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

Brahumbug
You are clearly don’t understand the true facts.
Perhaps you should do a little more research.
Some people on the old basic state pension may collect a higher pension, but that depends upon those pensioners having paid SERPS or other additional contributions. The vast majority of pensioners who are on the old basic state pension do not get more, or even as much, as the new state pension. Therefore your statement that

The new pension is not more than the old pension.

is factually incorrect!

Many in the old pension receive far more.

How many?
What percentage?

Many probably receive far less of course.

I have no clue what any of my peers receive in their pension.

maddyone

Lisaangel10 you’re wrong.
I got my state pension at 63, as I stated upthread, but I had, and still have, enormous sympathy for those women who had to wait until they were 66, and I have even more sympathy for those who will shortly have to wait until they are 67.
The problem which many refuse to acknowledge, is that women who retired at 60, who were often forced to retire at 60 by their employers even though many wanted to continue to work for a while longer, retired on what is now called a basic pension which actually means that the amount of pension they receive is £50 less than the current state pension, but prices are not at the level that they were pre 2016, when the new pension was introduced. These women will continue to receive the basic pension for the rest of their lives, regardless of prices or inflation. Therefore it doesn’t take a degree from Oxbridge to realise that if these women live into their nineties, they (and any men on the basic pension) will be severely disadvantaged, just when they particularly need more money in order to keep warm, and their home in proper repair.

The new pension is not more than the old pension, £221 is a maximum figure and half of those on the new pension receive less than that. Many in the old pension receive far more.

Taking a short time off work only happens if you have one child.

I agree with both your posts Doodledog and Chocolatelovinggran.

However in the same way that funded residents in care homes are subsidised by those paying their own way, so it is that lower paid working mothers are being subsidised by the well paid/taxed career women.

Yes. Children are only in nursery for a couple of years, but the impact of taking that time off work can last for ages. In any case, it is up to the individual if they want to stay at home, but they can’t expect the rest of us to fund it.

I also think that people forget (or overlook) the fact that when people go to work they are producing goods or providing services that we all use - it’s not all about the money in taxes or earnings.

My understanding is that one of the looked for effects of subsidising of nursery places was to close the gap for the lower paid, to avoid the better-off-on- benefits trap.

Witzend

IMO very heavily subsidised childcare, as in e.g. Sweden, would ultimately benefit the country. Many mothers of young children who don’t work, because the cost of full time (or nearly full time ) childcare is either simply unaffordable, or would eat up every penny they earn, would be enabled to, and would then be paying tax.

Unfortunately it doesn’t work out like that witzend. Low paid mothers working 30hrs a week will only pay under £1500 tax & NI each and it won’t be anywhere near enough to cover the subsidised childcare.

High fliers of course won’t need subsidies and it’s their taxes that go towards government costs.

IMO very heavily subsidised childcare, as in e.g. Sweden, would ultimately benefit the country. Many mothers of young children who don’t work, because the cost of full time (or nearly full time ) childcare is either simply unaffordable, or would eat up every penny they earn, would be enabled to, and would then be paying tax.

Lisaangel10 you’re wrong.

I agree maddyone

The women I feel most sorry for are those in your group who missed out al, round.

The discrepancy between the retirement ages of men and women was something thst needed to be addressed and I thought the fairest thing would be to make retirement age for all 62 or 63. That would give women a chance to make up some lost years of NI contributions too and would be fairer for men.

Had I been able to continue working after the age of 60 I would not have been allowed to pay NI anyway so would not have been able to add extra years to my contribution record to boost my pension.
I could have bought extra years but medical advice at that time ruled that out.
Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

I agree that your situation was unfair, Maddie - there should have been a gradual transition so you got a bit more for every extra year, or the option to work until 66 and get the new one.

I thought the basic pension rose every year too, though? Your post suggests that it is still at 2016 levels, which is not the case.

I realise that as rises are percentages they will be smaller in pounds than rises in the new pension amounts, but not everyone on the old pension is on the lower levels. If they paid the full stamp and SERPS they may have had more for over six years, and they also had a right to inherit their husband's pension, which may also have been proportionately higher. Their pensions will rise every year too, so will go up more than those on the new one.

Then of course, there is contracting out, and the fact that many people were not informed of the implications.

It's not straightforward, and on the whole women have been at the mercy of the systems that held sway when they retired, which will affect them for the rest of their lives.

Excellent post maddyone, both about the unfairness of waiting, and the basic pension.

Sadly I feel the basic pension fact and the fact that some employers held retirement age at 60 as compulsory, will fall on deaf ears.

While I sympathise with all those who had/have to wait, they might try to imagine how different lives would be if they were receiving £200 less per person per month not just as a one off at Christmas.

Lisaangel10 you’re wrong.
I got my state pension at 63, as I stated upthread, but I had, and still have, enormous sympathy for those women who had to wait until they were 66, and I have even more sympathy for those who will shortly have to wait until they are 67.
The problem which many refuse to acknowledge, is that women who retired at 60, who were often forced to retire at 60 by their employers even though many wanted to continue to work for a while longer, retired on what is now called a basic pension which actually means that the amount of pension they receive is £50 less than the current state pension, but prices are not at the level that they were pre 2016, when the new pension was introduced. These women will continue to receive the basic pension for the rest of their lives, regardless of prices or inflation. Therefore it doesn’t take a degree from Oxbridge to realise that if these women live into their nineties, they (and any men on the basic pension) will be severely disadvantaged, just when they particularly need more money in order to keep warm, and their home in proper repair.

I think it is only fair that those of us who had to wait many extra years to get our SP are paid the higher rate.

