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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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!

Allira

^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.

It’s not the many in the old pension who receive more (if that’s not just a personal opinion) who worry me.

How many?
What percentage?

It’s the many on the old pension who receive less who are cause for concern.

Those receiving £200 less (in terms of a one off fuel payment) as their monthly pension.

Yes, indeed, Mollygo

Because off the complications of the old system, pre 2016, many older pensioners had no idea that their State Pension was being adjusted in so many ways until they applied for it or asked for a forecast just before they retired.

Thank goodness it has been simplified now.

Allira

^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.

You have access to the Internet, same as me. If you want to find figures to prove me wrong, you can look them up. I have other things to do just now, as I am still working - I will be on the new pension when it finally kicks in, but it hasn't yet. Of course some will receive far less - I didn't say otherwise. Please don't twist my words. If you've read the thread you will know that I've said that regardless of the age at which people claimed their pensions, the amounts they get now are the important thing, as it is today that bills have to be paid, but don't let that get in the way of a jibe?

The old pension allowed people to contribute to SERPS and for women to inherit their husband's pension, and depending on how much they'd paid in this meant that the old pension could be higher than the new one. It's not just a personal opinion though . My mother gets more pension than I will, as she paid SERPS and inherited my father's pension (he had also paid as much as possible into SERPS as well as into his occupational pension, which she also inherited). The option to increase your pension with SERPS is no longer available, and widows on the new pension don't inherit. Most of her friends are in the same boat.

There is little point in comparing one system against another, as they have their own advantages and disadvantages. I think that women who were told that they would have no advantage by paying the full 'stamp' have a grievance, and should be compensated, although I accept that it would be difficult to prove after all this time, and the option to pay the full stamp was legally available.

There are further anomalies in the way that people (mostly women) on contracts that weren't permanent and full-time (including many in the education sector) were not allowed to join occupational pensions. Mine is drastically reduced for this reason, and of course I was also contracted out of the state scheme for several years, so had to make that up, or both my state and occupational pensions would be short.

The OP is about the differences between the two schemes, it is not yet another about the WFP.

The post was actually addressed to Brahumbug as I used her quote in my answer.

Please don't twist my words.

As I was not referring to anything you said I'm not sure I was twisting your words in any way at all.

🤔

Sorry, you are right, although to be fair as I am also saying that there are people on the old scheme who get more than those on the new, and you didn't make it clear whose words you were quoting it's not a huge leap to assume they were mine.

In mitigation I'd just like to say that yes, I am capable of research but that, quite often, a brick wall can be hit because the answers include ifs, buts and maybes. The advice is for women born before 1951 and men born before 1945 to seek specialist advice when asking for clarification about their pension entitlement.

I am on the old basic state pension, which I have mentioned many times before, but, and it is a big but, I also paid into an occupational scheme (teacher’s pension scheme) and consequently I have a professional pension. It is not particularly big, because I took some years out to raise my children, and I was not allowed to pay into it when I was working irregularly (supply work) and additionally I was paid back what I had paid in when I stopped working to have my first baby. There was no maternity leave then, it was have no children and work, or leave teaching until you were able to return full time. No part time work available in primary education then either. Well it was what it was, and terms and conditions are far superior for teachers now, I’m pleased to say. Obviously I wasn’t allowed to pay SERPS since I paid into the professional scheme once I stopped supply teaching and returned full time. I have ended up with about half of my professional pension, based on what I would have received if I had worked right through and never had any children. Well as I said, it is what it is, and I’m just glad it’s better for young women these days.

With regard to the state pension, I do feel it’s unfair to introduce a new, higher state pension, but continue to pay a reduced pension to other pensioners. It means all pensioners are not treated equally, so for example, under the triple lock, I believe those on the new state pension will receive an increase of approximately £400 this year, whilst those on the old state, basic pension will receive approximately £300. I find this inequality difficult to comprehend, since the fuel bills and grocery bills for all pensioners will rise the same amount. I feel particularly sorry for those pensioners who are not buffered by the addition of either a professional pension, or additional pension in the form of SERPS.

Allira

In mitigation I'd just like to say that yes, I am capable of research but that, quite often, a brick wall can be hit because the answers include ifs, buts and maybes. The advice is for women born before 1951 and men born before 1945 to seek specialist advice when asking for clarification about their pension entitlement.

That's the whole problem. The system is fraught with ifs, buts and maybes, which is kind of my point. People saying that those on one system are disadvantaged are not taking account of those ifs, buts or maybes. Some have less money because they paid less in, some have more because they worked for many more years, and some fall between the two.

There is another group who need specialist advice, and they are widows who have not claimed their husband's pensions. It is not straightforward, so I won't give too much information in case I get it wrong, but women who reached SPA before 2016 need to check to ensure that they have everything they are entitled to. Martin Lewis has information here:
www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/married-women-missing-state-pension-boost/

I've not had all these posts on this thread however I did find out yesterday from a chat with my friend who was a teacher since aged 21 retired early due to ill health at 57 now 79 and she receives £1000/month as her state pension. I cannot believe she actually gets more that £200/month than me. I am now 70, retired at 2011 at 57, received my pension at 66 after waiting 6 years. Worked with Local Government all my life. Surely this cannot be the case. I find the pensions so complicated. Think when we retire we should get a summarised breakdown of how they achieve the figure we are going to get as a pension each month.

You can look on the Government Gateway site, icandoit, for a breakdown of your NI contributions over your working life.

You may have paid a lower rate of NI than her at some point without realising as you were in a different employer's scheme. It's all very confusing.

If she received statutory sick pay for those final years her NI stamp would have been paid or those years would have been deducted from the years she needed for a full pension.

Btw, if it's any consolation, she receives £400 more per month than me!