Well if Labour keep this up I think I’ll be voting for them at the next GE!

Allira

MaizieD

Taking a career break to look after under 5s meant they lost out on years of contributions,

No it didn’t. NI contributions were credited to the nonemployed mother until her youngest child was, IIRC, 18.

HRP wasn't introduced until April 1978.
There must be many Gransnetters whose had a family well before that date, stayed at home to look after their babies and little ones. They may have returned to work after a few years but before 1978, without any NIC being made, therefore missed out on a full pension now.

I sometimes wonder if I've wandered over to Mumsnet by mistake 🤔

Wasn't there an opportunity to pay missing contributions before retirement? And aren't those who didn't get a full pension would able claim Pension credit?

When I retired the years required for contributions were fewer than now but I do appreciate that not everyone could afford to pay the missing contributions, even if less were then required.

I feel sorriest for those who paid the 'married woman's stamp.

Anyway, I'm bowing out of this now.

P.S GG13 is correct. The government has always been able to pay if it wished. The 'not enough ,money' trope was a result of the tory 'small state', 'austerity' ideology from 2010 on.

I’ve seen few complaints about the fact state pensions for men born on or before April 1951 or April 1953 you get the new state pension of £221.20 per week
Those of us born earlier get £169.50

Why? I need more heating these days, not less

I agree that it must be difficult to manage on the old pension alone, but I think that those on it can claim PC and get a lot of other benefits as a result.

Also, many people on the old pension get a lot more than those on the new, if they paid SERPS and/ or inherited spousal pensions.

Absolutely. It’s not true that people born on or after those dates necessarily get new SP. I was born in 1955 and I don’t.

People who paid NIC before and after April 2016 may get one or other depending on contracted out deductions and rebate derived amounts due to SERPS.

DWP calculate whether you would be better or worse off under the two tier (basic SP + aSP) or single tier (nSP) pension.

This from Moneybox’s Paul Lewis writing in the i in January 2025:

Recently released figures for May this year show that the average new state pension paid to people aged 66-69 was £207.96 a week, which is lower than the average old state pension of £211.57 paid to those aged 85-89. That is partly because on top of the basic element of £169.50 a week, people can get a few pounds of graduated pension, plus additional pension related to their pay over the years they worked.

The average is around £100 a week on top for men, and £62 for women, though the maximum possible is £218.39.

Some old state pensioners get a total pension of more than £450 a week. In May, there were 367,855 people with an old state pension between £200 and £205 a week. But there were also 152,955 on the new state pension who only get that amount.

And three million old state pensioners get more than the standard £221.20 a week of the new state pension.

So comparing just the basic pensions of £221.20 and £169.50 is misleading. Most people get more or less than those standard amounts.

The new state pension was invented in the 2010s by Liberal Democrat pensions minister Steve Webb. He wanted a simple flat-rate pension for all. The Treasury did not want to spend any more money. So the rate was fixed to ensure the new state pension would, in the long run, be slightly cheaper than the old one it replaced. So what appeared to be a rise was in fact a cut.

The inheritance provisions are much reduced, particulary so for young widow(er)s whose spouse died young. They are treated as though they had received a widow’s pension up to their own SP age when they didn’t. (The widows pension was abolished in 2001.) Had their spouses lived to SP age, on their death they would have inherited 50% of their SERPS (it used to be 100%). Now they can’t. Webb is responsible for that too.

If I have average life expectancy, by 83, I will have lost around £25,000 in inherited SERPS had my DH lived to 65. That’s on top of the £40,000 pension I lost due to equalisation.

Wasn't there an opportunity to pay missing contributions before retirement? And aren't those who didn't get a full pension would able claim Pension credit?
Yes, there was if you had the available money. At that particular time in my life it was deemed not to be worth it.

Pension Credif is available for those on just a State Pension. Others may find an occupational pension takes them just over the limit.

I feel sorriest for those who paid the 'married woman's stamp.

Apparently we should have known better. At least I paid the full stamp when I returned to work.

I find it all so complicated. I’m sure I’m not alone in just accepting what I’m given, which may well save the pension pot money
I started work at 17, always paid full stamp and had two years off in 1972, first child. I went into a career with pension at 30 and retired at 62. So, I have a works pension as well as my state, I’m relieved I was able to do this as it means I can manage now. Withiut my work pension, I couldn’t afford to keep my dogs or heat my home

You weren’t given your occupational pension though, Iam - you paid for it. You also paid into the state pension as well as contributing to society in your work.

That is not remotely the same as expecting others to work to pay for your retirement.

Of course Doodledog, worked hard and paid increased contributions into my occupational pension. That was tough, prioritising my pension when our children were needing child care and later at university.
I was referring more to my state pension

Not that I didn’t pay into it but that I get so much less than those with later dob,

Iam64

Not that I didn’t pay into it but that I get so much less than those with later dob,

Not necessarily. As I've said before on here, I don't know most other people's circumstances, but I do know my mother's situation, and she gets a lot more state pension than I do as, on top of life insurance and occupational pensions from my father, and despite not working for more than 5 years or so after we'd all left home, for the five years or so she did work she paid the max into SERPS, bought back years at a vastly reduced rate compared to full NI and inherited my father's state pension, which was also enhanced by SERPS. Plus, she got her SP 6 years before I did. There is no opportunity for those on the new pension to add to it, other than to defer claiming it - all of that is DOB related - it's not a one-way street.

