General Chat

Going back to Annx's OP, a lot of women did not realise the effect of the married women's stamp on their pensions and I was one of them, and I consider myself reasonably well educated and articulate.

I paid the full stamp, plus a graduated pension contribution, for about 5 years till I left work to have my first child. I returned to part time work when both my children were at school. At that point I was given the opportunity to pay the reduced rate NI contribution. Realising there must be a price to pay I rang our local office dealing with this and asked about it. I was told that I would not be eligible for sick pay or any unemployment benefits. At no point was pension entitlement mentioned nor was I ever given a leaflet. I probably should have thought of pensions myself but in the 1970s there wasn't the same emphasis on them, and anyway I assumed the official I spoke to knew what she was talking about.

Later in my 40s, in the 1980s, I found out about this and again contacted the relevant authority (was it the DHSS then?) to ask if I could go on to the full stamp. I was told that because of my age and the fact that OH would be 65 when I would be 60, so drawing a pension at the same time, it would not be financially worth it to me. I was told I would anyway receive a "slightly reduced" pension based on OH's contributions and, should he pre-decease me, I would receive his pension in full.

Needless to say, "slightly reduced" was an exaggeration!

I have never had a pensionable job so from the age of about 50 till I retired at 65 we scraped together some money each year to put into a private pension pot but, as you can imagine, the pension I can draw from that is quite small.

I am not complaining - I made my bed, I have to lie on it, so I have refused to sign the WASPI petition. I am really just trying to explain that women were not all given proper information on the effects of paying the reduced rate stamp, so the problems they are facing now may not be entirely down to them.

There is another aspect of this.

Many married women returned to work after having children to provide a second income. In most cases, they'd be earning less than their husbands. Their priority was to help with the family budget, not to continue a career. If they could reduce the costs of working by paying the married woman's stamp, then that was the priority, not what would happen in 30 years time.

Similarly with occupational pensions, in their younger years they could have withdrawn the fund when they first stopped working or changed jobs. They needed the money at that point. Also, don't forget that originally part time workers couldn't pay into an occupational pension. Many married women with children fell into that category. When it was opened to part timers, they would or could have opted out. Food on the plate then or a more comfortable life style when they reached retirement age?

Although I'm effected by the accelerated increase to equality of retirement age, I shan't be signing either petition. Too little, too late.

During the last 20 years of my working life, when pensions came to the fore, I found that, in the main, women who were divorced or those who had no children had tended to pay the big stamp.

Women on lower incomes and many of those with children generally opted to pay the small stamp - understandably so, as every penny counts.

The dilemma is, in my opinion, that the government has to recognise its responsibility to those who contributed more to the financial coffers.

In future, however, the one-stamp system will ensure equalisation across the board. Unfortunately, it had to begin somewhere.

In response to JoyLouise's earlier question,

https://www.gov.uk/national-insurance/overview

"When you stop paying
If you’re employed, you stop paying Class 1 National Insurance when you reach the State Pension age."

I hit 60 a few months ago and am paying full national Insurance.

Kucinta, thanks.

Still the same then - upon reaching state pension age. A little more in your pocket if you continue working beyond that age.

Kucinta. If you're working in the U.K., you haven't hit State Retirement Age and (wet finger guesstimate) won't until you are or close to 66.

When I returned to work about 23 years ago, there wasn't the option to pay a reduced rate. Ditto when l married getting on for 41 years ago.

Vera, years ago, any woman who chose to pay the reduced stamp must have been given the leaflet explaining about it as the form (CF 9) to apply to pay the reduced stamp was the back page of the same leaflet! There was even a dotted line to cut along to detach it and hand it/ send it in to get the authority card to give to an employer.

I do think you have hit the nail on the head about the lack of emphasis on these things in the 70s. It seemed to be accepted by some women that once you got married you would be provided for by your husband, you were his responsibility and you didn't need to concern yourself about these things..........so you didn't. I was more cynical and thought I'd better look out for me....just in case!

As well as sickness and unemployment benefits, I was surprised that younger women didn't want the maternity benefits from paying the full stamp.

Also why didn't these women that are making a fuss now ever get pension forecasts in the past to see what their position would be in the future if it really mattered to them.

Joy, re your comment on divorced women paying the full stamp........they were not allowed to pay the reduced stamp after divorce.......not married anymore so no choice!! I also think the rule for paying NI till you are state pension age still applies, which will mean the government coffers will get more years money from people!

Detective, there were lower paid widowers too, raising chidren, who had no choice in what they paid and low paid couples with families who weren't married and those women had no choice either. They would hardly be impressed if the rules were changed for those kicking up a fuss now. As you say, people opted for what they saw as the best deal giving more money in their pocket at the time. The reduced stamp option was scrapped April 1977.

It does seem unfair you don't get the pension increases Allan. You should have gone to Barbados.......your pension wouldn't have been frozen there. :-D

Further to the idea that women have been 'properly informed' throughout their working lives about how actions would hit them in the future, as late as October 2015, a few official Government websites STILL had the age when women would receive their State Pension at 60.
If half the bloody Government didn't know about that - it just shows how little information the majority of women had, in reality.

British pensions are also frozen in Canada, but not in the US


That's because successive British Government have refused to index the pensions ........ but only for certain countries, and most of those seem to be old "colonies/commonwealth".

There are apparently about 150,000 British pensioners living in Canada

I thought these were interesting factoids from a recent article on the topic .............

