‘Can my wife get a state pension if she's never paid National Insurance?'
Write to Pensions Doctor with your pension problem: pensionsdoctor@telegraph.co.uk. Columns are published weekly.
Dear Charlene,
I am an NHS doctor and soon to retire, although I have been drawing my state pension for a few years already.
My wife is 65 and a British passport holder, but she has never contributed to National Insurance (NI). She did work part-time in a clerical role, earning around £500 per month at the time. She also has a small pension pot.
I have two questions about my wife:
When she reaches age 67, is she eligible for any state pension at all?
After my death, will she get any part of my state pension? I believe she will get half of my NHS pension payments.
Many thanks,
–B
Dear B,
I'll begin by going through the state pension rules before looking at the payments that could be made from your pensions on your death.
Under the 'new' state pension system, your wife will need at least 10 qualifying years to get any state pension in her own right.
Although your wife was not earning enough to pay NI when she was working part-time, she may still have built up some qualifying years for the state pension.
That's because her £500 monthly wage could have put her above the lower earnings limit (LEL) at the time. The LEL was designed for people in your wife's situation. It is currently set at £125 per week, above which an employee who is not earning enough to pay NI gets a credit in the NI system, allowing qualification for certain benefits, including the state pension. NI contributions are treated as having been paid for those years to protect someone's record.
Your wife, therefore, needs to check her NI record and get a state pension forecast – both of which can be done online on the government website – as soon as possible to see if she has benefited from credits at all. From there, it will be clearer as to whether there is scope to plug any gaps with voluntary contributions to get her to the 10 required years, or beyond.
Your own state pension
You are also under the 'new' state pension system, which began in April 2016, and you have already claimed your pension. Under the new system, there is less scope for a surviving spouse to inherit anything. But surviving spouses or civil partners might be able to claim up to 50pc of their late partner's 'protected payment'.
This is the amount they receive if they paid into the additional state pension before 2016 and would have been better off under the old system. Your state pension statement will show if you are receiving any protected payment at the moment. But, if I'm correct in assuming that you've been an NHS doctor your whole career, I think it is unlikely that you will be receiving it. This is because the NHS pension was 'contracted out' of the additional state pension.
Your NHS pension
You've already mentioned a 50pc spouse's pension that would be paid to your wife after your death. It's also worth checking with the NHS pension scheme to double-check if your wife will be entitled to anything else.
Clearly, I want to wish you a long and happy retirement but, as an example, if you were to die within five years of retiring, your wife might also be eligible to receive a lump sum from the scheme too.
This could be up to five times your annual pension, less any payments made to you up until your death. The lump sum on offer will depend on which section of the NHS scheme you are part of, and how much tax-free lump sum you take at the start, among other factors, so it is best to speak to the scheme itself to get the full picture.
It's worth mentioning that pension credit can provide extra money to help with living costs for people over state pension age with a low income. But it's likely that any death benefit payable from your NHS pension will put your wife over the income limit.
