ChatterBank2 mins ago
State Pensions
24 Answers
A woman who never had a job but stayed at home bringing up her children has a husband who worked massive amounts of overtime to boost their income.
Now both retired and on state pensions, he gets about £300 more than her.
Is her pension boosted in any way because of the contributions he paid or does she just get a basic flat rate pension?
Now both retired and on state pensions, he gets about £300 more than her.
Is her pension boosted in any way because of the contributions he paid or does she just get a basic flat rate pension?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Theland. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
you know state pension were predicted in the Book of Daniel? so you better re read it to find the answer
depends on her contribution history to be honest
whether someone morally should get the same pension or if it is predicted - is completely different to whether the law and regs say they will
I mean you have admitted they didnt do the same job for chrissakes so the two are not the same
and what about muslims wiv free wives ?
depends on her contribution history to be honest
whether someone morally should get the same pension or if it is predicted - is completely different to whether the law and regs say they will
I mean you have admitted they didnt do the same job for chrissakes so the two are not the same
and what about muslims wiv free wives ?
https:/
Anything here ?
No expert, but I'd have thought there was no connection between one person's state pension extra contributions and their spouse's pension, but you never know. The system is weird enough to make marriage a way of tying finances together so any strange rule is possible.
Anything here ?
No expert, but I'd have thought there was no connection between one person's state pension extra contributions and their spouse's pension, but you never know. The system is weird enough to make marriage a way of tying finances together so any strange rule is possible.
Theland ,if your friend had her name on the child benefit book she can claim for home responsibilities up to the child becoming 16 and possibly 18.These years would rank alongside her years of N.I. contributions when she was working.Also if the husband's company had not opted out of SERPS then he would get more than if they had.Thirdly if he attained his 65th Birthday after April 5th 2016 he would enjoy the guaranteed pension which would not apply to someone who claimed pension previous to that date.
There is no link between a wife’s pension and her husband’s. Her pension will depend entirely on her own NI contributions (with the added years for childcare as mentioned above). To receive a full pension one now has to have thirty “qualifying years” of NI contributions. Any less than that and the pension will be reduced.
You should also note that there is no link between the amount of NI paid and the pension received – it is only the number of qualifying years that are used for the calculation. This means that someone who has earned £100,000 a year for thirty years will have paid (ignoring any extra years bought or voluntary contributions to receive a higher pension) at today’s rate, £5,967 per year or a total of almost £180,000 in NI contributions. Meanwhile someone who has earned £10,000 a year for those same thirty years will have paid £164 per year – a total of a little under £5,000. Both will receive exactly the same State Pension. So, as far as the State Pension goes, the massive amounts of overtime worked (and the consequent additional NI payments made) bears no fruit at all.
You should also note that there is no link between the amount of NI paid and the pension received – it is only the number of qualifying years that are used for the calculation. This means that someone who has earned £100,000 a year for thirty years will have paid (ignoring any extra years bought or voluntary contributions to receive a higher pension) at today’s rate, £5,967 per year or a total of almost £180,000 in NI contributions. Meanwhile someone who has earned £10,000 a year for those same thirty years will have paid £164 per year – a total of a little under £5,000. Both will receive exactly the same State Pension. So, as far as the State Pension goes, the massive amounts of overtime worked (and the consequent additional NI payments made) bears no fruit at all.
^^^which is why the word 'pension' shouldn't be used. It isn't a pension. In fact, for those people that have never worked and therefore paid a bean of NI, what they receive as a 'pension' should more correctly be titled 'benefits'. Somewhat ironically, I understand that those that haven't paid a bean may well get more than somebody who has fully contributed (natch).
BAZILE, you can apply for a pension forecast here, https:/
"Somewhat ironically, I understand that those that haven't paid a bean may well get more than somebody who has fully contributed (natch)."
Yes that's almost true (they would not necessarily get more, but certainly almost the same). Somebody relying solely on the State pension (who may not have made any contributions at all) is guaranteed a minimum income of £163 per week (£248 for a couple). If the State pension to which they are entitled is less than this they can claim "Pension Credit" to take them up to that amount.
The current basic State Pension (for those on the "new" scheme) is £164 per week. This means somebody with 35 years (thanks for the correction, ubasses) who may have paid many thousands in contributions will get £1 a week more than somebody who had contributed zilch. Many drawing their pension under the old arrangements receive considerably less than that (even having made perhaps almost 50 years NI contributions). It gets worse. If a person was a few years short of the required 35 his pension will be reduced pro-rata and if he has additional income (say an occupational pension) that takes him above £164 a week he will not be eligible for pension credit.
So, no, as DeskDiary contends, for many people the State Pension is not a "pension" in the true sense at all but simply a benefit paid at retirement age. That is why, when the government states how much "State Pensions" cost the taxpayer they should only include the pensions that are paid to people who have fully funded them. That is, those people who have made sufficient NI contributions (in £££s, not "years") to fund the payments they receive. All the rest are welfare benefits.
See how easy it is to start me off! :-)
Yes that's almost true (they would not necessarily get more, but certainly almost the same). Somebody relying solely on the State pension (who may not have made any contributions at all) is guaranteed a minimum income of £163 per week (£248 for a couple). If the State pension to which they are entitled is less than this they can claim "Pension Credit" to take them up to that amount.
The current basic State Pension (for those on the "new" scheme) is £164 per week. This means somebody with 35 years (thanks for the correction, ubasses) who may have paid many thousands in contributions will get £1 a week more than somebody who had contributed zilch. Many drawing their pension under the old arrangements receive considerably less than that (even having made perhaps almost 50 years NI contributions). It gets worse. If a person was a few years short of the required 35 his pension will be reduced pro-rata and if he has additional income (say an occupational pension) that takes him above £164 a week he will not be eligible for pension credit.
So, no, as DeskDiary contends, for many people the State Pension is not a "pension" in the true sense at all but simply a benefit paid at retirement age. That is why, when the government states how much "State Pensions" cost the taxpayer they should only include the pensions that are paid to people who have fully funded them. That is, those people who have made sufficient NI contributions (in £££s, not "years") to fund the payments they receive. All the rest are welfare benefits.
See how easy it is to start me off! :-)
The " £300 more than her " figure is presumably a montkhly figure but even so seems rather high, so either he is also getting another pension or paid a lot extra in via SERPS or (and) her pension has been reduced in some way because of a lack of sufficient NI contribitions. But if she is already getting a pension there should be a statement explaining the calculation- this should be checked to ensure her NI record (including home responsibility years) is correct.