In some cases women just a couple of months older than others got their pension at 62 while their very slightly younger friends had to wait until 66. That is a massive amount of money they missed out on.

Nothing personal to anybody on here but they didn’t have any sympathy for those waiting many years, so am not surprised there’s not much sympathy for them now.

It is, but that means that women drop out of the workplace or lose their place in their careers and never get it back. I have no issue with paying towards childcare (which has more benefits than just letting parents work), any more than I have about paying towards healthcare when I'm not ill, or for day centres etc for older people. Everyone gives and takes as they go though life.

I think you’ll find that tax and NI on 30hrs minimum wage work amounts to under £1500 pa Doodledog.

That figure is nowhere near enough to cover their own subsidised child care let alone funding anything else for anyone else.

In terms of cost to the taxpayer it would be cheaper if those mothers stayed at home and looked after their own children!

Mad isn’t it?

GrannySomerset

With reference to the married women’s reduced pension contribution, I was told (1962) that as my pension would be based on my husband’s contributions there was no point in paying more. And just about the only women returning to work after babies were doctors and those with local and willing mothers - no child care except in extraordinary circumstances. Those of us lucky enough to be well advised later on made additional payments to ensure that we caught up, but not everyone was so advised or able to afford to do it.

That makes sense, thank you. If you thought that your pension would be pegged however much you paid I can see why people didn't see the point.

People haven't said this until now, though, and just said that they'd opted for the lower stamp but are annoyed not to get a higher pension, hence my confusion.

Mollygo

Yes, it’s funny (not) that those receiving that extra money to live in now, don’t care that others are living in so much less.
They’re probably not aware either that a % rise is so variable. An example for those who don’t know, a 10% rise on £100 means you get £10 extra. The same %rise on £200 means you get £20 more, and MPs 2.9% pay rise via IPSA gives them a pay increase of thousands.
Last year, Ipsa said a 2.9% increase took account of an "extremely difficult" economic backdrop.
^Announcing the latest pay award, Richard Lloyd, chair of Ipsa, emphasised that the independent body's aimed to make decisions on pay that were "fair... both for MPs and the public".^🤣🤣🤣

I don't think that is funny, and nor do I think it's true. As I said upthread, most of us claim pensions when we can (I can't wait!) and who can blame them? It is also the case that getting a lower amount matters now - when the bills come in - regardless of what happened six years or more ago. That has been said more than once, too.

I think everyone realises that - it's just that when those on the old scheme complain that they have been disadvantaged it can be hard not to remind them that not only have they been paid for sic years longer, but they didn't have to work during those six years.

I used the term WASPI to encompass all the women trapped in the 6 year void, not necessarily members of the group.
Ah, right. I think a lot of people seem to think that all 50s born women are 'WASPI's, but they don't speak for all of us, and there are other pressure groups fighting for different levels of compensation for that group of women.

I am on the old rate state pension & receive pension credit.This allows me to claim rent & rate reductions which make a tremendous difference to my quality of life.I am very grateful for this help & can manage every month to pay my outgoings& eat & heat my home.When it’s very cold I put on extra clothing.Why do some people expect to be kept in luxury?help yourselves by budgeting wisely.Thosewhoneed it can claim pension credit.

With reference to the married women’s reduced pension contribution, I was told (1962) that as my pension would be based on my husband’s contributions there was no point in paying more. And just about the only women returning to work after babies were doctors and those with local and willing mothers - no child care except in extraordinary circumstances. Those of us lucky enough to be well advised later on made additional payments to ensure that we caught up, but not everyone was so advised or able to afford to do it.

Pantglas2

Doodledog

Pantglas2

I’ve never understood the argument that women who stay at home and look after their own children are being subsidised by those who put their children in nurseries.

If the government gives free care for 20-30 hours for the children of women in paid work, are they not being subsidised too?

There was no free care in the days when people now on pensions had young children.

Of course not Doodledog but surely the subsidy argument is valid?

I know of a number of young mothers going out to work earning minimum wages and the government funds the childcare.

Yes, and those women are paying tax and NI, which in part pays for the subsidies, as well as for health, facilities, education and so on that we all use, including the ones who pay nothing.

Oh and just so we know, regarding IPSA
The daily rate for the members of the IPSA Board is determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Richard Lloyd isn’t going to bite the hand that feeds him £800 per day, is he?

Yes, it’s funny (not) that those receiving that extra money to live in now, don’t care that others are living in so much less.
They’re probably not aware either that a % rise is so variable. An example for those who don’t know, a 10% rise on £100 means you get £10 extra. The same %rise on £200 means you get £20 more, and MPs 2.9% pay rise via IPSA gives them a pay increase of thousands.
Last year, Ipsa said a 2.9% increase took account of an "extremely difficult" economic backdrop.
^Announcing the latest pay award, Richard Lloyd, chair of Ipsa, emphasised that the independent body's aimed to make decisions on pay that were "fair... both for MPs and the public".^🤣🤣🤣

I used the term WASPI to encompass all the women trapped in the 6 year void, not necessarily members of the group.
I was able to retire at 60 without my SP. Those years without the pension represent lost money and continued loss due the % calculation of rises.

Doodledog

Pantglas2

I’ve never understood the argument that women who stay at home and look after their own children are being subsidised by those who put their children in nurseries.

If the government gives free care for 20-30 hours for the children of women in paid work, are they not being subsidised too?

There was no free care in the days when people now on pensions had young children.

Of course not Doodledog but surely the subsidy argument is valid?

I know of a number of young mothers going out to work earning minimum wages and the government funds the childcare.