Pension overhaul - women no longer able to claim based on partners contributions(44 Posts)
This one leapt out at me because it mentions women aboard, the ones who have have never lived in UK and the "closing a loophole" phrase was used. That on the surface, seemed fair enough, but after further reading it appears this will affect all women in the UK , (and presumably men) who have never made any personal NI contributions.
It seems like more deflection, blame the foreigners so we ignore what the Govt are actually doing kinda stuff. Or did I misunderstand.
What about if you have Child Benefit paid into a joint account?
Would that take me into account? I haven't worked in nearly seven years and can't see it being logistically possible in the near future either.
I can pay NI contributions seperately though can't I?
I think you can do top ups. I am keen to look at topping up the years dh missed. If anyone knows about this, info would be much appreciated. At the moment, if UKIP don't have their wicked way, I can transfer my uk pension credit to Belgium. At least as far as I know.
Ilovemydog - you will be fine as long as it was YOU who completed the cb forms so the money is being paid to you and you get home resp credit for those years.
If you divorce then pension contributions are regarded as part of "the couple's" pot to be split between them.
I agree that married women don't pay a reduced pension contribution, that is what is unfair about the current system where those of us who both work pay higher pension contributions to benefit the SAHM brigade. I think that if you want to pay a higher amount so your spouse gets something that should be an additional extra, the basic occupational pension should just be for the person doing that occupation. There are also life insurance policies, savings accounts etc that could benefit SAHMs if only 1 earner.
I will have to check that as I don't know.
Can I change it if not? Although I can just see dh letting me have the CB to spend as I like! Probably best to leave it in the joint account.
The SAHM brigade as you put it, won't be getting a full pension. And also won't get any pension till their husband is retirement age if they have insufficient contributions of their own. And won't get anything from their husband's contributions when the new rules come in. So they will be reliant on the 16 years they can claim for looking after children. don't think a lot of people in this situation fully realise their position.
This is coming in THREE year's time.
It's all very well spelling it out to someone in their twenties but how can someone in their fifties make this up?
Moving the goal posts yet again......
SirChenjin SMP forms of thirty years ago? I do not think so.
Where and how does one register for NI contributions?
The overseas wives thing is pernicious - did you see the Skype interview with the British man living in the Philippines with his Philippino wife (I've got a horrible feeling those spellings are wrong in all sorts of ways, but I can't be bothered to look for a dictionary, sorry). She is expecting a reduced pension based on her husband's contributions, should he die - and why should she not? He's done the grafting he needed to do, and doesn't expect her to be left destitute.
I was in my first job when the option for married women to pay a full 'stamp' came in, if I remember rightly. Some of the married women chose to carry on as they were, paying national insurance at the cheaper, 'married woman's rate'; they knew that meant they wouldn't get a full pension in their own right, and chose not to change over. So, pulling the rug from under their feet (those women will be in their 70s now) - is outrageous. There will be many thousands of women out there like that, who made their pension decision in all good faith in the 1970s. This idea sounds like an accident waiting to happen. Please put me right if I've misunderstood!
By the way, those people who are asking about doing national insurance top ups, I think you'll find your way to the right place if you start by putting national insurance additional voluntary contributions into the search line.
I don't think changes affect people already retired so those in their 70s won't be affected.
It's very bad news for anyone in their 50s who continued to be a "housewife"/voluntary worker once their children left home, of which I imagine there are legions of people out there. Fine while their husband is still alive and drawing his pension, but what about if/when they're widowed?
As it is a moral good to get more women into the workplace and fewer as domestic slaves at home anything which disadvantages the housewife is a jolly good thing. However they are not proposing to remove NI credits for those who keep house. As someone said above you will be able to claim for 16 years or whatever as a stay at home parent and get your NI credit. But you will need 35 years of NI including that 16 to obtain the full £140 a week pension so if you choose not to work but clean his house and shirts for 20 years on top of 16 years bringing up his children then you need to force him to make provision for you instead as you have sacrificed so much on the altar of male ego to wash and clean at home for 35 - 40 years.
However most women do work and many work over the £7k national insurance limit or whatever the level is for much of their lives so will build up enough NI to draw the £7280 a year state pension as they will have 35 years of NI contributions including NI credit from the times including now when being home to look after children counted for such credit.
This is yet another reason why women should never give up full time work and should aim to out earn their other half as it is much more fun and protects your state pension rights and might even enable you to build up your own private pension too.
While I wouldn't put it quite in Xenia's style I agree with the point that if you choose to not work for a long period of time such as years after the children are in school or even left home, then you need to be aware of the implications financially. A lot of women bury their head in the sand over the pensions issue, or make assumptions (such as that husband will Always be around and will outlive them)
Taking the example of the man in the Philippines (or wherever it was).
He has paid in the same contributions as a single person. His wife has made no contributions at all.
Why should his pension cover two people? Single people or households with two workers both paying NI are subsidising that. I agree with another poster who (I think I understood as) said
if you pay in a single persons contribution then why should you expect your contributions to cover another, non-contributing person, after you die? If, like everything else from medical insurance, life assurance, holiday insurance, most personal pensions; you want another person to take the benefits, then you need to pay extra in to cover that other person.
It is a fascinating issue of our times - we do we pay tax and NI so there is a safety net there in case we ever fall on hard times which may not happen and keep those contributions low like some states or do we have very expensive higher NI and very high contributory benefits like a lot of the EU has whereby if you work very hard for many years you gain a valuable entitlement. We are a half way house here. I almost feel we should abolish NI as the concept is outdated including employer NI (and stop taxing employers as their penalty for taking people on) and in its place remove the state pension from everyone except those who need it. If you don't have a private pension then yes you get the £7k a year or probably better £10k whether you've made contributions or not and have a benefits cap at say £10k not £26k including housing for old and young.
I totally agree that we should merge NI & income tax into a single rate because the whole concept of NI paying for our future retirement is now ridiculous. It does nothing of the sort.
But in reality no government is going to be brave enough to do that because most people would simply perceive their income tax rate going up even though in reality their take home pay is the same.
If a man wishes his wife to be covered then he should pay the extra and not expect other working people to make up the difference. As has been pointed out, one contribution equals cover for one person. Not two people because one has made the decision not to work.
I do agree that if the NI payments are for one person, that's what the expectation should be, and that if the decision is for one to be a SAHP, then the couple need advice as to how to sort out provision so that both end up with a pension.
You only have to read MN to realise how fragile the hope is that you and your partner will be together during retirement, and relying on that hope for a basic income is very unsure.
As an adult, you need to work out how to look after yourself as an individual.
Join the discussion
Please login first.