good waspi news

Great to see this on a BBC news site, even if it is buried in the business section!

Why do we never hear about this issue on the main news channels? I think the only time I heard a passing mention about it was when Boris was running for election and that issue was raised with him, an issue he subsequently failed to address.

Callistemon

^Life-changing changes like this should always be communicated to all, clearly, with enough warning for people to make achievable plans for the rest of their lives^

I agree but it seems ludicrous to have two separate schemes running.

Perhaps it might be a good idea to give those who lost out their due compensation then move us all on to the higher rate of state pension.

After all, we receive one of the lowest state pensions in Europe.

To get a full state pension under the old scheme, women needed to have paid in 39 years of contributions and men 42 years.

Any fewer and the pension was reduced accordingly as was mine.
Many women were persuaded into paying a Married Women's Contribution too so do not receive a pension in their own right.
A blatant case of miss-selling.

Agree entirely, I worked from the age of
18years until 67, when I married, because I went art time I was advised my the Social Security office I High Street Edgware, to only pay the married woman's contribution, I now think I was told this so I could not draw unemployed allowance, I always worked, now my pension is a pittance. ?

Hi I’m in my 70’s so got my pension at 60 - I worked for a big multiple store (200 nationwide and new closed)from the age of 45 and couldn’t join the pension plan till after I’d worked for 2 years.
Six months since I retired, 2004 - I received a letter from their pension fund, telling me that, as I’d retired at 60 and not 65 as I think the new rules were then, I had paid more money each month into the pension fund , then a man would, who would retire at 65 - they offered me ( and I assume other females similar age to me) either a cash sum equal to the cash sum I received 6 months previously - or a higher monthly pension- not knowing how long I was going to live, I accepted the cash.
My point is - are our pension fund contributions similar to insurance contributions- worked out on age, sex etc?
If so, all those women who didn’t get their pension at 60 should have a strong argument- anybody out there, working in wages remember if a man and a woman, on the same wage, paid the same amount into their pension

I was paid £2.00 an hour less than basic wage, and commission on everything I sold, so wages varied every month, so not easy to compare like with like back then

Although I’m single, paid stamps for 44 years, my pension is only about £125.00 a week, my private pension takes me up to about £180.00 a week. I didn’t realise that they add your state pension ( no it’s not a benefit - I paid all my working life) to your private pension and I’m a couple of pounds over the new state pension approx £179.00 a week — no one ever explained about opting out etc and what the economic results would be - or what the advantage of paying into a private pension - think Robert Maxwell, Philip Green - I’d have got the same pension if I’d stayed on the old state system- so I’m no better off than someone who never worked in their lives

I got slightly reduced state pension when I retired last October. As I was contracted out.
I paid my full NI contribution, then as I was still working continued to pay until the day I claimed my state pension. I am lucky to have a good NHS pension which is the one they tax you on as you cannot take tax from the state pension.
My state pension and NHS pension was originally linked in time together but the state one kept moving in age. I remember it was 60 then 63, then 66.
I was sent a letter saying that my state pension will be paid when I'm 66.
Can't remember from whom but I did get one when I was about 62 ish.
I seem to remember seeing some women where informed but the majority had no idea.

Callistemon: 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

More than 4.65 million men aged over 60 have had the last five years of their national insurance contributions paid by the state, the Department for Work and Pensions has disclosed.

The scale of the payments has been kept quiet by the Department for Work and Pensions for 37 years. It was only revealed last week when Myfanwy Opeldus, one of 3.8 million women facing now a six year delay to get her pension, got the admission from the ministry through a Freedom of Information request. She is a BackTo60 supporter and had been pursuing the government over this issue

Maria49. You are probably in same position as me. Your company pension opted out (SERPS), which meant at the time you paid less into your state pension and your NI was reduced. Therefore your company pension is greater than it would have been if you had not been opted out. But it means your state pension is reduced. I did check with them by phone, and my pension amount is correct.

