Mother refused a state pension

C

ci1

Registered User
Messages
284
Just wondering if anyone knows anything about state pensions.

My mother stayed at home all her married life while my Father worked (he is still working with a very high salary)

they both turned 66 this year and applied for their pensions. My Dad is would have a lot more savings than her and a few weeks after his application went in he got back his pension book/bus pass etc.

my Mother received a letter to say that someone woudl be out to means test her, which happened a few days later.
then she got a letter this morning to say she had been refused a pension.

She does have some savings aswell, in the region of about 15k and she did declare everything to them and got refused.
My Dad has much more than that amount, is still earning and got his!!!

They told her that because she was non contributary to the state because she chose to stay at home and not work...and the reason for that is that she stayed at home to raise 5 kids and run a household.
does that mean she is basiclly a no one...they told her that half of what my Dad has is hers anyway...but whos to say he'll give it to her.
they also said that if circumstances change (like if my dad dies) to reapply.


We all have moved out now, so she is only living on what my Dad gives her.

How can this be right??

I thought no matter waht everyone was entitled to a state pension.

So when my dad retires later this year and has no income, the both of them will be living on his pension alone...

I find this absoleutely disgraceful.

Any one any thoughts or info???

thanks,
 
Assume your father is getting the contributory pension which is not means tested.

Your mother doesnt qualify for this as she didnt make the contributions. She doesn't qualify for the non-contributory as it is means tested.
 
When assessing your mother's income - they will have taken your fathers income into account since they are living as a couple. There will be thousands of women (and some men) in the same situation with no pension. I think many people just assume that at 65 they will get "the pension" no matter what . Hopefully your father had a private pension if he is on a "very high salary"?
 
Yes, I think thats what it is....they were going on presumptions.

But as she said herself she has never met anyone that has been refused one.
My Dad does have a private pension yes but I'm not sure of how much or what they will have to live on out of it when he retires.

And if thats the way it works then fine, but I think its very unfair.

There must be thousands of that generation of women without pensions if this is the case, all because they chose to stay at home and look after their families.
That is a job in itself after all.
 
There is indeed lots of women who ended up stuck because they stayed at home and raised families. If their husband didn't bother putting enough into his pension or dies, she can end up with very little indeed. The system is still stuck in the old days when men earned the money and women were totally reliant on them.

Apparently elderly Irish women are at a comparitively (in the EU) high risk of poverty because of this but I don't have any stats - just something I heard a Pensions Board person talking about on the radio. That is why they focus so much now on women starting a pension.

It seems unfair but at least your mother sounds like she is not at risk of poverty.
 
ci1 said:
She does have some savings aswell, in the region of about 15k and she did declare everything to them and got refused.
My Dad has much more than that amount, is still earning and got his!!!
Click to expand...
Note the following regarding the means test:
If you are married or you are living with someone as husband and wife, we will include the means of your spouse or partner in the means test.
Click to expand...
 
Should your father not get an increased pension based on your mother being a qualified adult? (since she is not going to be in receipt of any pension in her own right).
 
yeh he did.

they've agreed now that he is going to give his pension to her which I thing is fair.
She was counting on getting it. In the next 3 weeks I'll be moving out because I bought my own place, and my bro is moving out to rent so our wages to her are gone. Thats 500 euro between us both!

she just feels that as an individual that she is considered null and void and not worthy of help from the state even thou she's lived here all her life. Its like they're saying tough cheese, just because she and my dad agreed many years ago that she would stay at home and look after us, which she did, she put 100% into her family. She's a fantastic Mother.

She now has to even go and apply for her bus pass seperately aswell.
And without sounding dramatic she said she feels quite humiliated and 2nd class to my dad!!!
Because my dad done well in his career and is on good money she is losing out.

anyway the system is what it is...crap if I may use that word on AAM
 
It's all the more galling when you remember that the state used to force married women out of their jobs up until about 30 years ago and that the constitution not only says that a woman's place is in the home but claimed that this position would be protected - leaving them without their own pension is far from protecting them.
 
I don’t understand your mother’s point at all. Did she feel humiliated and a 2nd class citizen when she stayed at home and your father earned 100% of the money and she earned nothing? What has changed? Your mother and father are in a partnership where he works and provides the money and she looks after the family and home. How is your mother turning 66 changing things?

There are 2 types of state pension:
Contributory: Your father worked for many years and contributed money to the state which is now being (partly) returned to him via a contributory pension – i.e. he is effectively getting his own money back. Your mother did not contribute money to the state so there is no money to return via a contributory pension.
Non-contributory: As a civilised and rich society we provide means-tested pensions to older people who have no other form of income or means of support – so that they can feed, clothe and house themselves with reasonable dignity. It is not free money given to every old person just by virtue of reaching a certain age.

The non-contributory pension is paid for from general taxes and while I presume the vast majority of tax-payers have no problem financing non-contributory pensions for older people in genuine need, I don’t think many would be in favour of giving essentially free money to the wife of a high-earner. And that comes back to my original ‘I don’t understand this’ – where do you think the money should come from to provide a non-means-tested pension to everybody? And why should everybody get it?

