good waspi news

Doodledog

growstuff

Doodledog Not quite true either. Many women qualified for Home Responsibilities Protection while bringing up children, if the Child Benefit payment was in their name. It was easily possible for a woman to have 39 years of contributions.

That's true, particularly when it was paid until the youngest child was 16. When the number of years increased from 30 to 35 this was cut to 12.

Quite right too. There's no reason why the mother of a 12 year old can't wok, unless the child has special needs.

Callistemon

I know this will be unpopular but when those affected do receive their pensions it will average about £50+ per week more than the full rate for those who retired under the old scheme.
Those on the old scheme will remain in the old rate so will be receiving over £2,500 less per annum than more recent retirees.

I agree with you. That's one of the reasons, I've never supported Waspi. I also don't like the fact that they dismissed people who were born after 1 January 1960, whose pension age is even higher. And what about the men whose pension age was increased in the 2011 changes? It's always seemed to me that they're only concerned about themselves, not justice for all.

growstuff

Doodledog Not quite true either. Many women qualified for Home Responsibilities Protection while bringing up children, if the Child Benefit payment was in their name. It was easily possible for a woman to have 39 years of contributions.

That's true, particularly when it was paid until the youngest child was 16. When the number of years increased from 30 to 35 this was cut to 12.

From memory, women originally had to work for 39 years to claim the full state pension. It was then changed to 30 years, then changed again to 35 years. I also believe that the pension was reduced if a person didn't have the full number of years, not withheld entirely. Currently, everybody has to have at least 10 years to be entitled to anything.

Chardy

Callistemon

I know this will be unpopular but when those affected do receive their pensions it will average about £50+ per week more than the full rate for those who retired under the old scheme.
Those on the old scheme will remain in the old rate so will be receiving over £2,500 less per annum than more recent retirees.

The new pension did not start until April 2016. Women born between 1950 and early 1953 had been made to work longer for their pension, but had already retired on the old, lower rate.
Personally I never received a letter about SPA changes, and I knew nothing about how the extra pension income would affect me had I postponed retirement until 2016.

I don't think it worked like that. You couldn't have increased your pension by claiming the new scheme if you had delayed your retirement until 2016. The scheme you were on was dictated by the date you were born.

'You'll usually need at least10 qualifying yearson your National Insurance record to get any State Pension. You'll need 35 qualifying years to get the full new State Pension.'
www.gov.uk/new-state-pension/how-its-calculated

Callistemon

I know this will be unpopular but when those affected do receive their pensions it will average about £50+ per week more than the full rate for those who retired under the old scheme.
Those on the old scheme will remain in the old rate so will be receiving over £2,500 less per annum than more recent retirees.

The new pension did not start until April 2016. Women born between 1950 and early 1953 had been made to work longer for their pension, but had already retired on the old, lower rate.
Personally I never received a letter about SPA changes, and I knew nothing about how the extra pension income would affect me had I postponed retirement until 2016.

Doodledog Not quite true either. Many women qualified for Home Responsibilities Protection while bringing up children, if the Child Benefit payment was in their name. It was easily possible for a woman to have 39 years of contributions.

Thank you humptydumpty.
I've got everything crossed here. I won't hold my breathe though.

Callistemon

^This is what Age Concern say about the old pension. They also have details of the new one.^

It is categorically untrue and misinformation as far as I know, Doodledog.

In fact, if I have time tomorrow I will message them to query that.

I do believe that, if you had fewer than 30 years of contributions, you lost your entitlement to a state pension altogether.
At 30 years and above you received it on a sliding scale up to a maximum of 39 years.

If you are getting less than you should be, you might be in for a windfall. Have you checked on the YouGov site to see that your details are all correct? It is definitely worth querying your case.

When you think about it, if women who retired at 60 had to have nearly 40 years' of contributions, hardly any of them would be getting a full pension. It would rule out all graduates for a start, as well as anyone who took time out to have children or had career breaks for any reason.

Partly true!
Men born after 5 April 1945 and women born after 5 April 1950 need 30 qualifying years for a full Basic State Pension, with a single qualifying year required to get any State Pension. Men born before 6 April 1945 needed 44 qualifying years for a full basic State Pension, and women born before 6 April 1950 needed 39 years; to get any State Pension, an individual needed 25 per cent of the qualifying years required for a full pension.

I am too old and have been diddled. I never realised.
Should we start a campaign?

This is what Age Concern say about the old pension. They also have details of the new one.

It is categorically untrue and misinformation as far as I know, Doodledog.

In fact, if I have time tomorrow I will message them to query that.

I do believe that, if you had fewer than 30 years of contributions, you lost your entitlement to a state pension altogether.
At 30 years and above you received it on a sliding scale up to a maximum of 39 years.

