General Chat

Don't you feel angry when history gets rewritten............but not by the govt this time!

What nonsense I read yesterday in an article in a broadsheet daily paper about women in their 60s and 70s who had chosen to pay the married woman's reduced rate stamp and so were only entitled to small state pensions. It suggested most didn't realise the effect their choice would have on their state pension entitlement when they retired. Of course, as is often the case, now the implications are realised, we have concerted campaigning by Women Against State Pension Inequality arguing that the 'change' was poorly communicated and has left women out of pocket.

When I notified my marriage in the 60s, I was given a leaflet that fully explained the choice to pay the reduced stamp and set out what both paying full rate or reduced rate would entitle me to. A tear off form at the back of the leaflet had to be completed and sent off if I wished to change to the reduced stamp. What wasn't clear in that communication??

Over a decade later, I was giving these leaflets out myself or would be asked for the forms. As the women were in front of me, I would attempt to explain the implications of either choice, but most women just wanted to pay as little as possible and didn't give a toss about the future consequences. Typical responses to considering their future pension were, 'I'd rather have more in my pocket now', 'my husband/children will have to keep me', 'the govt won't let me starve when I'm old', 'I might be dead by then'.

The choice to pay reduced rate ended in 1977 when, the writer of the article suggests it was realised many women might lose out! I don't think so!! More likely to ensure that everyone starting work after then paid towards their own future state pension, so hopefully less top ups with benefits would be needed. Also to save the cost of putting right the inevitable errors made when women forgot to give their cards to their employer or thought they could chop and change what they paid without notifying it.

Nowadays it seems no-one can be held responsible for their own actions............it always has to be someone else's fault.

What do they expect? To be given the same as those women who have paid the extra out of their wages and managed on less money all their working lives? That would be unfair.

When my Wife was sixty she got a small State Pension based on the years she paid full rate but this was taken away from her when I got my "old age pension" .
Seems strange?

I agree Annx. Regardless of what rot is said and written now, we did have a choice when we married all those years ago.

The women who chose the small stamp and spent the difference realistically can't have expected the same pension as women who paid the full stamp. Wanting their cake and eating it springs to mind.

Back in the 1950s and 60s many working woman had their finances totally controlled by their husbands who saw little point in forking out for a full pension for their wife.

All UK governments suborn the value of pensions most recently Geo Osbourne.

It is btw a great myth that pensions are financed from some fund created from the pension contributions. They are financed from general taxation and the true financial link between contributions and outcomes is tenuous to say the least.

I've always paid my own 'stamp', but I'm sure, with the married woman's rate, women expected to receive at least a part of their husband's pension if he died - this is now (from 2016) no longer the case.

I'm afraid women now need 30 years worth of full contributions to get a full pension.
However those (men & women) who paid extra in the form of SERPS are unlikely to benefit after 2016, under the flat rate pension.

As Robert has pointed out - women may have their own state pensions, but if they're married, it's 'amalgamated' with the husband's pension, and can effectively be reduced to nothing, so those worst affected by the married woman's rate are widowed or divorced.

I never knew any women whose husbands controlled their finances in the 60s Rollo, although doubtless there were some. My salary, like that of my friends and colleagues, was paid into my bank account but there were joint bank accounts on offer once you married.

As far as husbands forking out toward a full pension for their wives, I take it that you mean a private pension fund which many of us had in addition to the state pension.

I am sure that none of us expected the money recouped through National Insurance to be kept separate only for pensions - the general pot (including direct tax) covers NHS, education, pensions, and a host of other governmental expenses but, nevertheless, a woman who paid a small stamp as it was then called ought not to have expected the same pension as a women who paid the full stamp.

As far as the 50s are concerned, I cannot speak about that decade as I was not a 'working girl' then. ;-)

My state pension is separate from my husband's and it is paid into my own bank account so I am not at all sure what you and Robert mean, Maggie.

30 years - I thought it was 39 but I have been retired quite some time so it may have changed.

...Just as an aside, the constant declaration by the Government that Women's pensions (for those born in the 1950's) have only increased is a load of bull.
My sister (born 1952) didn't get her pension until she was 61 and a half.
I'm 4 years younger, and have to wait 6 years. I suppose you could say that's 18 months - 18 months for every year I am younger than her!

I have the complete amount of payments to receive a full pension now, but have been told my NI will now go towards Benefits and the NHS - the NHS that is being privatised by stealth.
As for Benefits, the Government have moved the goalposts yet again, and pensioners are now liable for Bedroom Tax, so, as someone who wasn't fortunate enough to be able to buy their own house, I can look forward to being ousted out of my house (apparently this Government doesn't regard rented accommodation as a 'home') of over 30 years, and moved to a privately rented flat, that will cost the council twice as much in rent - as I sure as hell won't be able to afford private rent on £155 a week!!

Robert, if a woman had some small pension entitlement of her own, if, when she reached age 60 and her husband retired, she would have it topped up to the larger amount of a housewife's pension which was around 60% of the full amount of state pension. It sounds like this would have happened in your wife's case. On the other hand, if a woman's own pension was more than the housewife's amount, she would just continue to get her own pension.

Well, it would be the woman forking out, out of her wages Rollo, but I take your point as many men when they married in the past still had the attitude of 'what's mine is mine and what's yours is mine too!' They would still see it as their money being forked out!