With best wishes,
–Charlene
Charlene Young is a pensions and savings expert at online investment platform AJ Bell. Her columns should not be taken as advice or as a personal recommendation, but as a starting point for readers to undertake their own further research.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Times
40 minutes ago
- Times
In buyers' market art is in the sale, just look at Brighton (not United)
The key to poker is understanding the value of what is in your hand. In the winter transfer window of 2023, when Chelsea offered £55million for Moisés Caicedo, Brighton & Hove Albion said 'no'. They said the same again when Arsenal followed with a £60million bid, and still no when they raised it to £70million. From the outside, there was consternation. Danny Murphy told talkSPORT Brighton's stance was 'ridiculous' and 'for £70million I would have driven Caicedo there'. But when the summer window opened and Chelsea returned with offers of £60million, then £70million and then £80million, Brighton's answers remained emphatic: no, no, and no again. It was another no when Manchester United entered the running and no when Chelsea suddenly raised the ante and went all the way to the £100million mark. At last, when Liverpool mooted £111million, Brighton accepted a bid — and yet still there were cards to play. Chelsea returned to the table with £115million and finally, in August 2023, Caicedo was on his way. Though not before Brighton, who had paid only £4million for the Ecuadorian midfielder 18 months previously, managed to insert a sell-on clause, guaranteeing a healthy slice of any transfer fee Chelsea get for Caicedo in future, into the deal. Brighton's owner, Tony Bloom, was known as 'The Lizard' during his professional poker career and there may be no one better in the game for the cold-blooded execution of player sales. There are a thousand books and courses on the art of selling but it is the most undervalued, unperfected element in English clubs' transfer operations; the overlooked secret of player trading. Bloom and Brighton are outliers. According to a senior figure in the recruitment department of a top Premier League club: 'Everyone invests loads and loads of money on scouting, talent ID, data, coaching, blah, blah, but very little on the sales side of things. There is no strategy. What's the plan when clubs want to sell a player? Sit there saying, 'I hope someone comes in for him.' ' The situation is made all the more curious by the fact that in this age of Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR) and inflated fees — which must be funded somehow — an ability to raise money through sales has never been more important. So many Premier League clubs, in this window, find their plans dependent on how effectively, and lucratively, they can offload players. United are the most obvious example, but Liverpool, Arsenal, Manchester City, Aston Villa and many others need to offload players. It doesn't excite fans, who focus on the shiny new stars arriving, but getting rid of the right ones, at the right prices, can be as crucial as signing well. United, in straightened times and in the straitjacket of PSR, are trying to fund a squad makeover to fit Ruben Amorim's style. Having spent £62.5million on Matheus Cunha and had two bids — the latest for £55million plus £7.5million in add-ons — rejected for Bryan Mbeumo, they want a striker, wingback, midfielder and goalkeeper but whether they recruit in all those positions will depend on what funds they can realise from offloading their unwanted players, such as Alejandro Garnacho, Marcus Rashford, Antony and Jadon Sancho. All bar Garnacho are on wages that severely restrict which clubs can afford them, and United's new director of football, Jason Wilcox, has the added headache of Amorim and/or those players themselves making clear it is time for them to leave United, taking away any chance of hard-balling would-be buyers. Arsenal are close to announcing deals for Martín Zubimendi, Christian Norgaard and Kepa Arrizabalaga and are working on the signing of Cristhian Mosquera from Valencia — all for sensible fees. Yet Mikel Arteta's main requirement is a new striker, and with targets Viktor Gyokeres and Benjamin Sesko priced in excess of £60million, the club are looking to raise about £50million from sales. They would listen to offers for Oleksandr Zinchenko, Jakub Kiwior, Reiss Nelson and perhaps even Gabriel Martinelli. With their income slashed by failing to reach the Champions League, Aston Villa are looking to reduce player costs by £80million this summer. They have sold cleverly in the past — getting €188million (£160million) for Jhon Durán, Moussa Diaby and Douglas Luiz last season — and will have to sell smartly again, ideally starting before the PSR 2024-25 accounting deadline of midnight Monday. Pep Guardiola has threatened to quit if City don't reduce the size of his squad, and Jack Grealish is the most eye-catching item in their shop window. Guardiola may benefit from having a new sporting director, Hugo Viana, whose experience (gained