No, you won't be getting an EXTRA £105 a week.

I read this too. The whole state pension system seems to be a mess. I’ve also been reading about the Home Responsibility Scheme, whereby if you were at home with children for a number of years, you were credited with NI contributions. Now it’s been found that mistakes have been made and women are not getting the pension to which they are entitled. Then there’s the big gap between the old and new state pensions.

There certainly is a big gap between the pre and post April 2016 pensions. It is about £50 per week, £200 per month, with no plan for parity.
With annual % increases the gap will widen still further.
We get one of the lowest pensions in Western Europe, always have, probably always will.

My mum said she got extra 25p when she turned eighty. So we were wondering what she could buy for 25p ha, I know, she said, onions are 25p each at M&S.

I just don’t see how this gap can be justified, as those on the old
state pension have the same expenses- we have to pay the same amount for food, gas, electricity etc. as those getting £50.00 a week more.

What irritates me is that I worked for 40 years before I retired.

Rachel also thinks it is a benefit and would like to remove it, but we each paid into it for our entire working lives.

I worked for 45 years, 15 to 60.

This comes up very regularly, and it is often forgotten that the old pension was earnings-related, so many people who paid full stamp and SERPS get significantly more than the New SP, which is capped. Widows who retired before 2016, I believe, get at least some of their husbands' pension (the SERPS part?), whereas those on the New SP don't get anything. Some people on the old pension get both SERPS and a widow's pension, which can take them well over the New SP rate.

Even without any widow's pension, the maximum additional (SERPS) pension is £222 a week on top of the maximum old pension of £176, bringing it to £398, which is obviously significantly more than the maximum New pension of £230 a week. I realise that not everyone qualifies for the top rate in either scheme, which complicates things further when it comes to fairness.

Comparisons between the two are not sensible. Anyone, even if they have not paid contributions, will be upgraded to Pension Credit, if their income is low enough. This is set at the level of the New SP, and can open the way to other benefits that can not be claimed by those who have paid full contributions to the new SP, so much of the discussion is academic anyway.

I agree that it is a mess, but as the pension is supposedly contribution-based it would be extremely difficult to sort it out in a way that is fair to everyone, particularly as many of those on the old pension have been getting it for many years longer than those on the new scheme.

Would people with SERPs enhancements and a widow's pension be willing to give those up so that payments are evened out? Would people who claimed the pension at 60 be happy to pay back the extra money, perhaps by deductions to their pensions? Probably not (and I don't blame them!) so how can that 6 or 7 years be credited to those on the New SP?

People on the New SP can't claim Pension Credit - should money be taken from those who do to equalise with New pensioners ? What about women who paid a full stamp for decades so that they would get a full pension in their own right? Should they just write that off and let those who didn't have the same rate as they do?

Changes to pensions, as with all benefits, affect people in different ways. Some benefit and others don't. I haven't done the sums as there is no point, but suspect I would be a lot better off if I had paid into SERPS, as I have paid NI since the age of 16 but was not able to pay into an occupational pension until the age of 37. I would certainly have more in the bank if I hadn't lived on savings for the six years when I would once have been claiming a pension. Is that fair? Maybe, maybe not. I chose to do that, just as others made choices about how much to pay in and how many years to work.

Losers would seem to be those who paid full stamp for the full number of contributions required for the old pension, but still get less than those who did the same under the new scheme, but even then, many will have retired and claimed at 60, so the loss is not a straightforward subtraction.

I would like to see all pensions increased, but I think that is very unlikely to happen when the benefits bill is so high across the board.

I worked and paid NI for 45 years, retiring before 2016 so get the old pension.
The new pension just needs 35 years of contribution. That doesn’t seem at all fair. Can you please explain Doodle.

I worked 50 yrs to get pension @66yrs and for some of this time, worked 3 evenings also so I paid extra tax
So I rec’d £4.00 extra a week on state pension due to years worked

Crocus5

I just don’t see how this gap can be justified, as those on the old
state pension have the same expenses- we have to pay the same amount for food, gas, electricity etc. as those getting £50.00 a week more.

Hmm.

I get the new state pension but I had to wait 6.5 more years than you to get it.

So - add up all those months of pension you got from the age of 60. It’ll be around £38,000. That how much catching up us WASPIs have to get to reach ‘parity’.

I had planned my finances around retirement at 60, government changed my plans.

