State pension petition outcome

JacquieN

Because we weren’t paying for the pensions we receive now. We were paying in for the pensions of the people who were retired at the time. Our pensions are being paid for from the taxes of the younger people working now. And the number of pensioners has increased. There were 5 million pensioners in 2012 and there are 12.6 million pensioners now. It’s to do with increase in life expectancy.

It was the post war baby boom that has caused the huge increase in pensioners, the future effect of the boom was obviously calculable but the ultimate solution was postponing retirement age.

There's little point in looking at a chart which shows our position on some league table without taking into consideration how pensions are funded, cost of living, etc in other countries. It's far from a level playing field.

The effects of the ageing population should have been foreseen by previous governments. Instead they kicked the issue into the long grass and failed to deal with it. That is not the fault of todays pensioners. Nor the fact that the pension is a ponzi system.

We are (apparently) supposed to feel guilty for having stuffed the youger gneration. I dont feel in the least guilty. People in their 20s and 30 are still in the process of making their contribution and I have already made mine. I also belong to the least selfish group in society (single/childfree) and am a net contributer as a result of that. I dont feel guilty about young working families who are being subsidised by my taxes.

Now some drone is going to buzz about how I get all the other benefits of society such as street lighting, a police force, fire service etc. Yeah, right. But the families I am subsidising get all that too and so much more besides.

Because we weren’t paying for the pensions we receive now. We were paying in for the pensions of the people who were retired at the time. Our pensions are being paid for from the taxes of the younger people working now. And the number of pensioners has increased. There were 5 million pensioners in 2012 and there are 12.6 million pensioners now. It’s to do with increase in life expectancy.

Thankfully I wasn't married then.

PsynesGret0y

Sorry! I didn't notice, PaynesGrey!

Thanks PsynesGret0y

As far as I remember (and it was a very long time ago) the forms we signed were to opt out.
It was not presented as an option but a requirement at the time. One colleague said she was not going to sign which met with disapproval. I remember that.

As some of us were saving for a deposit for a house, every penny counted at that time, too.

The married woman’s stamp aka the small stamp began in 1948 (The National Insurance (Married Women) Regulations,1948) and was withdrawn in 1977 although there are still a few women paying it.

It was an opt in scheme. When I married in 1975 I remember being asked if I wanted to opt in and what paying the small stamp would mean for my benefit rights both in the near or far future. I decided to continue paying full stamp.

If someone opted in they should have signed a declaration to that effect. It was a necessary step to prevent individuals from incorrectly or fraudulently being moved onto the lower rate.

This explains the procedure:

NIM30021 - Special Cases: Married Women: Background: Position up to 5 April 1975: Administrative procedures

www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/national-insurance-manual/nim30021

Extract:

Records Branch was the part of the DSS responsible for the maintenance of National Insurance records. When the local office received a form CF9 indicating that the woman did not wish to pay contributions a notification was completed by one officer and crosschecked by another before despatch to Records Branch. The form CF9 was kept in the local office for a period of 6 years and then, in line with DSS policy, destroyed.

When the notification was received in Records Branch the clerk recorded the election on the permanent record (RF1). The entry on the record was abbreviated as, for example,“MW1/NP” – Married Woman in Class 1 employment who had chosen Not to Pay.

During the period from 5 August 1948 to 5 April 1975. an employed married woman who had chosen not to pay National Insurance contributions still paid a small contribution of a few pence a week which was due under the Industrial Injuries Act. These covered the woman for injuries at work but not for any other benefits.

It was necessary for a special stamped card to be issued to enable payment of the industrial injuries rate (commonly known as exempt rate) stamps to be paid. Such stamp cards were quite distinctive from normal National Insurance cards and gave the employer the authority to deduct contributions from the employee’s earnings at the exempt trate.

There was no advantage to be gained by the employer where a married woman chose not to pay as the employer’s share of the contribution remained at the same rate as for a normal Class 1 stamp.

The special exempt rate card acted as a certificate of election and without such authority the employer was legally bound to deduct Class 1 contributions. Local DSS Inspectors carried out regular checks of employers to make sure that such procedures were strictly followed.

Where exempt rate contributions had been deducted without the proper authority it was possible that any arrears, i.e. both the employer’s and the employee’s share, had to be paid by the employer. It was therefore in the employer’s interest to ensure that the correct rate of stamp was affixed to each National Insurance card.

In short, if anyone feels they were “missold”, then contact the DWP and ask to see proof that they opted in, which should exist even if what was recorded on RF1s has been digitised.

keepingquiet

I wonder how many women this affected and if something should be done to put it right?