More than 4.65 million men aged over 60 have had the last five years of their national insurance contributions paid by the state, the Department for Work and Pensions has disclosed.

That’s interesting, Pippins. As a WASPI member, one of the points I raised in my maladministration letters to the DWP was that when I requested a pension statement in my 50s the reply stated that I wouldn’t need to pay NI after the age of 60, and of course this changed before I got there. Men still had theirs paid, did they? (wanders off to google….)

Scottiebear yes I checked by phone too. I am entitled to full £179 per week after 46 years contributions which will be reduced to reflect the company pension I paid into. When I started work I was entitled to an additional state pension based on earnings this is now no longer available. My understanding is the only ones entitled to full state pension after 35 years are those who have not worked and had NI credits rather than paying contributions or those who worked and never paid into company schemes.

More than 4.65 million men aged over 60 have had the last five years of their national insurance contributions paid by the state, the Department for Work and Pensions has disclosed.

Baffled by that. Is that because they were signed on as unemployed or as carers and received pension credits? I can't think of any other reason.

It looks as though my guess was right.

davidhencke.com/2020/07/28/exclusive-now-9-8-million-men-over-60-had-their-national-insurance-contributions-paid-by-the-state/

It wasn't a "men only" subsidy. They were auto credits, which are paid to people who sign on as unemployed. Women could have applied for them too, if they had signed on with the JobCentre before reaching state pension age.

It seems that there are a number of different issues being discussed here.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/davidhencke.com/2020/05/22/exclusive-the-4-6-million-men-who-retired-at-60-to-get-a-pension-top-up-paid-by-the-taxpayer/amp/

It was a men only subsidy, they didn’t have to sign on, and women did not get them.

So to sum up, if I’d had a penis I wouldn’t have had to pay to buy in the two tax years 2016/7 and 2017/8 to enhance my pension, I’d have had them credited. Fabulous.

Of course the women didn't get them. Women over 60 were already retired.

I agree that I was wrong about the obligation to sign on. I guess it saved everybody a lot of time and effort on a pointless exercise.

growstuff

Of course the women didn't get them. Women over 60 were already retired.

Not in 2018 when the scheme ended, they weren’t. This was available to men born up to and including October 1954. Women born in October 1954 have a state pension age of 66.

growstuff

I agree that I was wrong about the obligation to sign on. I guess it saved everybody a lot of time and effort on a pointless exercise.

Yes, but effectively it meant that men were able to get their NI contributions paid for the five years before getting their pensions, which women like me (and you, I think?) have had to fund ourselves.

No, you didn't if you signed on as unemployed. Did you try it? The difference would have been that you would have had to look for work, in which case you could have complained that it was unfair.

When did 60 year old men stop being eligible for the scheme?

All the information’s in the link I provided, growstuff. And it says quite categorically that the men did not have to sign on. They got the NI credits automatically whether looking for work, not looking for work or working in low paid or part-time jobs. They got them up until and including the tax year 2017/8, and as I’ve already said, this applied to all men born up to October 1954.

So these men were 64 when the scheme ended? Is that right?

I was born after October 1954.

Yes. And so was I. I’ve had to buy in two NI years I would have had credited had I been a man.

My answer to your last but one post.

From the article I linked to:

The woman who raised this with the DWP is one of a number who has not got enough national insurance contributions to get a full pension. She falls short by three years and will have to pay them £3000 to make up the years to get another £400 a year.

A man – one of the 4.65 million who was covered by auto credits- would have to pay nothing. That is hardly fair. And he could take a low paid job and still not pay NI contributions as they would be covered by the state.

More seriously it does knock a hole in the DWP case that the raising of the pension age was an equality measure to create a level playing field with men.

It is hardly a level playing field if men on this huge scale are getting their national insurance contributions for free. What started as a measure for 90,000 ended up helping 4.6 million. No wonder the DWP were not happy to have to disclose this.