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

The 'new' pension is not more than the 'old' pension. The so called new pension is capped at £221 and most people don't even get that. The old pension also has SERPS and S2P, which could be up to £218 a week on top of the basic pension. That petition is nonsense.

silverlining48

I have just signed a petition by 38 degrees asking for the old state pension of £156 pw to be increased to the new rate of £203 pw. It’s a huge difference. When the new pension began in 2016 I ( wrongly) assumed the old would be increased to the new one.
When the pension rate is mentioned by media it’s the higher amount which is mentioned as the pension rate but many of us who retired before 2016 are in the lower rate.
I worked and paid NI for nearly 50 years and amazed that this isn’t discussed more.
My tech skills aren’t up to linking so will leave it to anyone who wishes, to seek out the petition.

I totally agree here Silverlining48 , I hit the new at the time retirement age of 63 in March 2016. Receiving my 1st State Pension 8/4/2016 .
My school friends ( a lot of whom I am still in contact with )who reached 63 after myself were all in receipt of the new enhanced payment ! !
Grossly unfair , next on that list is Family members who reached the age of 66 in 2023/24 & also get the enhanced payment !
One of those never worked f/t - p/t for a period of 10years let alone 30!
Makes my blood boil !
Personally, I have worked all of my life early child rearing days included once children got to between 2-5years .
And yes , I opted out of serps , at whatever young age I was at the time , I never understood the implications of that particular choice .
Why should we be getting £200 less , so please note it’s not just those who reached retirement age prior to 2016 - it was up to & including before April 1st 2016 !!

nadateturbe

Pension credit is means tested. Shouldnt be. Therefore if you live with someone who brings your joint income above the qualifying level, you don't get it. Which is unfair. I paid more contributions than those receiving much more.

It doesn't matter what you paid in unfortunately. That money was paid out for your parent's and grandparen's pensions. Your children and grandchildren will be paying for your pension. Unfortunately it is very unlikely they will get a state pension in return.

If you live with someone who brings an income in you have someone who shares the expenses. Someone living alone would possibly qualify.

welbeck

grumpyoldwoman45, attendance allowance is not means-tested, so having savings will not preclude you.
might be worth having a look at it.

Thanks, welbeck, but I'm not classified as disabled (just unabled!) to carry out anything strenuous (or ladder based!) - personal care is not a problem.
I've looked into all sorts of benefits but don't qualify for anything, I'm afraid, so I'll just continue to count the blessings I do have!

grumpyoldwoman45, attendance allowance is not means-tested, so having savings will not preclude you.
might be worth having a look at it.

I blame the parents!
(Sorry)

It is such an unfair system in so many ways.

Shinamae

I got my state pension at age 63, born February 9, 1953 it’s the old rate..

I am a few months younger Shinamae but didn’t get mine until nearly 65. I get the higher rate.

I got my state pension at age 63, born February 9, 1953 it’s the old rate..

Callistemon21

^The gap between the two rates of pension widens every year^

Yes, I tried to explain that more than once but no-one seems that interested.

Can you apply for Attendance Allowance, grumpyoldwoman45, to help pay for some of the help you need? There are £billions in unclaimed benefits, much of it could be claimed by people on the old State Pension.

Don't struggle, Citizens' Advice might be able to help.

So far, Callistemon21, I'm one of the lucky ones - I was wise (?) enough to save a little for my later years but, at the current rate, this won't last long!
My thoughts are for those who haven't been so lucky and who, even with the addition of means-tested allowances, are still struggling to make ends meet.

The gap between the two rates of pension widens every year

Yes, I tried to explain that more than once but no-one seems that interested.

Can you apply for Attendance Allowance, grumpyoldwoman45, to help pay for some of the help you need? There are £billions in unclaimed benefits, much of it could be claimed by people on the old State Pension.

Don't struggle, Citizens' Advice might be able to help.

A bit late to the party, I'm afraid, but my feeling is that the older one gets, the more expensive life becomes: having to employ people to help with gardening, housework, decorating, repairs etc, that had previously been DIY jobs.

Also older people often tend to stay at home more, possibly feel the cold more, both resulting in higher energy costs which, these days is no joke.

The gap between the two rates of pension widens every year, so the "extra years" that some have mentioned are little comfort to those struggling to pay their bills now.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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 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?

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.

silverlining48

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

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

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

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.