Callistemon

^Sorry that's not the case for everyone my husband got his pension under the old rules he gets £237 a week^

I think that must have been because he was in a firm's pension scheme and GMP has been applied.,

Only those on just the basic state pension can claim pension credits.
I do have another pension too.

No Its his actual state pension based on his national insurance records he has a separate private pension nothing to do with his employer or GMP at all

Callistemon

^The link in my last post confirms what I thought however, which is that under the old scheme women had to pay in for 30 years, not 39.^

Their pension would be reduced accordingly and they would not receive the full rate.

Every year less than the full 39 years meant a proportionate drop in final pension.

I know, I am one who only managed to get in years less than the 39 years of contributions so my pension is lower than the £137.60 pw.

This is what Age Concern say about the old pension. They also have details of the new one.

*Basic State Pension (before 2016)

You can claim the full Basic State Pension if:

you reached State Pension age on or before 5 April 2016 (see above for full details)
you have 30 years of National Insurance contributions. This includes contributions that you made when you were working, and contributions that were credited to you if you were unable to work - for example, if you were caring for a child or disabled person, or claiming certain benefits.
If you have fewer than 30 years of contributions, you’ll get 1/30 of the full State Pension amount for each year of contributions.

If you’re eligible to claim a Basic State Pension, you may also be able to claim an Additional State Pension. How much you get will depend:

your earnings
whether you claimed certain benefits.*

It does not mention 39 years, and specifically says that your pension will be reduced for every year less than 30 that you have contributed.

I am still working and will be 66 in September. I have paid nearly 50 years national insurance but because I was contracted out the most sp I can get is £166. How is this fair when you only need 35 years ni. Total scam. Waspi woman born 1955.

Sorry that's not the case for everyone my husband got his pension under the old rules he gets £237 a week

I think that must have been because he was in a firm's pension scheme and GMP has been applied.,

Only those on just the basic state pension can claim pension credits.
I do have another pension too.

The link in my last post confirms what I thought however, which is that under the old scheme women had to pay in for 30 years, not 39.

Their pension would be reduced accordingly and they would not receive the full rate.

Every year less than the full 39 years meant a proportionate drop in final pension.

I know, I am one who only managed to get in years less than the 39 years of contributions so my pension is lower than the £137.60 pw.

Thank you humptydumpty we will watch and wait

I am just so glad that it has been publically acknowledged that it was wrong that we were not informed in time to adjust our budgets and plans accordingly.

Callistemon

I know this will be unpopular but when those affected do receive their pensions it will average about £50+ per week more than the full rate for those who retired under the old scheme.
Those on the old scheme will remain in the old rate so will be receiving over £2,500 less per annum than more recent retirees.

Sorry that's not the case for everyone my husband got his pension under the old rules he gets £237 a week, I get mine under the new rules, because by April 6th 2016 I had accrued more than the new basic pension any NICs I paid after that date up until March 2021 didn't increase my pension, even though I opted out for a few years I still get more than the basic pension plus the private pension I get for the years I opted out, its more than £200 a week but still less than he gets and I worked for 6 more years than he did best part of 51 years for me 45 for him

Surely a single pensioner on the old rate can claim pension credit anyway which is only a couple of £s less than the new basic.

But this is going to be the case isn't it, a sniff of compensation (which I doubt we will get) for those of us who had to work the extra years and those who didn't have to work start poking their head above the parapet saying where's mine.

I agree that those on the old scheme should be on the same rate as the new.

The link in my last post confirms what I thought however, which is that under the old scheme women had to pay in for 30 years, not 39.

I doubt that most women paid anything like 30 years' of contributions, though - many didn't work whilst their children were at school, and back then their 'contributions' were paid by the state until the youngest child was 16, so with a large family that could easily be 25 years. When the new scheme came in, this was cut to when the youngest is 12, which added to the number of years that needed to be paid, along with the increase to 35 years.

Nevertheless, we all live with the same living costs, so there is no reason why older people should receive less - it's not like they get discounts on food or rent.

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.

I think its right that men and women should work until 65/66. No matter how well you calculate it all us waspi women will never ever ever get compensation for these lost years. As like most compensation claims the government eventually pay out we will probably all be dead before we get anything. People that got to retire at 60 have received more than £25,000 more than we have.

The old state pension required 30 years of contributions and the new one 35 years.

It would be fairer to put everyone who has paid the required contributions (at the time that they retired) onto the new rate, IMO. People couldn't have been expected to know that if they'd retired a few years later they would have got more, and some may well have decided to hang on until they qualified.

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.

and payed taxes and national insurance in those years.

Men had to pay 42 years of contributions and women 39 years.
The new, full higher rate is paid after 35 years of contributions.