Well an NI fund was certainly referred to in the past, although I believe payment of pensions and benefits have needed the addition of tax to cover them too and that this has long been the case if not always. It seems to have only been realised by many in recent years though when it started to be trumpeted as something new. If my memory serves me right, I think the difference with the NI fund was that it was 'ring fenced' and could not be plundered for other purposes!

There is a financial link in that what you pay gives you entitlement.....or not! This still relates to pensions as 100% state pension depends upon making sufficient NI payment in the required number of tax years. There is a link also in that without sufficient amounts paid in enough years you don't automatically get a full state pension which a lot of people don't realise. I agree a lot of the principle of 'you pay in to get out' has being lost though.

I knew the full implications of opting for the reduced NI contribution and that's why I paid in full plus my SERPS contribution.

I therefore have a full State pension plus an additional sum based on my additional contributions.

Peed me off completely when the movement started to bring the reduced state pension (voluntarily chosen by women) into line with the full pension.

That really was 'you pay your money and you take your choice' decision. I chose, I paid and I don't want to question why I did so!

Sue

Re the 30 year thing, it was 39 years to get a full pension, this was reduced to 30 years a while ago, but then went up to 35 years with the introduction of the new 'flat rate' pension. :-(

Absolutely Sue.

There are always people who want something for nothing and think that if they shout loud enough they'll get it. A bit like kids chucking tantrums to get their own way.

I haven't got the time for them.

Thank you Kucinta, I thought it was 39 when I retired. I was ever so slightly under and lost about £1 from my pension. It was not worth paying to make it up.

Edit: I ought to kick off - 30 years then 35, so we older ones had it harder. :-0

Only joking, I know younger upcoming retirees have to work beyond the age of 60.

I agree, Annx, I knew exactly what I was doing when I opted for the married women's rate. I don't remember getting any state pension at all when I reached 60, as men didn't get a pension until 65 and so we had to wait until OH got a married man's pension. Later, when women started getting separate pensions, I received 1/3 of his pension and he got 2/3.

I also got an occupational pension, so wasn't dependent on a state pension. If OH had died before reaching pensionable age, I would have received a widow's pension, based on his contributions. At that time, I think it was the same as a single person's pension.

Things are now so complicated that everyone gets a different rate! Or so it seems.

Both my wife and I receive part aged pensions based on our contributions until we left the UK in 1982.

I received mine first, then OH received hers last year. We both receive them separately and OH had no reduction and only receives slightly less than I do.

We married in 1970 and I can't honestly recall any offer for her to pay the married women's reduced rate.

The only gripe that I have with the UK pension is that living in Australia we do not receive any pension increases.

No worries there Allan - there haven't been that many!!!
Okay, there was 'the biggest increase' ever in 2013 - 5.2% - an increase of £5.30 a week. Whoopeee- dooooo!!!

Both OH and I cashed in whatever contributions we had paid in stamps before we married and left the UK in 1967 .............. on the advice of an accountant.

Each of us had only worked full time for approximately 2½ years, but each of us had also worked part time and contributed some money then. I'd worked Saturdays and holidays from the age of about 12, OH from about 15. Plus working summer vacs and Christmas post while at university.

I can't remember how much cash we got back, but it helped us to set up in Texas just a little bit.


However, cashing it in, means of course that we don't get any pension from the UK.

Similarly, neither of us gets any money form the private pension scheme we had to pay into at the university in Texas, OH for 18 months and me for 11 months ................. we also drew that out in cash when we left there for Canada, and used the money to buy 2 paintings (1 oil, 1 watercolour) from a local well-known artist. as a souvenir of our time there.

We do get each get 2 "state" pensions from Canada, and OH also has a private pension. Canada does income splitting when it comes to tax time ................. which means they add together the state pensions, and then divide by half ............. so each one of my payments is increased :-D

The advantage of this is that OH's income is reduced and so the Feds do not claw back his state pensions as they would do if he got the full sum.

Meanwhile ............... I'm only just above the lowest income level to be taxed, and our accountant adds some deductions for medical costs to my return, so I get a refund of tax paid and a cheque back from the government.

I was lucky because there was a reciprocal agreement about pensions between England and Australia. Whether the rules are the same now, I have no idea. My several years working there counted toward my pension in England.

What I built up in work pension there was split between two sources (one for less than five years' employment and one for more) and I was able to take a lump sum, unlike the occupational pension in England which meant I had to follow pension rules and leave it sitting.

Like you Sylvia I did holiday and weekend work from the age of 15 in England but I recall that the choice of joining my employer's occupational pension scheme (superannuation) did not begin until the age of 21 for women.

We both benefited from paying into a private pension scheme for about 30 years before we retired but this was because OH was self-employed for quite some time and it was prudent to do so because we were not sure whether both governments would move the goalposts or not.

They did but it was to be expected as, in general, people lived longer than their ancestors.

When I left school and started work one of the things being explained to new staff was the married womens payments. I don't remember thinking about the pension but I did decide that if I got married I wouldn't go onto that as it didn't pay out sickness pay.

I was also well aware of the govt. announcement of the rise in pension age to 60 and always knew my pension date as I kept a copy of a payment date chart amongst my papers.

As a matter of interest, once women reached the age of 60 they ceased to pay the Nat Ins stamp. Has that age increased in line with the pension age or not?