Women who've not worked owed "lottery win" pension payments

[Kermit power]

Why???

I just don't understand how anyone who has chosen not to work can even have the nerve to then demand that those who do pay for them to have a pension, let alone how that pension can actually exist to be claimed!!!

This isn't me being misogynistic. Whilst I realise that it will always be mostly women who give up work to raise children, they don't generally have them without a bloke being involved. Couples should look at their finances and decide whether they're able to have a child and plan accordingly without this sort of ridiculous scheme being in place!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56654665

[randlemarcus]

Meh.

DWP cockup - rules changed, they didn't change their systems, so for some "lucky" people, there's 13 years of backpayments to come. For the more fortunate, lump sums to spend. For the less fortunate, we get to claw it back, as it tips them over the "too much savings to claim housing benefit" threshold.

Yes, people SHOULD examine the holistic implications of their decisions, but who actually does?

[anonymous-user]

I don’t understand what the problem is ? She has been wrongly paid and is only getting what she is owed as a married woman ? It’s her money !

[Earthdweller]

My mother stayed at home for many years raising the family whilst my dad worked full time

My father got a married man’s pension and my mother a smaller one, when he died she now gets a widows pension which is more than a single persons one

To say that she didn’t contribute to society I think is disingenuous

Things were very different back then and women were often told to leave their workplace if they married or had children

The expectations was a wife and mother would be in the home

I don’t think it’s right to penalise someone for raising a family

[Randy Winkman]

Earthdweller said:

My mother stayed at home for many years raising the family whilst my dad worked full time

My father got a married man’s pension and my mother a smaller one, when he died she now gets a widows pension which is more than a single persons one

To say that she didn’t contribute to society I think is disingenuous

Things were very different back then and women were often told to leave their workplace if they married or had children

The expectations was a wife and mother would be in the home

I don’t think it’s right to penalise someone for raising a family

Things were very different back then and people could only plan based on what they knew or expected. My mother had to leave the bank that she and my dad worked at when they got married in 1958. And she'd started work there first.

[Gareth79]

It sounds like it was a fairly complicated rule changes over the years. Basically she paid "married women's stamp" was a choice that women could choose to pay lower NI on their earnings, in return for receiving 60% of whatever their husband's pension is, regardless of the amount they worked. They could also choose to pay the full amount, and get a full pension based on their own contributions, but I guess for women of those ages very few would come out ahead.

It's not about fairness, it's about applying the rules as they exist.

Edited by Gareth79 on Thursday 8th April 11:23

[wobert]

My understanding is the if the wife decided to stay at home to raise the family, they still had the option to ‘pay the stamp’ to keep their entitlement to a state pension.

My parents did this when my mum stopped working to have a family.

Obviously the ability to pay ‘the stamp’ is based on the couple’s income and whether they had spare cash at the time, but in my folks case, they fore-went some luxuries to ensure my mum’s pension tracked in the same way as if she had continued working....

[Kermit power]

Iwantafusca said:

I don’t understand what the problem is ? She has been wrongly paid and is only getting what she is owed as a married woman ? It’s her money !

The problem is that she'd not worked, so not paid NI, then is suddenly entitled to the best part of £5k a year at the taxpayers' expense. Why should she be getting that money out without having paid in?

[Sheepshanks]

Kermit power said:

The problem is that she'd not worked, so not paid NI, then is suddenly entitled to the best part of £5k a year at the taxpayers' expense. Why should she be getting that money out without having paid in?

Must admit I thought similar when I first saw it, but I suppose they might have managed acceptably on just his earnings but once he retires stste pension isn't designed to support a couple.

If they had no other income they'd be getting more anyway with various benefit payments, so then we're into the "it's unfair" situation where those that did make sufficient provision don't qualify for those benefits.

[deckster]

Kermit power said:

The problem is that she'd not worked, so not paid NI, then is suddenly entitled to the best part of £5k a year at the taxpayers' expense. Why should she be getting that money out without having paid in?

Because those are the benefits she's entitled to, under the rules.

