State pension rise

My point is more that not everyone who has worked for many years in the public sector will have a 'gold plated' pension, despite what the media like to imply.

Absolutely doodle! Many of us who worked in the public sector were unaware that being ‘contracted out’ would affect our future SP. Also, I was given no choice about being contracted out - it simply happened! I have 41 years NI contributions but still don’t get the full SP.

WASPI women here too. Finally going to get my pension (and a bus pass!) in a few weeks at the age of 66 having expected it at 60. I have never had a letter or anything official telling me my pension age had risen. The only official letter I had was in 2016, about 18 months before I turned 60, saying I would qualify for my state pension on my 60th birthday. They lied.
I didn’t see anything prior to that. I made plans based on that letter. I am not the only one- in fact the ombudsman has found that the government failed to notify us adequately of the change in policy.
I left work at 60 for family reasons. I now find that, because I was “contracted out” for a while (and I will get a little occupational pension) I need to pay around £4000 in order to get the full state pension. This is in spite of having 41 years worth of full contributions - the years from 60 to 66 still have to be paid as AVCs for the full amount. Like I have that amount of money after using my savings to pay my way and look after family!
We’ve lost out twice and it will affect my standard of living for the rest of my life 🤷🏻‍♀️ I hope that they keep the triple lock but don’t think that they will- they spent too much on their mate’s and family’s schemes over the last years.

M0nica

Doodledog I reckon I lost 12 years of occupational pension through the repayment rules that existed in the 1960s and the exclusion of part time workers from pension schemes that existed until the early 1990s.

However the rules about repayment of cotributions if you had been in a scheme less than 5 and then 2 years applied to men as well as women, both of whom have always tended to be mobile in the early years of their careers and DH certainly lost out as much as I did.

Yes, the rules applied to both sexes, but IME it was much more likely to be women who lost out (particularly by working part-time).

I got a F/T permanent contract in 1995, so that would fit. Previously I was on annually renewable contracts, which excluded me. I worked full time, and paid more tax and NI than many who were 'on the books', but the contract meant that I couldn't join the scheme, which obviously was better for my employer, who didn't have to contribute either.

I'm not saying that that only applied to women either, incidentally, as it didn't. My point is more that not everyone who has worked for many years in the public sector will have a 'gold plated' pension, despite what the media like to imply.

I'm not sure about your second paragraph, unless you mean the civil service superannuation? As I say, I got mine back but I'd only worked there for a few years (3, I think) so if I could have transferred it the difference to my final pension would have been negligible. Every little helps though, and maybe if it had been left to grow for 40 odd years it would have been worthwhile hanging onto it. It went into our 'setting up house' fund, so maybe I'd have taken it anyway if I'd had a choice. I'm not resentful about that really, but it demonstrates the lack of advice that people were given, and the way that people's future pensions depended so much on where you worked and the arrangements they had in place.

I'm not sure that's true, DAR - not with the new pension anyway, as both partners are assessed on their own contributions. According to money helper.com (which looks reliable at first glance) you can only increase your pension on divorce if you reached SPA before 2016 and if your pension is less than £137.60, which is the most you can increase it to.

Doodledog I reckon I lost 12 years of occupational pension through the repayment rules that existed in the 1960s and the exclusion of part time workers from pension schemes that existed until the early 1990s.

However the rules about repayment of cotributions if you had been in a scheme less than 5 and then 2 years applied to men as well as women, both of whom have always tended to be mobile in the early years of their careers and DH certainly lost out as much as I did.

Mojack26

Ditto I'm a WASPI woman too lost out on 43k of my pension! Totally identify with you, plus mine being only pension,as Im divorced. All my married friends have 2 pensions coming in and 2 can live as cheaply as one.. I need my pension and have worked b. hard for it as been diddled out of it.

Divorced couples can use their former spouse or civil partner's National Insurance contributions to increase their basic State Pension. This won't reduce the amount of State Pension the other person gets.

Percentage rises are okay if based on a reasonable sum in the first place

This 👍

I don't receive the "new" state pension. I was a stay at home Mum until children started school and then worked part time for 3 years. No opportunity given to up the contributions to bring my pension up to tge full rate until the 90s when the estimate I was given was the cost of a new car! There are a lot like me not on anything like the full "old" pension. Percentage rises are okay if based on a reasonable sum in the first place.

Doodledog

There are very few women who have been treated well. I also got my superannuation returned when I married, but it was only a few years. I was leaving anyway to retrain.

I also saw marriage as a lifelong commitment (who doesn't??) which it has turned out to be, but that didn't mean that I didn't want to make a financial contribution to the household, regardless of the fact that my husband worked - not because I thought we might divorce, but because it seems to me only fair.

Posted too soon. I was unable to contribute to an occupational pension until I was 37, as I didn't have a permanent contract, which I think was also unjust. I could have taken out a private pension, but they were nowhere near as usual then as now, and the lack of a permanent contract meant that I didn't want to commit to one in case the contract wasn't renewed. This was common in education, and many women (who went on to have their working lives extended by 6 or more years) suffered as a result. The more people you talk to, the more you realise that the 'gold plated' pensions people seem to think all older people have don't really apply to many women.

There are very few women who have been treated well. I also got my superannuation returned when I married, but it was only a few years. I was leaving anyway to retrain.

I also saw marriage as a lifelong commitment (who doesn't??) which it has turned out to be, but that didn't mean that I didn't want to make a financial contribution to the household, regardless of the fact that my husband worked - not because I thought we might divorce, but because it seems to me only fair.

Mojack26

Ditto I'm a WASPI woman too lost out on 43k of my pension! Totally identify with you, plus mine being only pension,as Im divorced. All my married friends have 2 pensions coming in and 2 can live as cheaply as one.. I need my pension and have worked b. hard for it as been diddled out of it.

I know how you feel - diddled!


2 can live as cheaply as one

Do check out your entitlements Mojack.
Have you applied for the reduction in Council tax and having a water meter fitted could be cheaper than water rates?

It's not charity!
Nor are Community Fridges.

Doodledog

Yes, it is one thing to make the decision not to work and not to expect a pension, but entirely another to work, pay what you are told to, and then find that what you get is reduced.

Cal, I don't know how old you are, so this might not be viable, but could you make up the missing payments to get your full pension? I was contracted out, which affected mine, so am buying the missing years back before I claim. My husband did the same and it has made a difference to the amount - in my case about £30 a week, I think. It is significant, anyway. I think you can go back six years.

I'm much too old now, thought about it and at the time it wasn't the right decision. I do get a pension based on a reduced number of years, thanks Doodledog, but it is still annoying, combined with the fact that any Civil Service superannuation contributions were returned in the form of a marriage gratuity!!

I'm not trying to take anything away from the grievances of the WASPI women at all, in fact I am trying to add to the general consensus that women have been treated unjustly over pensions in so many ways.

Ditto I'm a WASPI woman too lost out on 43k of my pension! Totally identify with you, plus mine being only pension,as Im divorced. All my married friends have 2 pensions coming in and 2 can live as cheaply as one.. I need my pension and have worked b. hard for it as been diddled out of it.

The problem is Norah, that for many women that was the wrong decision. Marriages broke up, circumstances changed.

I was like you and many of those women, I saw marriage as a lifelong commitment. However I came from a family where 2 generations of women in their mid 30s were left widows with large families one by illness and one by war. They were part of the Irish diaspora to the UK, poor and in the absence of husbands, they had to earn the families income themselves.

It made both my grandmother and mother determined that their daughters should get good educations and good jobs and always be in the position where they could earn a decent living for their families if anything happened to the male wage earner, or if they did not marry.

This family history was a major contributor to my determination to pay full stamp and get a pension in my own right and continue my career after I married.

Consider Norah, what your life would have been like if your husband had died when you were in your early 30s.

Yes, it is one thing to make the decision not to work and not to expect a pension, but entirely another to work, pay what you are told to, and then find that what you get is reduced.

Cal, I don't know how old you are, so this might not be viable, but could you make up the missing payments to get your full pension? I was contracted out, which affected mine, so am buying the missing years back before I claim. My husband did the same and it has made a difference to the amount - in my case about £30 a week, I think. It is significant, anyway. I think you can go back six years.

Having done my own investigations later, I did realise that what we were told was blatantly untrue.

Norah

M0nica

I am not sure about women being 'conned ' into paying the married women's stamp.

Back in the mid 1960s I can remember it being widely (and hotly) debated at work when anyone was getting married. Many of the women I worked with just assumed that marriage was for life and that once they stopped work when their first child was born, they would not be returning to the workplace, so paying the extra stamp was pointless. Even when they later did return to work, they still assumed that the married man's pension their DH would get would be sufficient to live on

I was considered unduly independent and bolshie and risking a broken marriage by being determined to continue to pay the full stamp in order to have a pension in my own right and also for wanting a proper career and planning to return to work as soon as was practical.

Many women, later on, as social and economic circumstances changed, had good reason to regret their decision, but most made what seemed to them the best and most advantagious decision at the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Well explained. Thank you!

I've never found the correct words to express, as succinctly, that we felt our marriage was for life (from the late 1950s until now anyway), he'd provide, I'd take care of our home and children and he'd build a business. I never paid the married woman's stamp - and we're happy with that choice.

His pensions are sufficient. All is well in our world. I'd imagine there are many people in the same shoes, not everyone is gloomy.

I'm not gloomy. I don't think you understand my point at all Norah as you say you have not worked outside the home since you married.

