Change to pensions benefitting SAHMs and married couples...

[SpawnChorus]

Is this some sort of lame attempt to appease us for the loss of Child Benefit?

I don't believe for one second that I will actually recieve any state pension when I reach retirement age.

Good idea in theory - if it works out like that. Can't help wondering if eventually though the state pension will be viewed like child benefit so it will cease to be universal.

What on earth is a "married womens rate"?

bubble - it was abolished 30-odd years ago.

What on earth is a "married womens rate"?

Basically married woman used to be able to choose to pay a lower rate of NI, but that meant (amongst other things) that your pension was based on your husband's NI, not your own. It ended in the late 70s, but this is why a lot of female pensions now are on such a low pension in their own right. Obviously this has less & less impact with the passage of time as very few women retiring now will have paid the reduced NI.

Just checked it ended in 1977, more details here

My DM paid the married woman's rate and after 30 years of working ending with no pension from the State. She really regrets the decision but could not afford to make it up. I don't believe the state pension should be linked to how much you paid in. Those who earn more will have better private and company pensions and should therefore be better off anyway. The married woman's stamp is dying out but if the state pension was linked to how much you paid in a lot of women would be disadvantaged.

So rich pensioners get all their universal benefits plus a big increase in the basic state pension. Paid for, effectively, by welfare and child benefit cuts. Can't understand why people already benefitting from the kind of enormous final-salary pension schemes that working people today can't get should be entitled to all this extra help. Why is means testing so bad for pensioners if it's ok for everyone else?

It said in the news today that it wouldn't apply to exisiting pensioners and they are all moaning big time about it.

I wish the changes to child benefit only applied to those with new children!

fsmail I wasn't (if your post was directed at me) talking about linking basic state pension to how much people earn, but to how many years contributions they have both NI and HRP/Carers contributions. That is how it is now & I still can't see why we need to change that.

NI conts kick in at £97 a week, about 16hrs work on minimum wage. It matters not if you pay a few pence of NI or a heck of a lot more - it counts exactly the same for state pension purposes.

Any one disabled/sick (not sure how the proposed news rules for ESA will affect this one though)/caring/kids under 12 will have these years "counted" for state pension purposes even if they don't earn enough to pay NI (or earn anything)

So yes women have been disadvantaged in the past, for the years prior to 1978 (when HRP started) and those women who chose to pay less NI miss out because of their decision to do that, but these are historical anomalies which will happen with less & less frequency & not at all for those women retiring after about 2020.

fromhere- they will have to pay tax on any increase to state pension. and have you not hear that final salary pensions are a thing of the past.

pensioners do seem to be doing well out of the changes compared to students and families

Yesterday it was said that serps would be paid back to you as a lump sum for you to invest as you wish,today it has changed to it being paid out as promised to those that contributed.They should not scrap it for all and leave those dependent on it with nothing,lets kid on we are in France and go burn a lorry.Why are we in Britian so content to sit back and take all the shit thrown at us?

The reason why I believe means-testing does not work for the state pension is that a lot of people now are not saving for pensions because they will loss minimum income guarantee because of private pensions so there is no incentive for them to save. Autoenrolment is coming in from 2012 although will not effect most people until 2013. Some people will be auto-enrolled, forced to pay pension contributions and then under the current system will lose minimum income benefit because of it. It is currently working as a disincentive. Most people will say 'What is the point in giving up income now when it will not benefit me in the longer term.' It provides a safety net for pensioners now buy many are too proud to ask for state help when they need to because unlike some families who deliberately adjust their income to get the most back from the state pensioners believe in providing for themselves.

Those who think they dont deserve it because they had the benefit of final salary schemes should look at the level of real poverty for these people. The window cleaner who was self-employed so no SERPS and has just the basic state pension. Not everybody was a teacher or NHS employee. Some people who were in final salary schemes lost the lot before the PPF was introduced including their SERPS pension they would have received. Therefore they should never have joined these schemes. Don't forget these are the same people who sometimes found food too expensive in the 50s and started married life with no homes (often living with parents or in houses with no furniture or washing machine). Think how people would complain now about this.

I believe there should be a better basic state pension with a minimum number of NI contributions (30 years seems fair), no means-testing but at a later stage with welfare benefits for those under state retirement age who have had to give up work due to illness.