1.24 million: British pensioners living outside the U.K. and receiving benefits.

560,000: British pensioners living outside the U.K. in countries where their pensions are not indexed.

150,000: The number of those frozen pensioners living in Canada.

£500 million: What the U.K. government estimates annual cost-of-living increases to those retirees with frozen pensions would cost in British pounds.


In case you're wondering ................

Brits retiring to Canada, Australia, India, Africa and many parts of the Caribbean do not get the pension increases,

Those living in EU countries, the US, Jamaica, Israel and the Philippines get all the increases.


I note with some wonder that Jamaica seems to be the only former colony that does have a deal with Britain :-S


I wonder what will happen when Britain leaves the EU, as the deal will presumably have been worked out with the EU not the individual countries?????

5 of my female cousins, sisters, and their families emigrated to Australia in the late 1950s and early 1960s. All had been born between 1923 and 1932., so all had worked in the UK before leaving but spent the largest part of their working lives in Australia.

I'll always the husband of one telling me his "pension story".

He was born in 1923, father walked him down to the Recruiting Centre on the day war broke out in September 1939 and enlisted him ................ he was 16.

His mother tried to get his recruitment dismissed but without success ............... so he served from 1939 until 1945.

He married my cousin in 1947, and they emigrated to Australia in November 1948.


In 2000 he told me that he was receiving 3 pensions (told me the amount of only one) .............

Army pension ............ frozen at 19 p a month

British pension ....... as of 1988 and frozen at that rate until he died about 5 years ago

Australian pension

That had occurred to me too Sylvia....about what would happen when we leave the EU. Will those old reciprocal agreements still stand I wonder? If it were me I'd be concerned as not continuing to pay the increases would be an opportunity for the government to save money! If they didn't do some kind of similar deal, then it might also put others off from retiring to the EU and cause others to return to the UK.

I'd never considered army pensions and whether they were frozen too.

Some father he had Sylvia. 16!

Did his father lie to them because I have always believed call-up papers were sent once you reached the age of 18?

The mother must have been furious - I would have been.

Currently I receive a part UK aged pension (frozen0

A small pension from my UK local government days..... I withdraw the bulk of the cash out on coming out to Oz, but anything paid after the date when superannuation became compulsory for everyone had to remain in the fund.

I now receive super payments from my Oz local government fund (non-taxable currently)

A part Oz aged pension payment, which I will lose altogether in January next year due to the Government shifting the goal posts :-(

JoyL ...........

C's mother was really furious, apparently "stormed down to the office", but was told by the Recruiter that the father had been there, and the boy had signed willingly.

C told a slightly different story to me .............. he had been too scared of his father not to sign.

My cousin was a nurse, and met C when he ended up on the ward where she worked close to the end of the war.

The last Canadian government (Harper Conservatives) changed the retirement age here ................ it has always been 65 for both men and women, but they decreed in 2012 that it should gradually move to 67, beginning in 2023. The change would not affect anyway who was 54 or older in 2012.

The Conservatives were defeated last year, and the Trudeau Liberals announced in the budget in May this year that the age would stay at 65

So retirement here is still 65 for both men and women ............. except it is not been mandatory retirement at that age, and has not been for about 12 years.

One can draw one of the Government pensions at a reduced rate as early as 60, or as late as 70, and you can continue working as long as you like after 65.

Some people are ready to retire, some continue on as long as they can, and some continue on even when they should quit!

Your last sentence is spot on, Sylvia.

I took to retirement like a duck to water but my OH and one of my brothers did not.

I have joined the 'ladies-who-lunch (or coffee) brigade' ... and I could have done so at the age of 25 if I'd known how good it was and had the wherewithal to do so at the time. :-D

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qev-i9-VKlY
:-D

I did pay the reduced stamp when I first returned to work, the money being needed then not later. However at some stage in the 80s/90s I really can't remember when, we, in the MOD were encouraged to look at our pension entitlement and I then switched to paying full stamp and also paid into an AVC. I do get a reduced pension but I also have an occupational pension so it is fine.

I don't have a private pension .........

........ I started working on a research project paid from grant money, 4 days a week, and a non-union job because I had a degree. I was covered by some of the benefits that union members got, including having to pay into the government pensions and time off when sick. I was not eligible to join the union run pension because it was only open to full time union members.

A few years later, I had to join the union as they now could include technicians with a degree, but I still wasn't eligible to join the pension plan

Sometime in the 1980s, the union signed a new contract, and the pension plan was opened to anyone working half time or more. My hours had been reduced by that point to 3 days a week, so we investigated my joining the plan.

Yes, I could join it, but I had to pay a lump sum of $10,000 to make up for lost payments.

In all honesty, we did not have access to that amount of money, and it didn't seem to make sense to borrow it at what would then have been a high interest rate ............ interest rates on mortgages reached over 20% around that same time.

As has often been said "The great secret about the National Insurance Fund is that there is no Fund".
Contributions (in effect an employment tax" go into the general revenue tax pot and payments for health, unemployment, sick pay and pensions come out of the same.
The other nonsense is that benefits are divided into "contributory" and "non-contributory" but in most cases if you do not qualify for contributory benefits you get around the same amount under a different name.
The other quibble is that, unlike income tax, National Insurance Contributions are non-cumulative over the year so if your earnings fluctuate wildly you pay NIC in the good times but if your total earnings over the year do not reach the lower limit for contributions there is no refund of what you have paid.