The other thing I didn't realise too was that you had to pay full contributions for a whole year for it be counted, so if you left partway through a financial year eg to have a family or live overseas, then resumed work again partway through a financial year, those months weren't added together and added to the total for final calculation iyswim.

keepingquiet

I wonder how many women this affected and if something should be done to put it right?

They will just say that we agreed to this and there is no proof employers lied.

I wonder how many women this affected and if something should be done to put it right?

keepingquiet

Milest0ne

I only get 50% state pension, even though I paid NI as self employed for 30years. I was induced to pay “Married Woman’s NI “ in the 10 years prior to that when I worked 3yrs full time and several yrs casual . I was told - nothing in writing , that I could not claim sickness benefit. Nothing was mentioned about a lower pension. I feel cheated .

This sounds all kinds of wrong- this implies your DH was supporting you in some way?

No, you could be working full-time but paying the Married Women's Stamp which meant there were no contributions made to your pension - even though we were assured they were.

Milest0ne

I only get 50% state pension, even though I paid NI as self employed for 30years. I was induced to pay “Married Woman’s NI “ in the 10 years prior to that when I worked 3yrs full time and several yrs casual . I was told - nothing in writing , that I could not claim sickness benefit. Nothing was mentioned about a lower pension. I feel cheated .

Same here, MilestOne although I do get a bit more than you.

We were told to sign and told we would still get a full pension. We were missold imo.

Milest0ne

I only get 50% state pension, even though I paid NI as self employed for 30years. I was induced to pay “Married Woman’s NI “ in the 10 years prior to that when I worked 3yrs full time and several yrs casual . I was told - nothing in writing , that I could not claim sickness benefit. Nothing was mentioned about a lower pension. I feel cheated .

This sounds all kinds of wrong- this implies your DH was supporting you in some way?

I only get 50% state pension, even though I paid NI as self employed for 30years. I was induced to pay “Married Woman’s NI “ in the 10 years prior to that when I worked 3yrs full time and several yrs casual . I was told - nothing in writing , that I could not claim sickness benefit. Nothing was mentioned about a lower pension. I feel cheated .

Sueinkent

UK pension ranking in Europe

I blame Brexit. Funny how most people who voted leave were the elderly. I wasn't one of them though, I wanted to maintain my standard of living but, hey ho...!

Thankyou “Sueinkent” interesting to see our pension ranking in Europe.
Perhaps the British government are hoping this will act as a long term deterrent for illegal immigrants, after all nothing else is working [think]

keepingquiet

Cabbie21

Over on Mumsnet some people are complaining about the triple lock and wanting the increase to be put into schools instead. Some of them really have it in for pensioners!

I don't envy young families- for some it is a terrible struggle to even pay the mortgage...

I remember that from we were a young family too.

Somehow we got through it, even though there was a swingeing 15% interest rate.
I can sympathise.

Well, it’s income - everyone is liable for income tax. Why should pensioners be exempt?
Although my response to people who are resentful about the triple lock, it to remind that the recent reductions in taxation have all focused on NI reductions, effectively increasing the relative tax burden on pensioners.

Cabbie21

Over on Mumsnet some people are complaining about the triple lock and wanting the increase to be put into schools instead. Some of them really have it in for pensioners!

If they cut the lock,it won’t go into schools or any other public services. Anyone who thinks it will is naive at best. It will go into paying for government borrowing or defence.

UK pension ranking in Europe

Cabbie21

Over on Mumsnet some people are complaining about the triple lock and wanting the increase to be put into schools instead. Some of them really have it in for pensioners!

I don't envy young families- for some it is a terrible struggle to even pay the mortgage...

Technically, a couple of posters above are not correct that their state pensions are not taxed but other pensions are. Tax applies when total taxable income from all sources exceeds the personal allowance of £12,570. So if your state pension is £10k and your other pensions are £3k you are taxed on £430. If your other pensions are only £2k then no tax is payable on either pension.

Over on Mumsnet some people are complaining about the triple lock and wanting the increase to be put into schools instead. Some of them really have it in for pensioners!

dalrymple23

Okay - |I am remarkably stupid and unknowledgeable when it comes to finances and allowances. My sole income is a state pension, which has, presumably, been calculated by a boffin in the Treasury. Yet another boffin at the next desk has calculated that the minimum wage needs to be increased to a higher hourly level than that of the SP, even if the minimum wage earner has contributed next to nothing. We all have to pay the same amount for utilities and a loaf of bread. Where is the logic? What am I not grasping?

I suppose someone who's working full-time will have commute costs ([parking alone is £12 / day in our nearest city & very few have employee parking), and also not have time to shop around, use coupons, etc etc. And have to pay extra to get their haircut on saturday, & not have any discounts on travel / prescriptions that pensioners will get.
So a little extra to get by on if you are working is probably commonsense, imo.

Jobseeker’s Allowance is also taxable