good waspi news

Doodledog I think you've misunderstood me. I objected to the cut in benefits, but the pension hasn't been cut. I know they're not really connected, but it just so happened that both changes happened at about the same time. One of the arguments of the Waspi women has been that they're hard up - some are, some aren't. My fault for linking the two. I guess my point was that the changes in benefits affected the same group of people.

MCPARLIN

Hi Venall, you only need 35 years of contributions to receive the new higher rate pension, which obviously is going up each year at a higher rate. I had 45 years of contributions when I retired in 2015 (I was 62 years and 6months) but still get the lower pension, so a lot of unfairness across the board.

I had 47 years of contributions, but don't receive a full state pension because I was opted out. I did find out about it a few years ago and have paid voluntary contributions which has boosted the amount I receive, but it was till impossible for me to receive the full amount.

One of the arguments of the Waspi women has been that they're hard up - some are, some aren't.

I'm not being difficult here, but I just don't see the relevance of this. If you save in an endowment scheme your payout is not affected by whether or not you are hard up. In fact, the point of paying into financial schemes is surely to ensure that you won't be? Why does it matter whether a WASPI woman (or anyone else) is skint or not? Their beef is that the rules of the pension scheme into which they had paid were changed without adequate communication, and this is true whether they are rich or poor.

Unless the endgame is that all older people are only 'entitled to' a basic standard of living, surely it is irrelevant what other savings or sources of income people have? A pension is not (yet) a benefit in the sense of a safety net to prevent starvation. It is still supposed to be an income in one's older age after a lifetime of working. That is the basis on which people paid in, and it's not unreasonable or greedy to expect to be able to claim it when the time comes, regardless of whether or not you are on the breadline.

vena11

Yes Callistemon that is very true but all those people that now receive the larger payment have had to work 5 to 6 years more to get it and payed taxes and national insurance in those years.

Not necessarily the case, for example I was born just before the April 1953 cut off date, and my friend just after, we both had to work approximately the same number of years before we got our pensions, me with the old pension and her on the new one. I wouldn't like to say how much difference this mounts up to over a lifetime. This unfairness should also be addressed.

I wish I got £200 per week state pension!! I got mine aged 60 years and five months. I knew it would be introduced incrementally. My partner had to wait until he was 66 to receive his state pension and had worked non stop since he was 16! It was a blow to hon not to receive his pension at 65 as promised.
Our state pension scheme is one of the worst in Europe. If you have to survive on that pension alone, you are very unlucky, male or female. Men have missed out as well.
I don’t receive the higher rate which is very annoying.

The maximum state pension is about £179, not £200, and that's if you get it at 66 instead of 60.

Doodledog I accept what you're saying, but if you read the endless messages by Waspi women, one of their arguments is that they can't cope financially. (Please don't shoot the messenger.) My point is that many of these women aren't hard up, so that argument falls flat. For those who can't cope, they do have to rely on benefits and they were cut too for the over 60s. Perhaps if the benefits change hadn't happened, those in financial difficulties would have a (very leaky) safety net. I admit the two aren't really connected.

PS. The amount people pay in pension contributions has almost no relationship with the amount people pay in. It's always been a silly system. There are actually two issues - providing a minimum income for those with little pension entitlement and providing a fairer system so that contributions are more aligned with entitlement. The two don't necessarily gel that well.

Doodledog

The maximum state pension is about £179, not £200, and that's if you get it at 66 instead of 60.

Ah! But the grass always seems greener ...

The information about the original increase for women was started in the 90's I knew about it my daughter knew about it. It was only fair that if men had to retire at 65 so should women as they had started moaning about equal pay. Its really only the women affected by the sudden change in the gradual increase born 1953 -1955 that were shafted. People are living longer and longer now (Covid-19 excepted) so its only fair that they contribute longer.

We have to remember that the money we pay into our "pension" doesn't pay out pension it is paying for the pension of the generations before us, our parents and grandparents. If there are not enough people contributing then there isn't enough money to pay anyone. Which is why I think the 8% should not be paid this year as its a freak year.

I find the whole pension situation quite confusing. I have 49 years NI contributions and have just started to receive my state pension of £159 pw. Not the full rate as I was contracted out into my private work’s pension. Yes, I’m fortunate enough to have paid into a pension scheme but the monthly pension deductions were costly with a young family. Until I received the state pension I wasn’t paying any tax so it isn’t a huge private pension but of course is a help. I was hoodwinked into believing that I would receive the full amount (am just 66) due to my NI contributions. In addition to not paying state pension until women reach 66 the government is also deducting NI contributions from women until they are 66 when it used to stop at 60. This must generate a considerable amount of revenue. The government want people to contract into private pensions so that they can pay less state pension - this is the same for men & women. I feel the most unfair change for women of my age was the additional year from 65 to 66 which has had a huge impact

The government want people to contract into private pensions so that they can pay less state pension - this is the same for men & women.

I suspect you're on to something there!

Ohh I thought it was 5th April 1960 but it all got very confusing reading about all the legislation and changes

We have to remember that the money we pay into our "pension" doesn't pay out pension it is paying for the pension of the generations before us, our parents and grandparents. If there are not enough people contributing then there isn't enough money to pay anyone.
There will be more people paying in now than there were in previous generations, though. More women work, the population is larger, and the state contributions made to women who weren't working because they had children were cut back so that they can't be claimed after the youngest child is 12. Women with children over 5 are now 'encouraged' back into the workplace. It is simply not true that there are fewer contributions coming in than before, and the amount of money paid out in furlough and other Covid expenses is evidence that there has been enough in the coffers to cover the funds associated with the 'we are living longer' argument.

