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

Exactly maddyone and others. I do wish people would stop saying that those of us on the old pension could claim it 6 years earlier than those on the new pension. We couldn’t. We are WASPI women too, and there was a gradual introduction of the new pension scheme. Many of us were trapped in the middle of that and now we’re on the old pension for life, falling further and further behind. The whole system is completely unfair.

As I have pointed out previously on this thread. The new state pension is not more than the old pension. The new pension figure is a maximum figure for those whose contributions started after 2016 or had a lower starting figure due to being contracted out of missing contribution years. If you are getting less than that then you wouldn't have qualified for it anyway and many pensioners on the old system get far more than £221 a week. My DH is an example. In 2016 when the calculation was done his starting figure was less than the full pension due to having been contracted out. He has now reduced this by further NI payments to reach the full pension. Under the old system he could have increased his pension further, but now any further NI payments will make no difference. The new pension is designed to reduce government spending on pensions, not increase it.

J52

“Do you get a median amount? Ie more than if you'd claimed it at 60 but less than if you'd waited till 66? My husband deferred his SP for a couple of years and gets more as a result - was that an option?”

Unfortunately it didn’t work like that for us WASPI women. For some of us we couldn’t claim our SP at 60, but we’re on a sliding scale. I had to wait until 63 to claim the old pension.
I asked if I waited until 66 to claim could I have the new pension and was told no. After the age of 63 I could defer my pension for some years, but even if I did that until 66 I would still be on the old pension.
Of course I would have accrued 3 years of pension in a lump. This would have been subject to tax. I think you could also add it to your monthly pension, not sure about that.

My husband gets a bit more each month, as he deferred the SP until I stopped working. That didn't involve a transition between old and new schemes, though, so may not be relevant.

I completely agree that those caught between the two systems got the worst of both worlds. As a WASPI woman, do your subs cover advice on this aspect? I am not a member (although I am the age group that lost 6 years), so can't claim to be a WASPI woman. It seems very unfair that you had to work longer and still get the old pension.

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.

maddyone

Doodledog
I didn’t claim my pension at 60 because I wasn’t allowed to claim it then. I claimed it at 63 because that’s what I was allowed to do.
I’m on the old state pension, often referred to as the basic pension now. It’s basic alright. It’s around £50 a week more basic than the new state pension. I paid all my contributions all the years I worked and if I had been three weeks younger (born after 6th April, rather than late March) I would have been claiming the new state pension instead of the basic pension for the rest of my life, however long that may be. I object most strongly to being told that I was able to claim my state pension at 60.
Because I wasn’t!

Exactly, I am the same!

“Do you get a median amount? Ie more than if you'd claimed it at 60 but less than if you'd waited till 66? My husband deferred his SP for a couple of years and gets more as a result - was that an option?”

Unfortunately it didn’t work like that for us WASPI women. For some of us we couldn’t claim our SP at 60, but we’re on a sliding scale. I had to wait until 63 to claim the old pension.
I asked if I waited until 66 to claim could I have the new pension and was told no. After the age of 63 I could defer my pension for some years, but even if I did that until 66 I would still be on the old pension.
Of course I would have accrued 3 years of pension in a lump. This would have been subject to tax. I think you could also add it to your monthly pension, not sure about that.

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?

maddyone

Doodledog
I didn’t claim my pension at 60 because I wasn’t allowed to claim it then. I claimed it at 63 because that’s what I was allowed to do.
I’m on the old state pension, often referred to as the basic pension now. It’s basic alright. It’s around £50 a week more basic than the new state pension. I paid all my contributions all the years I worked and if I had been three weeks younger (born after 6th April, rather than late March) I would have been claiming the new state pension instead of the basic pension for the rest of my life, however long that may be. I object most strongly to being told that I was able to claim my state pension at 60.
Because I wasn’t!

Yes, You've mentioned this, and I agree it's unfair. What I meant about people getting it at 60 is that whereas they may get less now they have had it for six more years (and didn't have to work during those years, which counts for a lot), but IMO can't be blamed for taking it when they could, as most people do exactly that.

Do you get a median amount? Ie more than if you'd claimed it at 60 but less than if you'd waited till 66? My husband deferred his SP for a couple of years and gets more as a result - was that an option?