Unless this is a generalised rant about people being paid benefits at all?

[Kermit power]

Earthdweller said:

My mother stayed at home for many years raising the family whilst my dad worked full time

My father got a married man’s pension and my mother a smaller one, when he died she now gets a widows pension which is more than a single persons one

To say that she didn’t contribute to society I think is disingenuous

Things were very different back then and women were often told to leave their workplace if they married or had children

The expectations was a wife and mother would be in the home

I don’t think it’s right to penalise someone for raising a family

Yet it's right to penalise the working age people of today to pay for her pension, despite the fact that they're not going to get anything like the same standard of living on their pensions, haven't benefited from the same cheaply accessible housing etc, etc?

If they had a shred of decency, they'd choose not to take it, given how much more fortunate their generation already is.

[garagewidow]

Perhaps it's a sneaky small step towards the so lauded UBI.

[Kermit power]

deckster said:

Because those are the benefits she's entitled to, under the rules.

Unless this is a generalised rant about people being paid benefits at all?

No, not a generalised rant. A specific rant about retirees who never paid enough into the system to come anywhere close to funding their retirement having the barefaced cheek to demand even more when it's now so blatantly obvious that their golden generation had it so much better than the generation they're expecting to fund them now will ever have it.

[ZedLeg]

So the lump sum must be nice but £80 a week isn't exactly a fortune is it?

Instead of getting angry at some old people looking to live out their last years comfortably, why not get mad at the people presiding over the systems that are currently bleeding us dry?

[anonymous-user]

From the OPs article

“ In March, documents revealed in the Budget showed an estimated 200,000 pensioners could be collectively owed up to £3bn after the under-payment of state pensions for decades. ”

I’m getting my mum on to this. Thanks for posting it!

ETA just checked, my mum’s already getting the right amount.

Hopefully some other PHer trying to increase their inheritance look after their old mum or granny might benefit from this information though?

Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 8th April 14:30

[bitchstewie]

This seems to be money they are owed and entitled to.

So they're not supposed to claim it because what exactly?

[Gecko1978]

bhstewie said:

This seems to be money they are owed and entitled to.

So they're not supposed to claim it because what exactly?

Basically its cash she should have had....so no issue really if you did not have to pay in to get it well thats the rule makers fault.

Pensions are funny because you can easily pay in way more than you get out in short time but say you missed a few years not get the full amount. A better system would be NI pays for your own pension and at 55 you take it an stop paying NI or keep paying till you draw it down.

[Glosphil]

I suppose you would count me as a member of the so-called goldren generation' as I am 74.
Have paid NI from 19 to 63 & receive £185 a week in State Pension.
I have also always paid into company pension schemes (2) & various private schemes. Both company schemes pay far less pension than originally stated as they took every opportunity provided by legislation to reduce the pension amount. I had paid between 8% & 20% of salary into the schemes.
Total pension? £17,500 before tax. Golden Generation? Perhaps for those on Govt pensions & (now disappearing) final salary schemes.

[richardxjr]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

£175, index linked is the max. based on 35+ years NI coontribs or credits (including the credits you receive whilst receiving child benefit to 12yrs old as you mention above)
BUT many in 40's/50's may have previously opted out of the state system for a few years until this option was removed, so it's well worth
people sending off for their own illustrations to check on progress.

https://www.gov.uk/check-state-pension

[98elise]

Kermit power said:

Iwantafusca said:

I don’t understand what the problem is ? She has been wrongly paid and is only getting what she is owed as a married woman ? It’s her money !

The problem is that she'd not worked, so not paid NI, then is suddenly entitled to the best part of £5k a year at the taxpayers' expense. Why should she be getting that money out without having paid in?

Because the rules allowed for it on the basis her husband was working and paying NI. Anyone on benefits (not working) also gets a full pension credit for every year they don't work.

On the otherhand people in low paid part time work (below the NI threshold) get no pension credit. You can buy back those years but it's more expensive than for people on low wages who did hit the NI threshold.