Like FGT2 I had to wait until I was 66, the extra pension is small compensation for waiting.

silverlining48

I worked and paid NI for 45 years, retiring before 2016 so get the old pension.
The new pension just needs 35 years of contribution. That doesn’t seem at all fair. Can you please explain Doodle.

I don't know what you want me to explain that I didn't in my previous post. If you let me know what doesn't make sense, I'll try to give you my POV, which is not necessarily explaining anything, but is just my opinion.

Did you pay full stamp for 45 years? Did you pay into SERPS? If so, why are you unhappy? You should get a full pension that reflects the amount you paid in. If you paid half stamp and no SERPS then your pension will reflect that. If you paid from 15 for 45 years, you retired at 60 on full pension? I retired at 60 too, but had to make up 6 years of NI and had no income between retiring and reaching 66 (I also worked from the age of 16).

I don't know what I am supposed to explain.

Crocus5

I just don’t see how this gap can be justified, as those on the old
state pension have the same expenses- we have to pay the same amount for food, gas, electricity etc. as those getting £50.00 a week more.

Yes but you’re sure to be told that you’ve been receiving your pension for longer.

Those on the old pension should have been saving up so they can cope with paying the same prices as those in the new pension.

How could you have been so careless as to not anticipate that?

Then you’ll be told, depending on what you read,
either that your payments were paying for those already retired, not into a savings pot for you,
or that you’ll only get what you paid in.

Whichever you believe, you’ll still be paying today’s prices with a smaller pension than others get and it’s just tough. It won’t be a focus for this government, or the previous or the next one, because pensioners have no value, anre expendable and will probably die soon anyway.

Presumably you saw my post before writing yours, Molly? Look at the timings.

So your opening line that 'you will be sure to be told xxx' is disingenuous, as you knew that I had said that before you posted.

I may be wrong, but my understanding is that you are younger than me? You have claimed to be working in th teaching profession until very recently (or maybe you still are?)

If not, and if you are someone on the old pension (which I doubt), why do you think you should have had six more years of payments than someone born a bit later? Of course it was not your fault if that happened - none of us can influence government policy. But if you have had six years' more pension than others, how do you explain to them why that is fair, but they difference in payments is not?

Sorry about the typos. I can't find my glasses

State Pension is usually based on the number of years of NIC someone has paid. The minimum required is ten years.

Women needed to pay 39 years to get a full basic State Pension (bSP). Men needed 44 years. That five year difference is because women used to get their SP at 60 while men had to wait until 65.

That has now been equalised and the current SP age is 66 for both men and women. That will rise to 67 between 2026 and 2028, and then to 68 between 2044 and 2046.

Someone age 80 or over now who only paid NIC for ten years would be entitled to £45.24 pw. That’s the current rate of full bSP of £176.50 x (10/39). For last year, 2024/25, that would have been £169.50 x (10/39) £43.46 (which is why I think the example on the gov.uk pages refer to £43).

Note. The Over 80 Pension is NOT based on NIC but will give someone a pension of £105.70 pw irrespective of why they were getting less than this. The rules say:

You can claim the over 80 pension if all of the following apply:

•you’re 80 or over

•you do not get basic State Pension or your basic State Pension is less than £105.70 a week in 2025 to 2026

•you were resident in the UK for at least 10 years out of 20 (this does not have to be 10 years in a row) - this 20 year period must include the day before you turned 80 or any day after

•you were ‘ordinarily resident’ in the UK, the Isle of Man or Gibraltar on your 80th birthday or the date you made the claim for this pension, if later

Women born after 5 April 1953 need 35 years to get a full new SP currently £230.25. Someone with only ten years of NIC will get £65.78 - £230.25 x (10/35).

Note. There is NO similar top-up provision under the new SP rules i.e. if you reached SP age after 5 April 2016. The oldest women receiving new State Pension now are 72 (born after 5 April 1953) I have not heard of any plans to introduce a similar top up for them when they reach 80.

There is Pension Credit to top someone’s income up to minimum of £227.10. No single pensioner should have an income of less than this. That is only £3.05 less than the full nSP.

There is a lot of argument over the differential in basic SP and new SP, but as Doodledog explains, that isn’t taking into account the Additional State Pension (aSP) earned through paying into SERPS/SSP. That contribution scheme was abolished in 2016.

As others have said, nor does it take into the account the women who were expecting to receive their SP at 60 and had to wait (and work) up to another six years. I calculate I “lost” £40,000 due to that.