at Sporting Lisbon) is within a player-trading model as opposed to the departing Txiki Begiristain, one of the best sporting directors of all time but who has only worked at dominant clubs in periods where there was little emphasis on sales. After the £40million signing of Milos Kerkez pushed their summer spending beyond £200million, Liverpool are not finished recruiting but need to balance their expenditure with more sales on top of the £24million already received for Caoimhin Kelleher, Nat Phillips and Trent Alexander-Arnold. Jarell Quansah is expected to join Bayer Leverkusen for £35million after the European Under-21 Championship and Tyler Morton, also excelling at the tournament, is another asset they will seek to realise. Talks are continuing with Napoli over a deal to sell Darwin Núñez, while Federico Chiesa, who interests several Serie A clubs, is also likely to be sold. Ideally, with Kerkez aboard, the Liverpool would raise funds by disposing of a left back. Andrew Robertson is considering interest from Atletico Madrid but may stay for the final year of his contract, though, and Kostas Tsimikas is happy in a back-up role. A 'Greek Scouser' who describes Liverpool as 'the Broadway of football' may be hard to shift. The importance of sales was laid out at the end of the previous summer transfer window by the online football finance expert Swiss Ramble. From 2022-24, Brighton's gross spending on players (£411million) exceeded that of Liverpool, Newcastle United, Villa and — by a significant margin — the outlays of supposed peer clubs such as Brentford, Fulham and Crystal Palace. But their net spend? It was just £20million. They had traded their squad upwards — readying it to finish a club-record eighth in 2024-25 — for less than £7million per season, thanks to sales. The analysis showed Chelsea and City to have been by far the period's biggest sellers. The massive recruitment programmes undergone by both would have been impossible without recouping through player disposals. The pressure on Arsenal, United, Tottenham Hotspur and Newcastle was also clear in the figures. Those clubs' relatively low sales left them with big net spends. Arsenal's gross outlay on players was only £50million more than City's over a five-year period, but their net spend was £480million more. The problems that stores up perhaps explain why City can now spend with abandon to help Guardiola rebuild while Arteta is still waiting for his striker. Everton were the only club to make a transfer profit from 2020-24, showing how selling was fundamental to the club's very survival during the stricken final years of Farhad Moshiri's ownership. But selling is not just about how much you make, it's about which goods you are willing to part with, and though City raised £499million by offloading players from 2022-24 it was a period where they parted with talents including Cole Palmer, Morgan Rogers, Liam Delap, James Trafford and Julián Alvarez. None look like wise disposals now. There are different ways of measuring how 'good' a player sale is. One is to compare at the price achieved to market value and, using Transfermarkt's calculations, the best business of last summer included Newcastle realising £22.2million more than market value when selling Elliot Anderson to Nottingham Forest, Bournemouth achieving £20.8million more when selling Dominic Solanke to Tottenham and Wolves extracting £13.2million more for Max Kilman than the market said he was worth. However, another way is to look at the value of the player sold a year down the line. The blossoming of Anderson at Forest suggests Newcastle actually undervalued him. On the other hand the Kilman deal looks even better from Wolves' point of view — 12 months on he is now worth £19.2million less than West Ham paid for him. City selling Alvarez to Atletico Madrid for £64million seems a bad deal by both measures. The price was £13million below the Argentina forward's market value at the time and now it is £21.4million below his market value — albeit add-ons included in the deal may allow City to recoup up to £17million. United fare dreadfully in the analysis. They have made 14 significant sales in the past three seasons, 11 of whom now valued higher than the fees received for them, with Scott McTominay, Anthony Elanga and Álvaro Carreras worth a combined £63million more. To value players, Brighton use the unique information provided by Jamestown Analytics, an offshoot of Bloom's betting data company, Starlizard. They stick to those valuations and ignore distractions: back in January 2023, Caicedo agitated to go, even posting a plea to leave on Instagram. Brighton did not go to war with their asset but calmly asked him to stay away from training until the transfer window closed and then extended his contract, to further increase his value. Only selling when a replacement has been signed or lined up is also the Brighton way. Marc Cucurella was replaced by Pervis Estupiñán, Robert Sánchez by Bart Verbruggen and Leandro Trossard by João Pedro. Caicedo himself was the replacement for Yves Bissouma and