Petition on Why the old state pension is £200 pm less than the new

Elusivebutterfly

Callistemon21

Cossy

Isn’t this because of “contracting out”?

No
And SERPs ??
No

The whole pension system is a mess
Yes, it is.

When I left work to have a family, ten years worth of Local Authority and Local Health Authority pension contributions were returned to me as a 'gratuity'.

It has just been pointed out to me on another thread I lost out on any extra State pension because I would have been contracted out.

No extra State Pension and no public service pension from those 10 years. There must be many other women who have lost out like that.

Callistemon21 has taught me something I never knew. I also missed out on Additional State Pension as I was contracted out in the 70s but got the money I paid in returned to me when I gave up work to have children. I don't think it would have been very much, but it would have helped.

Crafty, weren't they!

You are correct. The earnings link part of the triple lock does not apply to the additional state pension which will only rise in line with prices. This Research Briefing on the Triple Lock dated 6 Novemebr 2023 explains it. See section 1.4:

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7812/CBP-7812.pdf

Extract:

The then Work and Pensions Minister, Baroness Stedman-Scott, responded that the State Pension reforms should be looked at in the round. It is not possible to make direct comparisons between the two systems in this way. The new system has been designed so that no more money is being spent than under the previous system. Care has been taken to ensure fairness to both groups while delivering a sustainable system for the future. Although some people may get a larger amount uprated by the triple lock, they will not have access to other elements of the previous system; for example, a lower state pension age and the ability to build a higher state pension through the additional state pension.

I mean elusivebutterfly is correct.

Callistemon I lost 5 years of pension in the same way, they just gave me back what I had paid in when I left as I was having my first baby.

silverlining48

Callistemon I lost 5 years of pension in the same way, they just gave me back what I had paid in when I left as I was having my first baby.

Ten years of pension contributions ☹

I have been reading several articles in the Guardian and there is much talk of letters and leaflets which were allegedly sent to women like me who were born in the 50s. I was born in 1953. I received nothing. I only knew about the new age limit because the Assistant Bursar, who did our pay told me. I retired just before my 60th birthday and fortunately got my work pension. I received my state pension at 63. A friend who is a couple of months younger had to wait another year. At first I thought we should have all kept an eye on the press etc. I did but there really was nothing unless it was tucked away on page 5 at the bottom.

Ladyleftfieldlover If you haven't already seen it, there was much discussion about it here with links and extracts from the Ombudsman's findings about the maladministration:

www.gransnet.com/forums/legal_and_money/1332731-WASPIs-Ten-Thousand-payment

I also get less than the full "new" amount despite the fact that I paid enough years of NI for a pension. It does seem unfair.
My sister has not worked for many years but will actually get more pension that I do because her's started after the new pension date.

Ladyleftfieldlover

I have been reading several articles in the Guardian and there is much talk of letters and leaflets which were allegedly sent to women like me who were born in the 50s. I was born in 1953. I received nothing. I only knew about the new age limit because the Assistant Bursar, who did our pay told me. I retired just before my 60th birthday and fortunately got my work pension. I received my state pension at 63. A friend who is a couple of months younger had to wait another year. At first I thought we should have all kept an eye on the press etc. I did but there really was nothing unless it was tucked away on page 5 at the bottom.

No, I was born in 1952 and never received any letters or leaflets either.

I’m getting the higher rate, but I had to wait an extra 6 years for it.

Are the petition signers happy to pay back their extra 6 years worth of payments? 😗

I thought I’d post this example in case it helps to clear up some of the misunderstanding about who receives what and who is or isn’t disadvantaged by the changes.

Women born in 1952 needed 30 years NIC to receive a full basic state pension.

Women born after 5 April 1953 need 35 years NIC to receive the full new state pension.

Two examples. Both women stop working when they reach state pension age.

I’m using current rates of both pensions for simplicity.

Here’s the chart for when WASPIs reached state pension age.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-pension-age-timetable/state-pension-age-timetable

Ann was born on 6 April 1952. She reached pension age on 6 May 2014 when she was 62 years 1 month old. She had 30 full years of contributions.

Barbara was born on 6 April 1953. She reached pension age on 6 July 2016 when she was 63 years 3 months old. She also had 30 full years of contributions (before 6 April 2016).

SERPS began in 1978, so both women would have had ample years to build a good Additional State Pension. Say both had earned £50 in Additional State Pension.

Ann’s basic state pension £156.20
Additional State Pension £50.00
Total pension £206.20

Barbara’s *starting point to calculate her new state pension £156.20
Additional State Pension £50.00
Total pension £206.20

Under new state pension provisions Barbara would receive £174.72 (£203.85/35*30) as she does not have enough contribution years to receive a full new state pension.