Nor (as DD says) does it take into account the much more generous spousal SP inheritance provisions for older pensioners. Some will have inherited both their husbands bSP and aSP. This chart and further links explain:

www.lcp.com/en/our-impact/inherited-state-pensions-for-widows-and-widowers

With spousal inheritance it is possible to receive a pension under the old system of well in excess of £300 pw even close to £400 pw.

Under the nSP provisions you can still inherit up to 50% of a spouses aSP but not if you were widowed before the age of 55 as I was. The rules for younger widowers are brutal. If I live to 83, I will have lost over £25,000 due to that. Because I was widowed at 51 I currently receive £25 week less pension than someone who was widowed at 55 based on exactly the same spousal SERPS.

Former Pensions Minister under the Coalition government Steve Webb, the architect of the single tier pension, and Moneybox’s Paul Lewis have both explained that the ultimate aim of the single tier pension (nSP) was that it would be cheaper in the long run for the government. That’s borne out by this article from Paul Lewis:

archive.is/20250103205152/https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/pensions-and-retirement/why-younger-pensioners-bigger-state-pension-paul-lewis-3458070

As he says there: Three million old state pensioners get more than the standard £221.20 a week the (then) new state pension. So comparing just the basic pensions of £221.20 and £169.50 is misleading. Most people get more or less than those standard amounts.

In answer to silverlinings question. If you work more than the maximum number of years needs to get a full pension you won’t get any more pension for it. I worked and paid NIC for 50 years. Only 35 count. I still don’t get a full SP due to a large rebate derived amount (RDA) due to being contracted out of SERPS. I do of course receive an occupational pension (although I worry about how long that may last if Reform come to power, cause a City meltdown as Truss did and pension funds fail as a result with no quantitative easing to save them this time - but that's another discussion).

As the expression goes - It’s complicated. The letter I requested and received from DWP asking for an explanation of how my SP is calculated runs to nine pages!

I don’t know, but I suspect the four year difference in the number of years required to get full bSP (39) or full nSP (35) is to do with changing lifestyles. The single tier pension is all anyone who entered the workplace after 5 April 2016 will receive. It’s more likely that they will enter the workplace at age 21 after university compared to previous generations who may have entered the workplace at 14, 15 or 16.

Thank you, PaynesGrey

Charleygirl5

What irritates me is that I worked for 40 years before I retired.

Rachel also thinks it is a benefit and would like to remove it, but we each paid into it for our entire working lives.

it's classed as a benefit, if like me you're a carer for your husband ,you can't claim carers allowance, if you're retired and getting the state pension...can't get two benefits...I can't understand why it's classed as a benefit, something we paid all our working lives

In my opinion a pension is a contribution-based benefit, which (by definition) is based on contributions made over a working life.

It is a deferred payment for work done when someone was able to work, to tide them over in older age when they are no longer able to do so. It is not (or should not be considered as) a payment given to everyone over a certain age simply for getting older, which would be a ‘benefit’ in the sense of a ‘dole’ payment made out of public funds, which is what some seem to expect to be awarded.

I don’t understand why anyone thinks they should be entitled to get a payment out of public funds ‘just because’ they reach a certain age.

Doodledog
I am one of the 'losers' I paid the full NI cont for the full number of years to qualify for the old state pension. I am a widow and believe there is no longer such thing as a widow's pension. This has been replaced by another paymt which is only made for 18 mths. I also retired before 2016 but do not get any of my late DH's pension so I think some of your info maybe incorrect or outdated?

But we do all get extra money just for turning 80 — an extra 25p a week on our state pension!

PaynesGrey

State Pension is usually based on the number of years of NIC someone has paid. The minimum required is ten years.

Women needed to pay 39 years to get a full basic State Pension (bSP). Men needed 44 years. That five year difference is because women used to get their SP at 60 while men had to wait until 65.

That has now been equalised and the current SP age is 66 for both men and women. That will rise to 67 between 2026 and 2028, and then to 68 between 2044 and 2046.

Someone age 80 or over now who only paid NIC for ten years would be entitled to £45.24 pw. That’s the current rate of full bSP of £176.50 x (10/39). For last year, 2024/25, that would have been £169.50 x (10/39) £43.46 (which is why I think the example on the gov.uk pages refer to £43).