You say you have never heard of anyone being refused a pension but that may be because they don’t apply in the first place because they know what the conditions are. My mother turned 66 this year and was glad just to get the bus pass! I don’t know of any of her friends with husbands still alive who have applied for pensions – and I don’t think there is any sense of moral outrage amongst them. Just think about your own taxes for a minute – would you like part of your taxes to go to provide a pension for Michael O’Leary’s wife, or Tony O’Reilly’s wife, or any high earner’s wife?
 
ci1 said:
she just feels that as an individual that she is considered null and void and not worthy of help from the state even thou she's lived here all her life. Its like they're saying tough cheese, just because she and my dad agreed many years ago that she would stay at home and look after us, which she did, she put 100% into her family. She's a fantastic Mother.
Click to expand...
Not sure if it applied years ago but these days if a man or woman gives up PRSI insured work to become a homemaker amd mind children full time then they can obtain PRSI credits towards long term benefits such as contributory pension under the Homemaker's Scheme. Maybe your mother should inquire about that in case it is relevant here (although I would have expected the SW claims officer to mention it if it was):

Homemakers Scheme

ci1 said:
She now has to even go and apply for her bus pass seperately aswell.
Click to expand...
Why do you think that anybody should get this automatically without applying for it and what has it got to do with your substantive point about contributory/non-contributory pension entitlements?! :confused:
 
ClubMan said:
Not sure if it applied years ago but these days if a man or woman gives up PRSI insured work to become a homemaker amd mind children full time then they can obtain PRSI credits towards long term benefits such as contributory pension under the Homemaker's Scheme. Maybe your mother should inquire about that in case it is relevant here (although I would have expected the SW claims officer to mention it if it was):
Click to expand...

In my experience, the SW officers will not mention any alternative unless you ask them about it. You need to already know what you might be entitled to.

As regards the homemakers scheme, I'm not sure it's as generous as Clubman thinks it is. My reading of it is that they discount the years that you spend as a homemaker when doing the pro-rata calculation to see if you have enough contributions to qualify. But the document (as with many of them) is difficult for my poor brain to comprehend, so I may be wrong! As far as I can see, it also only applies from 1994.
 
No harm in the original poster's mother inquiring about this so in case it is relevant.

I think the key points is...
This period of Homemaking will be disregarded when the yearly average number of contributions for State Pension (Contributory) is being calculated. It may help you qualify for a pension or entitle you to a higher rate of pension. If you do not return to the workforce after you stop being a homemaker you may choose to become a voluntary contributor. For more details, see SW 8, Guide to voluntary contributions.
Click to expand...
... which must be considered in conjunction with the PRSI contribution and working lifetime averaging rules for the contributory pension.
 
Why the indignation and assumptions? The poster has not indicated in any way that her father is 'a high earner' and equating their situation to multi-millionaires does not illuminate this. There are substantive issues here. Firstly the long, hard 16-hour-a-day job of child-rearing and home-making are rendered null and void by the present system. There is a fundamental inequality in an older woman's financial dependency on a spouse since her labour has enabled his more formal, public 'earnings' but that labour is not factored in.

Secondly not all marriages are harmonious. Age sometimes increases rather than diminishes bad humour, selfishness and even (gasp!) sadism in some individuals. Real material and psychological suffering for the dependent spouse can result.

Thirdly the point raised particularly by one respondent - about lack of information about benefits in this part of the life-cycle - is important. Many people are unaware when they take decisions earlier in life of the long-term consequences and there is a strong argument for public-sector agencies - even schools and colleges - disseminating the facts.......especially as the coffers empty and pension benefit support in later life diminish.
 
Marie said:
The poster has not indicated in any way that her father is 'a high earner'
Click to expand...
well, apart from this...
ci1 said:
My mother stayed at home all her married life while my Father worked (he is still working with a very high salary)
Click to expand...

ci1 said:
She does have some savings as well, in the region of about 15k ....
My Dad has much more than that amount

when my dad retires later this year and has no income, the both of them will be living on his pension alone...
Click to expand...

So in this case, the dad's a very high earner, the mother has 15K in savings, the dad has 'much more' and the concern doesn't seem to be 'my dad is mean' but 'they will both have to live off his pension'. Veering into LoS territory, I don't want my taxes paying for a non-means-tested pension for the wife of a very high earner where they have significant savings and with a very high salary could have/should have made very adequate pension provision for both of them.

Yes, there are substantive issues around lifestyle choices/reward for unpaid homemaking but I see these as 'whole of life' issues (and a whole other debate) rather than something that kicks in at retirement - which is why I posed the question about what has changed - if the mother was happy for the dad to be the family's sole provider while he worked, why not now?
 
I read recently that the part of the Cont Old Age Pension covering the Qualifying Dependent could be paid directly into an account in the qualifying dependents name. Alot of elderly women have no income at this point in their lives and as this money is intended for them it should be paid directly to them.
 
I can see where the poster is coming from as regards a pension for his mother.She has worked all her life and now finds herself without any income to call her own. She will probably have been responsible for paying bills and generally running the home.No matter how good her husband is by providing financially, it is demoralising to have to ask him for money and especially since he himself will have less as well. There does need to be a system whereby women pay into a pension so that they are protected at retirement age.This could be made mandatory if they are home looking after children, which is after all 'work' and blooming hard work as well. The children grow up and leave home, the husband retires but maybe keeps his hobbies and is out and about, the woman is left at home and with no money, not fair I say.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top