Having said that I do believe higher rate tax-paying pensioners should also lose their universal benefits in the same way that families have as this is assesible in the same way with no means-testing.

Call me cynical, but this is the baby boomers breaking the system again. They will be the ones who benefit (retiring at 65 in the coming few years). It might be cost neutral now, but it sure as hell won't be when their numbers feed through.

So we get the pleasure if paying more for their retirement than they ever did for the pensionable generation above them (ie those who fought!), but it'll be "unsustainable" by the time we reach pensionable age (if we ever do - ha!) and will be revised downwards.

I'm going to throw something in here - people opt out of paying additional contributions, they choose to be SAHM's, or work part time. Those are choices we make in life, how many children do you have, do you work full time, part time. Do you gain extra qualifications, do you move house to seek employment?

Some people dont want to do some of this and that is their choice but I am going to be harsh here and say that if you pay less in ultimately you will get less out.

onimolap,the baby boomers are here now.I have three siblings older than me who are all retired ,2 at 60 and one at 55 as she was a teacher,I have to wait till 66 and I do feel angry about it,first it was 65 now 66 and probably by the time I reach near 66 it will change to 70,so it is these later baby boomers who are being hit all the time,gets to feel as if we are being picked on.

lilyliz: I think we're in a similar place: my eldest siblings are definitely boomers, then there are the middling ones who've still done pretty well, and then there's me. When the system "breaks" in the middle of a chain of siblings, it's pretty hard not to see what's going on!

Think this is pretty good. Means testing militates against saving. fingernails, I think it actually means people will find it worth putting into a pension and saving and not spending their money on swanky hols: previously people who spent money on swanky hols and therefore had no savings or other pension income would get MORE. That WAS unfair.

"Some people dont want to do some of this and that is their choice but I am going to be harsh here and say that if you pay less in ultimately you will get less out."

Harsh? Illogical. In that case let's stop all the benefits for those who've never paid a penny in.

I am an SAHM now but over my lifetime will be a net giver. I worked until I had children. Worked through university. And now I still work -- I'm bringing up children. I'm contributing, and I am earning my pension.

Don't forget also that it was the normal thing to do to stop paying the stamp when you got married at that time as the man was the breadwinner and not many people survived past retirement age. There was no allowance for divorce or the Govt changing state pensions.

I would actually say that the best age group is those from about 35 to 60 years old who had free higher education, full grants, decent schooling and managed to get on the housing market at the right time, never really gone without food. It is the also an age group that has known about the pension crisis for at least ten years and unless they chose to ignore it or could not afford it, they did make some other investments. Many of this category did and still do get final salary pension schemes. Ironically alot of these people are now moaning about higher rate tax payers losing CB.

The worst age group is those of 19 to 30 who are struggling for jobs and paying off huge student loans.

The difference between state pensions and benefits is that in order to get a full pension you have to have paid Natinal Insurance contributions for all your working life as well as paying taxes,working and bringing up children.In order to get state benefits you have to do......nothing!!I dont include the disabled in this of course.

Jobseekers have to sign on and provide proof of seeking work to get their benefits. They can't get it if they do nothing.

Other people on state benefits are carer's who care for at least 35 hours a week or they are raising children without support.

Not all the elderly people have paid in. Pension credit is a minimum income guarantee and doesn't depend on contributions, just a low income.

I'm on the fence about the ideology behind this.
On the one hand it's brilliant that it will benefit women who have lost out on work promotions or pensions because of childcare responsibilities (after all, who knows how many employers find a premise to not hire a pregnant woman, for example)
On the other hand, I'm not keen on then typical conservative idea that women should be in the home caring for children and properly married. THis ideology penalizes single mothers, unmarried mothers and women who would like to be a SAHM but can't afford to. It's also the man=breadwinner, woman=home-maker thing isn't it and it sits uncomfortably with me.

Then again, it is a good thing that women's contribution is being taken into consideration

So ... I'm one of those feckless types who never got round to paying voluntary NI contributions when I was a SAHM ... does this mean I can now just stop worrying about that?

must say I am beginning to get quite worried as I am depending on my serps which is a good sum of money and also I'd get half of my husbands serps as he is deceased,surely they could'nt,yes they could,just scrap this and give all the people that paid in nothing which today now looks as if that is the way it will go.So far I would have £97 state pension £90 serps and £45 serps = £220 and may now get just £140.nooooo fair