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

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.

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.

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!

Good post Doodledog Tues 23:57.

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!

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

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.

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?

“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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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".^🤣🤣🤣

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.