Note. The Over 80 Pension is NOT based on NIC but will give someone a pension of £105.70 pw irrespective of why they were getting less than this. The rules say:

You can claim the over 80 pension if all of the following apply:

•you’re 80 or over

•you do not get basic State Pension or your basic State Pension is less than £105.70 a week in 2025 to 2026

•you were resident in the UK for at least 10 years out of 20 (this does not have to be 10 years in a row) - this 20 year period must include the day before you turned 80 or any day after

•you were ‘ordinarily resident’ in the UK, the Isle of Man or Gibraltar on your 80th birthday or the date you made the claim for this pension, if later

Women born after 5 April 1953 need 35 years to get a full new SP currently £230.25. Someone with only ten years of NIC will get £65.78 - £230.25 x (10/35).

Note. There is NO similar top-up provision under the new SP rules i.e. if you reached SP age after 5 April 2016. The oldest women receiving new State Pension now are 72 (born after 5 April 1953) I have not heard of any plans to introduce a similar top up for them when they reach 80.

There is Pension Credit to top someone’s income up to minimum of £227.10. No single pensioner should have an income of less than this. That is only £3.05 less than the full nSP.

There is a lot of argument over the differential in basic SP and new SP, but as Doodledog explains, that isn’t taking into account the Additional State Pension (aSP) earned through paying into SERPS/SSP. That contribution scheme was abolished in 2016.

As others have said, nor does it take into the account the women who were expecting to receive their SP at 60 and had to wait (and work) up to another six years. I calculate I “lost” £40,000 due to that.

Nor (as DD says) does it take into account the much more generous spousal SP inheritance provisions for older pensioners. Some will have inherited both their husbands bSP and aSP. This chart and further links explain:

www.lcp.com/en/our-impact/inherited-state-pensions-for-widows-and-widowers

With spousal inheritance it is possible to receive a pension under the old system of well in excess of £300 pw even close to £400 pw.

Under the nSP provisions you can still inherit up to 50% of a spouses aSP but not if you were widowed before the age of 55 as I was. The rules for younger widowers are brutal. If I live to 83, I will have lost over £25,000 due to that. Because I was widowed at 51 I currently receive £25 week less pension than someone who was widowed at 55 based on exactly the same spousal SERPS.

Former Pensions Minister under the Coalition government Steve Webb, the architect of the single tier pension, and Moneybox’s Paul Lewis have both explained that the ultimate aim of the single tier pension (nSP) was that it would be cheaper in the long run for the government. That’s borne out by this article from Paul Lewis:

archive.is/20250103205152/https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/pensions-and-retirement/why-younger-pensioners-bigger-state-pension-paul-lewis-3458070

As he says there: Three million old state pensioners get more than the standard £221.20 a week the (then) new state pension. So comparing just the basic pensions of £221.20 and £169.50 is misleading. Most people get more or less than those standard amounts.

In answer to silverlinings question. If you work more than the maximum number of years needs to get a full pension you won’t get any more pension for it. I worked and paid NIC for 50 years. Only 35 count. I still don’t get a full SP due to a large rebate derived amount (RDA) due to being contracted out of SERPS. I do of course receive an occupational pension (although I worry about how long that may last if Reform come to power, cause a City meltdown as Truss did and pension funds fail as a result with no quantitative easing to save them this time - but that's another discussion).

As the expression goes - It’s complicated. The letter I requested and received from DWP asking for an explanation of how my SP is calculated runs to nine pages!

I don’t know, but I suspect the four year difference in the number of years required to get full bSP (39) or full nSP (35) is to do with changing lifestyles. The single tier pension is all anyone who entered the workplace after 5 April 2016 will receive. It’s more likely that they will enter the workplace at age 21 after university compared to previous generations who may have entered the workplace at 14, 15 or 16.

Yes like you I started work at 15, have paid 44 years of NI & am hoping I can make my last 3 working years to 67! I was relying on my TP occupational pension to provide a buffer, I'd struggle if that disappeared.

Great post, thanks

I dont understand why our pensions vary so much. It seems that people born after 1956 get much more than a person born pre 1956. A friend recently shared that she got just over £450 more a week than I do because in her day they had SERPS. She doesnt have any pension credits either. Beyond me!

Yes, I’m on old SP . But get it topped up with Pension credit.

I’ve just turned 80, and that reminds me. I must check to see if I’ve been topped up with the 25p extra pension.
Completely forgot about that.