would pan out..
My husband was always very caring and generous until his mid life crisis... he had a long term affair & his personality afterwards changed and he was never the same towards me... so sad as we were together since we were 16... but he is still here with me... we are together but not together... we lead quite separate lives & mine is a struggle due to the money situation...:(0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards