Higher and Lower rate of State Pension,. This really needs changing

I accept the point that younger pensioners had to wait longer for their pensions. It’s been a bitter pill to swallow, but is anyone seriously saying that some pensioners should be able to manage to live on £200 less per month or £3000 less per year?

There is a lot of nonsense in this thread about pensions. The new pension is not £221 a week, that is the maximum that some one starting contributing after 2026 can get. Currently most people are in transitional arrangements which will continue for decades. The basic pension of £169 could be topped up by SERPS and S2P which can take the pension to over £300 a week. Many pensioners get far more than £221 under this system. The new pension got rid of SERPS and S2P. Accumulated rights under the old system were reflected in the starting amount of the new pension, plus a deduction for any years that people were contracted out. If your starting amount was less than the full pension then contributions after 2016 would increase it to the new maximum but no further. Under the old system you would have been able to build further pension entitlement. So the new pension is actually worse than the old. If you get less than the full new pension then you would never have qualified for it anyway. I personally know several pensioners on the old pension who revive well in excess of £270 a week. The state pension in this country is actually generous considering the amount of money we pay into it in national insurance.

The level of the pension has nothing to do with waiting an extra 6 years, that is a separate issue.

There is a lot of nonsense about pensions on here. DSis on full pension receives around £170 PW. It doesn’t matter to her how many people say oh it isn’t true that the new pension isn’t more.

But a pension is meant to be a payment for years of working that allows you to live past the age where you are no longer ‘serviceable’.

If you have never given service outwith your own home, how does that work? I don’t how anyone can expect ‘society’ to pay them to do nothing other than bring up their own children and clean/run their own home and then pay them a salary when they reach a certain age. We all do those things, but most people also go out to work.

Occupational pensions cost money. Those who have them have paid significant amounts into them, yet can find that this works against them as those who opted out of work, (and with that option stopped contributing by way of taxation) still get provided for, and can claim means-tested benefits whilst complaining that they don’t get as much as those who paid in for decades.

Many do get more, to the frustration of those who have paid in, as pension credit opens the door to so many payments denied to those who have contributed by working.

Why does anyone expect to be paid just for being alive? It seems to me that those who have this expectation are often the same people who complain about asylum seekers and others they perceive as taking rather than giving.

Why does anyone expect to be paid for just being alive is a good question.
And for those who have worked all their lives, and paid tax and NI though possibly not in jobs which gave occupational pensions, the knowledge that people expect, and get pension payments just for being alive is hard to take.
Knowing that they will get more simply for being born later is even harder.
Pension credits, which you can get even if you haven’t worked, top up to £218.15 if you’re single, but someone who just has a state pension they only get around £170 pw if they were born before 1951.

If you have worked all your life and paid all you NI contributions you are entitled to a pension you can live on. However if you have not contributed due to a failure of not bothering to but picking up work here and there you cant expect the same. I know quite a few who fit into that category

Allsorts

If you have worked all your life and paid all you NI contributions you are entitled to a pension you can live on.
Yes but some who have worked all their lives and paid all their NI contributions get a smaller pension to live on and a smaller amount than no-workers can get from pension credits.

Brahumbug £884.80 is the state pension amount I (and several other people I know) every four weeks.

Mollygo

There is a lot of nonsense about pensions on here. DSis on full pension receives around £170 PW. It doesn’t matter to her how many people say oh it isn’t true that the new pension isn’t more.

Sorry but you are wrong. The new pension is a maximum, not an automatic entitlement, only around half of claimants recieve the full pension. Many on the old pension receive far more. People's circumstances vary depending on their contribution history, if any is receiving less than the pension credit limit then they should check if they are entitled to any further help.

Brahumbug, it is interesting that you know several pensioners on the old rate who receive £270 a week. I am on the old rate, and no one I know on this receives anything like that: not one person.
To make it absolutely clear, I worked for forty years, taking just a few months out with each baby.
And, I am not complaining, simply stating facts.

Maybe those on £270 pw are widows getting extra because of their late husband’s contributions in addition to their own entitlement?

Mine on the old rate is rather less than £150 per week by the time I had four years short of 39 years, was contracted out for a while etc.

Receiving £169.50 pw for 35 years of contributions would be good!

Brahumbug

There is a lot of nonsense in this thread about pensions. The new pension is not £221 a week, that is the maximum that some one starting contributing after 2026 can get. Currently most people are in transitional arrangements which will continue for decades. The basic pension of £169 could be topped up by SERPS and S2P which can take the pension to over £300 a week. Many pensioners get far more than £221 under this system. The new pension got rid of SERPS and S2P. Accumulated rights under the old system were reflected in the starting amount of the new pension, plus a deduction for any years that people were contracted out. If your starting amount was less than the full pension then contributions after 2016 would increase it to the new maximum but no further. Under the old system you would have been able to build further pension entitlement. So the new pension is actually worse than the old. If you get less than the full new pension then you would never have qualified for it anyway. I personally know several pensioners on the old pension who revive well in excess of £270 a week. The state pension in this country is actually generous considering the amount of money we pay into it in national insurance.