In any case, if the scheme is not fit for purpose that is the fault of the administrators, not the beneficiaries, and needs to be sorted out without detriment to those who contributed. We have paid our contributions in the belief that we would get a pension, and if that is reneged upon then faith in the State and 'the system' will falter. I don't mean faith in the current government, but something much more fundamental than that. Government in the UK has always relied on consensus, and that has to be a 2-way street.

I am in the WASPI age group. I reach 66 in next couple of months. Though I have the necessary number of years, I will not get full state pension, as I was in SERPS, so apparently that has increased my work pension. They don't seem to have taken into account that my work pension is non incremental. Its all very complicated. I feel very aggrieved that things were not done more gradually in stages. Not sure we will get any compensation, but a little will be better than nothing.

Do you have a link to the balance sheet? I'm not sure that the contributions/payments ratio is more favourable than in the past. I would be interested to see details.

Maria59

*Callistemon I have just received my latest projection and need to make 46 years contributions to receive full pension which will be reduced as I paid into a company pension the additional earnings related contributions are now lost. I wish I could get full pension for 35 years contributions but it is not the case.

This is all very peculiar, Maria59, are you sure the forecast is correct? The computer is not always right, only as good as the information fed into it!

It seems the rules are unclear and keep changing every few years - is this all designed to confuse us?

I have heard of GMP but that in itself is difficult to fathom; it seems to mean that a private company pension may not be increased at all because the increases that would have been paid are included as part of the State Pension.

Does the National Insurance fund have administrators? I always understood that NICs go straight into the Treasury melting pot. The funds aren't invested in the same way a private pension is.

In my case I had to wait until I was 65 years 10 months old so lost around £40000. I’ve given up hope of ever being compensated. I had to stop work at 60 to look after my husband but because I could claim my work pension I couldn’t have carers allowance even though he’s on disablement benefit. I am luckier than a lot of women as I paid into the pension so I could retire then but it still grates that I didn’t know I’d have to wait even longer than the age of 63 the DWP did tell me about.

Callistemon

Maria59

*Callistemon I have just received my latest projection and need to make 46 years contributions to receive full pension which will be reduced as I paid into a company pension the additional earnings related contributions are now lost. I wish I could get full pension for 35 years contributions but it is not the case.

This is all very peculiar, Maria59, are you sure the forecast is correct? The computer is not always right, only as good as the information fed into it!

It seems the rules are unclear and keep changing every few years - is this all designed to confuse us?

I have heard of GMP but that in itself is difficult to fathom; it seems to mean that a private company pension may not be increased at all because the increases that would have been paid are included as part of the State Pension.

I suspect what the computer is telling Maria is that 46 years of contributions are required to get the maximum to which she is entitled (not the full state pension). That's how my estimate was always presented. It gives a maximum amount and the amount the recipient will receive if no further contributions are made. I don't receive the full state pension, but there was always a gap between my maximum and current estimate, which is why I paid voluntary contributions.

I am one of the gap women and its not just the insufficient information. My husband died in 2011. Under the old scheme I would have been entitled to inherit some of his employment years as he died before drawing his pension. Alternatively I could have bought extra years. During the time between my husband's death and my own pensionable age I had many phonecalls with the Pensions office and they DID NOT KNOW what rules would apply to my pension. I really felt for the people I spoke too. They would say "well here's what the guidance is this week but we think its going to change next week" First time I spoke to them I was assured that I could inherit pension...then told no...then told we don't know. I still don't know how they calculated what i finally got but as I am lucky and have an occupational pension, I pay tax anyway so more state pension would have put up my tax bill. and we can't blame Boris for that one!

I was alerted to this, which doesn't affect me personally but it may be of some interest to some Gransnetters:

www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/married-women-missing-state-pension-boost/

growstuff

Does the National Insurance fund have administrators? I always understood that NICs go straight into the Treasury melting pot. The funds aren't invested in the same way a private pension is.

that's true.

growstuff

Does the National Insurance fund have administrators? I always understood that NICs go straight into the Treasury melting pot. The funds aren't invested in the same way a private pension is.

that's true

Exclusive: The 4.6 million men who “retired” at 60 to get a pension top up paid by the taxpayer

davidhencke davidhencke
1 year ago

DWP’s extraordinary disclosure
Successive governments extended a 1983 “men only national insurance subsidy” for 35 years and broke a promise to women born in the 1950s to offer them similar terms

I was in the group that missed out, being born in the mid 50's. I worked full time for 38 years without breaks, only finishing because I got VR. I thought well OK at least I'll get the new flat rate pension when my time finally comes as you need 35 years. If I had needed to do 39 years contributions (I'v seen that figure in earlier posts) I would not have accepted VR at the time. Anyway wrong to presume I would get the new flat rate.
I think the new flat rate pension is misleading, would like to know how many actually get it. Because I worked for the local authority I get some deducted so get about £138. So Callistemon I think you are wrong to presume we will get about £50 more.
Also I thought all pensioners regardless of the old or new scheme get the triple lock (at the moment)
As we've said it's the not being properly informed so we could make decisions that's the problem.