Pensions

Yes we had ours last week.

 

I have to work another 6 years then I’m entitled to a full state pension

just can not collect it for another 21 years

 

I didn’t get the full 40 years in so I have a reduced state pension.

 

Entitlement to State Pension is very complex due to changes in the system over the years. I had 42 years of contributions but still not enough for a full pension as I had been "contracted out" for most of the time.
Still I managed to boost it to nearly the max by buying 3 added years and getting 3 years of credits for looking after our grandson before I got to pension age but after I left work (redundancy).
Would advise anyone to get a forecast and speak to the Future Pension Centre (part of The Pension Service) they are extremely helpful.

 

Oh women on the whole of my age and younger got shafted. They altered the qualifying 40 years to 30 years a few months before I received my pension. I discovered that the years I was having babies and working part time jobs didn’t qualify, as it was assumed that your husband qualified you. It was 75/76 before they allowed you to receive homemakers credits. When I tried to pay for the extra years, they wouldn’t let me as I was too near retirement.

 

It’s only 35 years contributions now to get a full state pension which I nearly have already.

 

My wife was shafted of 48k with an increase in the retirement age with no warning and another with very little warning

 

If only it were that simple. If you were ever in an occupational pension scheme that was contracted out of the State Second Pension before the system changed in 2016 then you will receive less than the full amount on account of paying a reduced rate of NI and receiving more of less the equivalent amount from your work pension, even if you have 35 years of contributions. So it is good advice for everyone to check what they will get in advance. If you were in this situation there are things you can do to boost your entitlement if you act before you retire.
Anyway, probably not the place for a discussion of this really complicated topic.

 

Nothing wrong with levelling up the retirement age. Men have shorter lifespans anyway. The big beef was the notice period given was too short.

 

Exactly the same as me. 40 odd years NI contributions( only need is it 35?) but had some contracted out years. Purchased a few voluntary contribution years and now on max state pension. My question is - why couldn’t they assign some of my over 36 to 40+ years to make up the shortfall. Anyway, after 3 years I’m quids in for a few grand class c contributions, as long as I don’t snuff it in the next few years. Happy days.

 

it was announced in 1993 and didn’t start to change until 2010. Sounds like plenty of notice

 

It was announced but people were not written to individually. Unless you keep on top of developments like this you may well be unaware. People get on with life. As to the change from 65 to 66 that was just robbery with no chance for people close to retirement (or already early retired and anticipating payment) to make the shortfall up.

 

I have never received anything to say they have changed the men’s age from 65 either. Do they write individually when they change the laws regarding tax and NI?

 

You see the change in tax and NI with every pay slip and your notice of coding every tax year. You prove my point when you say you didn't get a letter about the change from 65 to 66.

 

There was nothing given for the first increase which has been confirmed by the ombudsman. And eighteen months for the second. For the majority of our working life my wife was due to retire on the same month as me in fact she had to work another five and a quarter years before she got the pension.
We certainly aren’t agains equalisation what is wrong is change which doesn’t allow people the opportunity to plan for.

 

i agree they don’t write to everyone but it can not be sexist as some have claimed as they haven’t told men about changes either. I don’t think they should either.

 

what the ombundsman said was there wasn’t personally notification. Rather than it just changing over night. As I said it was announced in the early 90s and didn’t change to almost 20 years later

 

I think the whole pension debate needs a proper airing. When it was first brought in it was a contributory scheme. You paid in for so many years then you qualified for a full pension. Successive governments have been behind the curve ever since. Firstly they did not section off the pensions contributions and invest them. Secondly they did treat women differently both in contributing and linked their pensions to their husband. I do not know any women of my age who has not had problems with their pension.
They should have contacted me before it was too late to do anything about it, then I could have made up the missing years which was about 3 I think. The only time I didn’t work was between my first and second baby. I ended up paying married women’s allowance which turned entitled you to precisely nothing.

 

thw state has never been ring fenced and invested as when they first started it would have needed massive investment to start paying pensions straight away or they would have had to wait 30 years from starting to take money off people to paying the first pensions.

the whole thing does need a good discussion but it will not be a pleasant one. When it first started the average length of claiming was about 3 years now with people living well into their 80s it is a lot longer even with the change to retirement ages.