Your post is well worth repeating, Brahumbug. The situation is very complex.

I stopped work at 60 to help out my family with childcare, but finally got my state pension in 2021 at 66. I fell into the transitional arrangement period that must have applied to many others on here.

I had 41 years of contributions up to when I left work. Just before my 66th birthday I was sent a letter clearly detailing

a) what pension I was entitled to under the old system (including, as you say, extra payments for superann, S2P etc that I’d made) and

b) what I was entitled to under the new system (where the years I’d paid into a local govt scheme no longer counted).

The difference was less than £5 a week, and I was to get the higher of the two. Because I stopped work at 60 and my state pension age had been raised to 66 the amounts were both very low.

I boosted the amount to its maximum by claiming Specified Adult Childcare contributions for the six years I looked after my grandchildren, and I paid £3200 to buy in an extra 4 years. But my pension is still well under the new state pension sum quoted so often on here. That is the maximum anyone can get, as you say, and I’ve also read that only around half of claimants get it.

Chocolatelovinggran

Brahumbug, it is interesting that you know several pensioners on the old rate who receive £270 a week. I am on the old rate, and no one I know on this receives anything like that: not one person.
To make it absolutely clear, I worked for forty years, taking just a few months out with each baby.
And, I am not complaining, simply stating facts.

To get 39 years of contributions was just about manageable for women if they had been to college or university and took no time out when they had a family. Most women I know did take time out, at least until children started school.
Calculated on age 21 - 60 when retirement was compulsory.

Doodledog

But a pension is meant to be a payment for years of working that allows you to live past the age where you are no longer ‘serviceable’.

If you have never given service outwith your own home, how does that work? I don’t how anyone can expect ‘society’ to pay them to do nothing other than bring up their own children and clean/run their own home and then pay them a salary when they reach a certain age. We all do those things, but most people also go out to work.

Occupational pensions cost money. Those who have them have paid significant amounts into them, yet can find that this works against them as those who opted out of work, (and with that option stopped contributing by way of taxation) still get provided for, and can claim means-tested benefits whilst complaining that they don’t get as much as those who paid in for decades.

Many do get more, to the frustration of those who have paid in, as pension credit opens the door to so many payments denied to those who have contributed by working.

Why does anyone expect to be paid just for being alive? It seems to me that those who have this expectation are often the same people who complain about asylum seekers and others they perceive as taking rather than giving.

👏👏👏👏👏

Occupational pensions cost money. Those who have them have paid significant amounts into them, yet can find that this works against them
Yes, contracting out was not explained at the time and was compulsory anyway.

I was a lazy SAHM for a while, feet up, eating chocolate, watching TV, nothing to do all day 🤔
There were no nurseries in those days, no grandparents available, I should have got off my backside and opened a nursery.

Because Brahumbug knows several people on the old rate who are receiving £270 pw doesn’t make it true for everyone, but makes it easy for her to dismiss those in the lower rate.

Chocolatelovinggran

Brahumbug, it is interesting that you know several pensioners on the old rate who receive £270 a week. I am on the old rate, and no one I know on this receives anything like that: not one person.
To make it absolutely clear, I worked for forty years, taking just a few months out with each baby.
And, I am not complaining, simply stating facts.

What of it? Are you saying I don't? I also know pensioners who receive only a small amount above the basic of £169 because they were contracted out for many years. Instead they receive a pension from their workplace in place of SERPS and S2P. It still doesn't alter the fact that the 'new' state pension was designed to reduce government spending on pensions, not increase it. The view was that SERPS and S2P was becoming unaffordable and instead they wanted to push more people into defined contribution pensions.

Cabbie21

Maybe those on £270 pw are widows getting extra because of their late husband’s contributions in addition to their own entitlement?

Some may have inherited from their husbands, but it's generally due to having higher earnings when working and therefore a higher SERPS payment. The maximum SERPS is £218 a week on top of the basic pension, am amount that is now unobtainable under the new system.

Maggie maybe, yours is a perfect example of the complex calculation involved in the new pension. I forgot to add in my previous post that one of the people I know recieving £270 a week under the 'old' pension is my father!

It is important that people claim any help you can get. Even if you are over the limit for pension credit, you can still claim help with council tax, rent and dental charges on low income grounds.
www.entitledto.co.uk/

Your arguments and ‘proofs’ mean nothing to those on £169 PE, except that you appear to be criticising them.

I also know pensioners who receive only a small amount above the basic of £169 because they were contracted out for many years

Contracting out means receiving less than the £169.50 pw, not a small amount more, despite a little extra for paying the rather pointless Graduated Pension contributions for a number of years in the dim and distant past.

Mollygo

Your arguments and ‘proofs’ mean nothing to those on £169 PE, except that you appear to be criticising them.

It's our own fault, Mollygo for not keeping up with the constant rule and regulation changes because we were busy working, bringing up a family and often caring for elderly relatives too.