Her entitlement under the basic state pension is more than under the new state pension. Therefore, her pension comprises new state pension of £174.72 plus a protected payment of £31.48 giving her a total of £206.20.

So both Ann and Barbara receive the same amount of pension but Barbara had to wait a year and two months longer than Ann did to receive hers.

Had neither woman earned Additional State Pension, Barbara would receive £18.53 per week more than Ann (£174.72 - £156.20) but Ann has had the benefit 14 months i.e. 56 weeks more pension which at current rates would be £8,747. Divide that sum by the extra £18.53 per week that Barbara receives and it would take around 9 years for Barbara to catch up. It won’t take nine years if pensions continue to rise under the triple lock but the principle is the same. Overall Ann is better off in the medium term.

The same applies if both women were receiving £206.20. Barbara's pension would rise a little more each year under the triple lock as the main element of her pension is slightly higher but again Ann has had the benefit of that extra 14 months.

The earnings link part of the triple lock does not apply to the Additional State Pension element.

www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/pensions-and-retirement/state-pension/how-does-the-state-pension-work-and-how-much-might-you-get

TinSoldier

I thought I’d post this example in case it helps to clear up some of the misunderstanding about who receives what and who is or isn’t disadvantaged by the changes.

Women born in 1952 needed 30 years NIC to receive a full basic state pension.

Women born after 5 April 1953 need 35 years NIC to receive the full new state pension.

Two examples. Both women stop working when they reach state pension age.

I’m using current rates of both pensions for simplicity.

Here’s the chart for when WASPIs reached state pension age.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/state-pension-age-timetable/state-pension-age-timetable

Ann was born on 6 April 1952. She reached pension age on 6 May 2014 when she was 62 years 1 month old. She had 30 full years of contributions.

Barbara was born on 6 April 1953. She reached pension age on 6 July 2016 when she was 63 years 3 months old. She also had 30 full years of contributions (before 6 April 2016).

SERPS began in 1978, so both women would have had ample years to build a good Additional State Pension. Say both had earned £50 in Additional State Pension.

Ann’s basic state pension £156.20
Additional State Pension £50.00
Total pension £206.20

Barbara’s *starting point to calculate her new state pension £156.20
Additional State Pension £50.00
Total pension £206.20

Under new state pension provisions Barbara would receive £174.72 (£203.85/35*30) as she does not have enough contribution years to receive a full new state pension.

Her entitlement under the basic state pension is more than under the new state pension. Therefore, her pension comprises new state pension of £174.72 plus a protected payment of £31.48 giving her a total of £206.20.

So both Ann and Barbara receive the same amount of pension but Barbara had to wait a year and two months longer than Ann did to receive hers.

Had neither woman earned Additional State Pension, Barbara would receive £18.53 per week more than Ann (£174.72 - £156.20) but Ann has had the benefit 14 months i.e. 56 weeks more pension which at current rates would be £8,747. Divide that sum by the extra £18.53 per week that Barbara receives and it would take around 9 years for Barbara to catch up. It won’t take nine years if pensions continue to rise under the triple lock but the principle is the same. Overall Ann is better off in the medium term.

The same applies if both women were receiving £206.20. Barbara's pension would rise a little more each year under the triple lock as the main element of her pension is slightly higher but again Ann has had the benefit of that extra 14 months.

The earnings link part of the triple lock does not apply to the Additional State Pension element.

www.moneyhelper.org.uk/en/pensions-and-retirement/state-pension/how-does-the-state-pension-work-and-how-much-might-you-get

Women born in 1952 needed 30 years NIC to receive a full basic state pension.
And women born before then needed 39 years of contributions to receive a full SP.
Men needed 42 years, I believe.

You are right Callistemon, though think men needed 44 years.

silverlining48

You are right Callistemon, though think men needed 44 years.

Yes, that would be logical, an extra five years to 65.

DiamondLily

I’m getting the higher rate, but I had to wait an extra 6 years for it.

Are the petition signers happy to pay back their extra 6 years worth of payments? 😗

Not everybody on the old rate started receiving it at 60. There are people posting in this thread who didn't get a pension until they were 63 and over. As Callistemon says women born before 1952 needed 39 years of contributions to get a full pension.

I despair at the willingness to throw other women under the bus. It's not their fault the pension situation is an unfair mess, they abided by the rules but that doesn't reduce their bills which are the same as those on the higher pension.

I despair at the willingness to throw other women under the bus. It's not their fault the pension situation is an unfair mess, they abided by the rules but that doesn't reduce their bills which are the same as those on the higher pension.

I know, and it’s not as though lifting the rate for everyone is going to disadvantage those whose increase is less. Nobody is suggesting taking money from those on the new system to give it to those on the old. The amount they get will stay the same. Being vindictive to one another will make it much easier for governments to be vindictive to all of us. It’s why they set people against one another.