I'm not saying for a minute that everyone on the old SP is in that position, but it is too simplistic to suggest that being on the old one is necessarily worse than being on the new.

As you say, paying into occupational pensions can be tough for many years, which is why it is irritating to hear comments about how 'it's ok for those with 'gold plated' pensions' as though they are a free gift to those who have them. These days, public sector pensions aren't particularly 'gold plated' either. For those on high salaries pensions may be good, as they've paid more in, but the median average CS pension is somewhere between £10-15k a year, with (obviously) 50% getting less than that. Better than nothing, but only 'gold plated' in the sense that it might look valuable from the outside, but is not worth as much as it might be.

IMO, it is not unfair that people get more if they pay in more. What is unfair is that not everyone is paid enough to be able to afford to make full contributions. I was talking to a teacher the other day who has opted out of her pension - which is a good one - because it is too expensive and she is a single parent who needs the money. She knows that it is not a good idea financially, but there is no choice until her children no longer need her support.

There must be lots of others in that position, and many in worse, but as soon as there is talk of minimum wages or NI rising the talk is always about employers and how they can't afford to make lower profits. That is what needs to be corrected. Maybe there should be ways for people who can't afford regular payments in an OP to be able to make occasional ones to increase their state pensions (on top of their usual contributions)? SERPS was earnings-related, so not great for those on lower wages, but a different, more flexible scheme would mean that people could take breaks at expensive times in their lives and make up for it when things pick up - often nearing retirement. If the government topped up payments, as employers do with occupational ones, there would have to be limits, but it could be a good way to prevent pensioner poverty and reliance on benefits in older age.

I'm not saying for a minute that everyone on the old SP is in that position, but it is too simplistic to suggest that being on the old one is necessarily worse than being on the new.

I wouldn't think there are many older women in that position.
Some may have inherited SERPS but I'd take a bet they'd rather not be in that position.

Surely SERPS was not optional for employees?

It was dependent on whether the employer opted in or out? Some employers liked this as they were not required to pay such high NI contributions. It gave rise to a very complicated system.

No, that was different (I think). Contracting out wasn't optional, and many people didn't realise it had happened, so assumed that they would get a full SP (and planned for retirement accordingly).

I may be wrong, as I have never had an opportunity to pay SERPs, but my mother always said that she and my father had paid into them as though they were optional. A bit like AVCs to add to an occupational pension. I am happy to be corrected on that though.

And I am not suggesting that my mother would rather have my father's pension than him - that is very offensive. I was sinply, and neutrally, pointing out that by no means everyone on the old pension gets less than those on the new. Remember that by no means everyone gets a full new pension either.

I only get the old state pension but continue to work 18 hours a week to keep me afloat..🤷‍♀️

Whether someone had the option to contract of SERPS depended on the kind of scheme. For example, for Defined Benefit (DB) aka final salary schemes, it was the scheme as a whole which contracted out. This was not a choice made by individual members.

Defined Contribution (DC) and approved pension plans are different and did offer a choice.

Former Pension Minister Steve Webb has published a comprehensive paper on this:

www.lcp.com/media/1150050/why-is-money-being-deducted-from-my-state-pension.pdf

And this House of Commons Briefing paper:

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02674/SN02674.pdf

And I am not suggesting that my mother would rather have my father's pension than him - that is very offensive

I didn't say that at all. I think it's the way you interpreted it, if you misunderstood what I meant, I'm sorry.

I expect your mother, too, would rather not be in that position.

Another positive decision by Keir Starmer on its way:

Tony Diver
Associate Political Editor, Telegraph
13 November 2020 6:00am GMT
“Benefit claims for minor mental health problems are to be rejected under Labour plans to cut the welfare bill.”

Ministers have proposed changes to a key benefit scheme to make mental health problems less eligible for state support.

More than half of the rise in working-age disability claims since the pandemic is related to mental health or behavioural conditions, according to official figures. Such conditions now account for almost 45 per cent of total claims.

The tighter restrictions form part of changes to the eligibility rules for personal independence payments (PIP) in a government green paper to be published in the coming days.

Sir Keir Starmer is already facing a backlash from Labour MPs and some members of the Cabinet over the planned changes, which include a reduction in the additional benefits paid to unemployed people who are unable to work.

Claimants for PIP are required to undergo an assessment of their ability to fulfil daily tasks, including cooking and engaging with other people face-to-face.

A claimant’s answer to the questions gives them a score that is used to decide what level of benefits they receive.

Those who are successful receive payments based on the severity of their condition, divided into daily living support and help with mobility. Claimants can receive up to £184.30 a week, on top of other benefits.“

Cont.

The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) is concerned that too many people with minor mental health problems such as anxiety are eligible for the benefit, adding billions of pounds to the welfare bill.

The plans could include changes to the scoring system for PIP claimants, or new criteria designed to weed out those with minor mental health conditions that do not require support.

Government sources declined to comment on the suggestion that mental health payments would be reduced, but confirmed that the PIP regime would be tightened for new claimants.

The previous Conservative government announced in March last year that it would try to reduce the bill from mental health problems, arguing that some conditions were caused by the “normal anxieties of life”, rather than a medical problem that made it impossible to work.“

Anxiety is a real problem in society. It's not always mild and can be caused by trauma. Its a serious problem for some people. However, sitting at home on your own, contemplating your navel makes it worse. Get out there and engage with life.