Either way, it's too late now, of course. My point was that even though people have had the basic pension for years longer than those on the new one, that doesn't help them in the 'here and now', and it's therefore not fair to hold the extra years against them. Not mean-spirited at all!

Fully supportive of families aren’t we all?
Not!

Sorry, that doesn't make sense to me. If it's a dig at those saying that people's choices should recognise that they will come with costs, and that those in work have no choice but to pay into the system that credits NI to non-workers, then I don't see it as non-supportive. I support choice, but not the choice to force others to pay for it.

Fully supportive of families aren’t we all?
Not!

For those pensioners who retired at 60, I fail to understand how £50 per week less than those who retired at 66 require, is supposed to pay for the cost of living as it stands today. For those who took advantage of the ability to retire at 60 (and let’s not forget that there was no choice for many, they were simply told that as they were 60, they were required to retire) the fact that they received a pension for six more years does not mean that magically, they don’t need £50 a week more to live on at today’s prices. To suggest otherwise is both mean spirited and lacking in understanding.

No doubt those who support this would no doubt claim to be supporters of the sisterhood. But clearly not!

Good post Doodledog Tues 23:57.

Doodledog
I didn’t claim my pension at 60 because I wasn’t allowed to claim it then. I claimed it at 63 because that’s what I was allowed to do.
I’m on the old state pension, often referred to as the basic pension now. It’s basic alright. It’s around £50 a week more basic than the new state pension. I paid all my contributions all the years I worked and if I had been three weeks younger (born after 6th April, rather than late March) I would have been claiming the new state pension instead of the basic pension for the rest of my life, however long that may be. I object most strongly to being told that I was able to claim my state pension at 60.
Because I wasn’t!

Pensions are likely to increase by 4% from April 2025

Which means that those of us on the old pension are going to drop further behind. And those of us who have a small occupational pension are still going to be worse off than those who made no provision for their retirement (for whatever reason).

I dont often agree with @Doodledog. However I do agree with what she said about those who paid a smaller stamp, took time out for childbirth or paid less for other reasons should not find themselves advantaged over those who were thrifty. The very fact that this can happen does not encourage honesty in filling out a self assessment form because the system itself is basically rotten.

BaronJohnPaul

Sorry. I thought my comments would appear under the post I was commenting about! Mt comment was meant for the last post by Doodledog.

Why thank you! Your commitment to saying so is noted .

If you want to include the post you are commenting on (not always advisable when it is as long as that one) you just click 'quote' then reply, and your comments appear under it.

It is a pity there is no delete or edit function on this forum. I am embarrassed by my errors and spelling mistakes lol!

Sorry. I thought my comments would appear under the post I was commenting about! Mt comment was meant for the last post by Doodledog.

Fantastic post! Agree with the sentiments expressed.

Fantastic post!

karmalady

additional state pension and serps go up with inflation and not triple lock, hence the gap between old and new state pensions is continuing to get wider. I believe we, on the old state pension, will get overall around 10p a day extra. Certainly not the amount touted by the labour government

How do you work that out? Pensions are likely to increase by 4% from April 2025. Do you only receive £2.50 a day in state pension?

Allira

No-one is surprised.
What is surprising on a site primarily aimed at older women is the disparaging comments and insinuations made about women who, through choice or otherwise, stayed at home for a number of years to bring up their own children.

I am not disparaging anyone. I am pointing out that pensions are a financial transaction and asking who you (and others) think should pay to give you a choice to stay at home for years? It's not just the pension - it's all the unpaid tax and so on that pays for all the things we all get, whether we pay towards them or not.

I think there are a lot of good points on this thread though - one size never fits all, and too many people are missing out who I’m sure were not intended to.

But. In threads where IHT is discussed, people are horrified that their heirs might be taxed on a windfall they (the heirs) haven’t earned. We are told that billionaires will leave the country if they are asked to pay more in tax.

We have lots of posts from people admitting that they didn’t pay fully into the pension scheme (ie the married woman's contribution) but complaining that they get less than those who did. Why wouldn't they? I don't think that those on the old pension have necessarily missed out, but equally, having had a pension for 6 years longer than those on the new one won't pay the bills today. I will claim my pension as soon as I'm able, and can't blame others for doing the same at 60.