Over the years I have been shocked by how many older women want other older women to get less than we do. Whether it’s posters deciding what others can afford, or comparing pensions to working age benefits, it’s all about dragging people down instead of pushing for everyone to get more.

By all means push for systems to be made fairer, but why try to penalise those who have abided by the systems in place at the time? What else could they have done?

I know some people have criticised the HRP payments that some mothers received from 1978.
However, back in the 1960s and 1970s, many young mothers did stay at home to care for their young children, missing out on promotions in the workplace when they did return too, or working part-time.
Nurseries were practically non-existent then.

Now young parents get help from the Government with nursery charges so I can't see the difference. The Government will pay up to £2,000 pa in nursery fees, so getting a NI stamp paid would not have been much different.

HRP was also paid to those caring for elderly relatives too, usually women, and some of us did both, returning to work as soon as circumstances allowed.

I don't think that the payments should be made, Calli, but I never criticise the people who got them. That was the system. Similarly, although I didn't get any help with childcare I am pleased that this generation is getting at least some help - in fact I think it should go further.

I would like to see the system change so that people's lifestyle choices are up to them and the state didn't advantage some choices over others, but that's not the same as criticising people who got things I didn't, or wanting them to be retrospectively penalised.

I would absolutely support free childcare and extended maternity leave, so that mothers can be with their babies. I also think that people looking after elderly relatives should be properly compensated. What I don't support is women staying at home for decades when their children are at school and expecting those who are working to pay for it (not just in pension contributions, but paying taxes when sahps don't). It's particularly galling when those people then take the moral high ground about that choice, and when we are all told that the pensions some of us have paid for can no longer be afforded, and cuts are made by means-testing workers.

Doodledog

*I despair at the willingness to throw other women under the bus. It's not their fault the pension situation is an unfair mess, they abided by the rules but that doesn't reduce their bills which are the same as those on the higher pension.*

I know, and it’s not as though lifting the rate for everyone is going to disadvantage those whose increase is less. Nobody is suggesting taking money from those on the new system to give it to those on the old. The amount they get will stay the same. Being vindictive to one another will make it much easier for governments to be vindictive to all of us. It’s why they set people against one another.

Over the years I have been shocked by how many older women want other older women to get less than we do. Whether it’s posters deciding what others can afford, or comparing pensions to working age benefits, it’s all about dragging people down instead of pushing for everyone to get more.

By all means push for systems to be made fairer, but why try to penalise those who have abided by the systems in place at the time? What else could they have done?

Completely agree Doodledog

Some of us older women were SAHM for just a few years until children started school and HRP didn't start until 1978 so we did miss several years of NI contributions anyway.
39 years of NI contributions for a full pension meant working from age 21 to 60 and so many did not manage to achieve that.

In the 60s and mid 70 s when I was a new mum there was no allowance other than a single sum of £20 I think.
It was expected you give notice at about 7 or 8 months pregnancy and there was no maternity leave or option to return. You resigned. That’s why young mums stayed home.

Some found jobs which fitted into t heir husbands work hours, often shelf stacking in supermarkets or other things which didn’t interfere with childcare (it was rare for grandparents to be involved in childcare). My dh worked shifts which changed every week so it wasn’t possible for me to find outside work..
We were broke and lived frugally.
As callistemon said there were few if any nurseries , just child minders or play groups which were just a couple of hours.
I am shocked that anyone ha s criticised home responsibilities protection. It came in a little late for me but did help.
As a matter of interest my first job at 15 was the civil service where Women were expected to resign on marriage .
I had to leave my LA job before I had my baby. I had to start again when I went back to work when the child ren were a little older. It was nt easy.
We have come a long way since then but when women criticise other women it really saddens me.

Being vindictive to one another will make it much easier for governments to be vindictive to all of us. It’s why they set people against one another

You're probably right there!
Distraction techniques.

I know, and that's why I am not saying that anyone's pension should be reduced or that the old pension shouldn't be equalised. Life is long if we're lucky, and things change. We can only do what is the done thing at the time we do it.

Callistemon21

^Being vindictive to one another will make it much easier for governments to be vindictive to all of us. It’s why they set people against one another^

You're probably right there!
Distraction techniques.

Divide and conquer. Works well!

I have been sorting through old paperwork this morning. In my ‘Pensions’ file, I found a letter and booklet from the Pensions department informing me about my future pension. It laid out when I could expect to receive it.

This was when I was 50 years old, nearly 13 years before I actually received my state pension.

I have no recollection of receiving this, and just filed it away under ‘pension’ stuff.

I just wonder how many others received similar correspondence and binned it as ‘junk’, thinking it was so far in the future and nothing to be concerned about?

It certainly didn’t register with me at the time, that I wouldn’t be getting my SP at 60, as others women appeared to.

But I had been informed.