I worked for ten years before I did stay at home to bring up a family, paying a full stamp until I joined a Health Authority when we were told not to. I presume now it was to save them money. When the youngest started school I went back to college, retrained and worked again until retirement, paying a full stamp.

But we were lied to.
So I am annoyed.

Having done my own investigations later, I did

Try applying for the payments that are yours by right. Housing Benefits and Council tax for instance. Make an appointment with the Citizens Advice Bureau to see what you’re eligible for. You might be quite surprised.

Adeline - Interesting reply, what makes you think I’m not?

M0nica

I am not sure about women being 'conned ' into paying the married women's stamp.

Back in the mid 1960s I can remember it being widely (and hotly) debated at work when anyone was getting married. Many of the women I worked with just assumed that marriage was for life and that once they stopped work when their first child was born, they would not be returning to the workplace, so paying the extra stamp was pointless. Even when they later did return to work, they still assumed that the married man's pension their DH would get would be sufficient to live on

I was considered unduly independent and bolshie and risking a broken marriage by being determined to continue to pay the full stamp in order to have a pension in my own right and also for wanting a proper career and planning to return to work as soon as was practical.

Many women, later on, as social and economic circumstances changed, had good reason to regret their decision, but most made what seemed to them the best and most advantagious decision at the time. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Well explained. Thank you!

I've never found the correct words to express, as succinctly, that we felt our marriage was for life (from the late 1950s until now anyway), he'd provide, I'd take care of our home and children and he'd build a business. I never paid the married woman's stamp - and we're happy with that choice.

His pensions are sufficient. All is well in our world. I'd imagine there are many people in the same shoes, not everyone is gloomy.

I agree with you Doodledog. I find it arrogant of people to suggest that because they knew, others were somehow negligent because they didn’t know. What we all know, or certainly should know, because it’s been very heavily publicised since, is that vast numbers of women were never informed. This doesn’t make the women negligent, it makes the government/DWP negligent. No one should be required to read any particular newspaper in order to find out what their pension prediction is.

As stated previously, I did know. I was informed by letter that my pension age would now be 61. I was never informed that my pension age had changed yet again and would now actually be 63. I found this out by looking at the government website on our computer. Of course, not everyone had a computer then, but we did, and that’s how I found out. No letter!

Joseann

Germanshepherdsmum

NICs are supposed to cover not only pensions but healthcare. Though of course it all goes into the pot, some people seem to forget how much free healthcare they have received.

Aha, so the NHS or pensions, which is the sacred cow? My guess is that it's the former, but as Callistemon suggests, other countries (FR) might be more passionate about the latter and the retirement age. Does anywhere successfully enjoy both without it costing people somewhere along the line?

I don't know a lot about many other countries but I do know that in Australia state pensions are means-tested and, I believe, your assets (excluding your primary residence but even including your car) are taken into account too.
Healthcare is subsidised but mainly self-funded too.

Taxes are higher as well.

I wonder if firms and public service employers persuaded women to pay the MWS years ago because it would mean them paying a lower rate of Employer's Contributions?

The triple lock will stay until after the next Election. And unless we vote for another party other than the Conservatives and Labour, I believe it will end. Both are very non-committal about keeping it.

Germanshepherdsmum

Yes MOnica, I worked with just such a woman. She thought the rest of us were daft for paying the full stamp. She wasn’t ‘conned’ into her choice. Had children, didn’t work again, got divorced, didn’t remarry - I imagine she regrets her choices now.

We weren't stupid women.

We worked for an Area Health Authority and yes, we were lied to about our pensions.

I am not sure about women being 'conned ' into paying the married women's stamp

We've had this discussion previously but yes, many women were.

I definitely had no formal notice of the change in pension age for women. Of course, the goal posts shifted several times before (and after) the final decision was made, so nothing concrete could be planned. I was 63 when I got my pension but my friend 4 months older got hers at 61.

As a result of leaving school at 16, fulltime working for 32 years, part-time working for 11 years and being self-employed for many of those years at the same time (and at 72 still self-employed) I paid 50% more in NI contributions than my husband who was always in full-time well-paid employment. And yet his state pension (both of us on the "old scheme") is £80 a month more than mine.

I'm not complaining about our total income - we are very comfortable - but about the inequality of it. If he dies first my annual income will be nearly ten thousand a year less than he would have if I die first.

Re the triple lock, I don't think now is the time to expect it to continue given the financial chaos in every other area. The whole of government spending needs a re-vamp - starting with increasing tax on those who can pay it without a blink - i.e. the wealthy. Nearly 15 years of so-called austerity has brought misery to too many and it needs drastic action.

I never fail to understand why the government is suddenly shocked to learn that many of us are living longer (wasn't the NHS meant to enable that?). And to those of you who baulk at overseas aid or giving shelter to refugees, surely a country like ours should be able to look after its own and have some spare? But not right now.

I'm not convinced that a Labour government will have the answers we need but this lot sure as hell haven't.