We regularly have posts from those going on glamorous holidays and having home improvements or other big expenses, for whom the WFP can only be a nice gift rather than a lifeline, yet also complaining that the payment has been cut. IMO it is only fair that we should be able to spend our own money on making our homes comfortable and enjoying our retirement, but if we are doing that can we honestly claim to need help with the bills?

At the same time we know that children are going hungry, that the NHS is struggling, that services are being cut and that life is hard for people of all ages. But when the talk is of working-age benefits, few people on here are in favour of increasing them, and cite women getting their nails done or having phones as reasons why not, and we are told that they just need to learn to budget or batch cook.

What is the fairest way to plug these gaps? If we means-test, older people with occupational pensions or part-time jobs lose out to those without. Is it fair to penalise them for planning for retirement? Occupational pensions are not free. Young people in two-income families lose out to those where one chooses not to work. Someone who has worked for a promotion can find that the extra money lifts them above the threshold so misses out. It goes on and on.

If we have universal payments instead, they have to be smaller (to cover more people) and they sometimes go to those who can manage without, but sometimes only because of having the small pensions mentioned above, and round and round it goes.

If we pay things like WFP to everyone with less than £X in savings or £Y in income, is that fair to those who have already done without things in order to accrue those savings, and if we pay things like Child Benefit on the same basis will it stop people from doing more in order to earn a higher standard of living? And why shouldn't we all be able to use our own money for a 'rainy day fund' in case of accident or emergency, without it counting against us?

It’s like unraveling a ball of tangled yarn and they are just some of the anomalies.

I think the WFP has been handled badly. But I don’t think it is an attack on pensioners. It is an attempt to make things fairer across the board, which is all but impossible for the reasons above.

Reading all these posts makes me think that there should be more education on pensions. Perhaps there should be the opportunity for a pension screening, rather like the health screening on offer.
A bit late for some, but this thread indicates that many, unwittingly expected their retirement provision to be different.

Do you remember the days when you could be asked at interview, about your children or your plans for future children, or even how long you’d been married?

I was turned down for a job once because I was asked at interview how long I'd been married, when I said six months I was told I hadn't got the job because I'd probably be getting pregnant before long! That, of course, was a male interviewer.
In fact it was several years before that happy event occurred.

additional state pension and serps go up with inflation and not triple lock, hence the gap between old and new state pensions is continuing to get wider. I believe we, on the old state pension, will get overall around 10p a day extra. Certainly not the amount touted by the labour government

Perhaps some posters should check before they post. I was a teacher. I had to hand in my notice at the end of the Christmas term as my baby was due at the beginning of March. There was no choice as you most definitely couldn't go on maternity leave .After she was born I could not go back to work as my mother looked after her shop and there were no good nurseries. I was able later to do some evening class work and when she was 3 I started working part time. She was born in 1963. Things have changed a lot.Perhaps the fact that when I started teaching I earned about £48 a month might make some think .

Allira

No-one is surprised.
What is surprising on a site primarily aimed at older women is the disparaging comments and insinuations made about women who, through choice or otherwise, stayed at home for a number of years to bring up their own children.

But that’s not surprising either.
And some of the people, on the old pension had no option because grand parents were not around to pick up the childcare duties. Getting a job then having to take time off because your child, despite vaccination, had whooping cough, or measles or anything else that made them unwelcome outside your home, and when grandparents either lived too far away or were unwilling added to the difficulties. Taking time off was unpopular with employers.
Do you remember the days when you could be asked at interview, about your children or your plans for future children, or even how long you’d been married?
Getting a job where travel took up (or even now does take up) a large chunk of what was earned, together with before and after school care, which ate even more didn’t leave much for paying into an additional pension.
But hey, let’s support this government’s actions at all costs. So many of these poorer pensioners won’t be around at the next election, so why should they care? Sadly, many of these pensioners are also on the lower rate, so already £200pm worse off.
And actually, I’d like to know;
there are so many pensioners pouring out of the woodwork now who keep telling us they didn’t need the WFA, so why didn’t they refuse to accept it and make it available to those who need it instead of waiting to be told they don’t need it?