on the same day he signed for Chelsea, Brighton entered talks with Lille for his replacement, Carlos Baleba. Now Baleba, 21, is projected to be a future £100million sale but a club who made gentle inquiries came away with the impression that Brighton are unlikely to let him go until next season, because his replacement has not been identified yet. Liverpool's headaches are eased by having Michael Edwards and Richard Hughes to oversee trading. Hughes sold well at Bournemouth and squeezing €10million from Real Madrid for the last month of Alexander-Arnold's contract was remarkable even by Edwards's standards. During the building phase of the modern Liverpool, as sporting director Edwards raised £396million from sales from 2014-17 — enabling the recruitment of Virgil van Dijk, Mo Salah, Sadio Mané, Roberto Firmino, Joël Matip, Gini Wijnaldum, Adam Lallana, Alex Oxlade-Chamberlain, Joe Gomez and Robertson on a pretty much obscene £58million net spend. There were many coups, like persuading Bournemouth to spend a club record £15million on Jordon Ibe, and Leicester £12.5million on Danny Ward, but none beat getting Barcelona to not just lavish £142million on Philippe Coutinho but agree a clause meaning they would pay a €100million (then £89million) premium in addition to any transfer fee if they signed a Liverpool player over the next 2½ seasons. It would prove the deterrent to Barça targeting Salah and Van Dijk. Selling, like buying in the transfer market, depends on relationships with clubs, agents and players; on planning ahead and having the right handle on valuations. 'It's not rocket science,' said the senior recruiter. 'I just think it's a cultural psyche because nearly everyone in England sees winning as points but a handful of clubs like Brighton rightly see winning as selling.' His suggestion is that clubs should have player sales specialists and, the moment a player signs, already have a plan for when they might be sold and involve that player and their agent in the process. A former sporting director, now working as an agent, agrees the issue is cultural. 'Managers in England often don't want to sell because there is a mindset of holding on to your assets. Fans get pissed off when you sell someone good and clubs have egos — for example Man United don't want to sell to Real Madrid and feel they are further down the food chain.' He remembers taking a player to a club in Serie A, where selling is embedded in a culture of player trading. As his client was signing the contract and they were posing for pictures he felt a hand on his shoulder. It was the sporting director. 'Now your job is to get English clubs to watch him,' the guy said, 'so we can sell.'
Telegraph
40 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Palestine Action are not terrorists. The RAF is just grossly incompetent
One can see why the Government is proposing to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist organisation. That anyone could enter the RAF base at Brize Norton, one of the most significant we have, and smear red paint on planes was deeply humiliating. Once, the commanding officer of the base would have resigned immediately; the security officer would have been moved to the cookhouse, if he was lucky; and the Defence Secretary would have offered his resignation. But no-one resigns these days, so branding the intruders 'terrorists', as if they were some ruthless group trained to outwit military professionals, with death and destruction their aim, makes them sound all the more formidable, and their victims all the more helpless. It is an unconvincing cover for the sort of grotesque incompetence that characterises our public sector and public services. That was the RAF; the next day it was the Metropolitan Police unable to prevent an epidemic of daylight robbery on the streets of the West End; the next NHS maternity services that humiliate and degrade women giving birth. What Palestine Action, however organised and bonkers and loathsome they are, did was not terrorism: it was vandalism. You might as well call football hooligans terrorists, or the groups of louts who on hot summer evenings riot because they are bored and the police upset them by seeking to restore order. Terrorism is a truly abhorrent, lethal, wicked and repulsive thing: chucking paint over planes and ridiculing the RAF and the Government in the process does not even begin to compare with it. This devaluation of a word with a precise meaning is highly dangerous. Lord (Toby) Young, in his excellent work for the Free Speech Union, has disclosed that Prevent – the increasingly preposterous, Left-leaning body that tries to stop terrorism at its roots – has done research that suggests 'red flags' for spotting potential far-right terrorists are people who like, among other things, Orwell's Nineteen Eighty-Four, GK Chesterton's poems, The Bridge On the River Kwai, The Dam Busters and Yes, Minister. Where do I give myself up? Many of us remember real terrorism, perpetrated by real terrorists: the Birmingham and Guildford Bombings; the Hyde Park Bombings; murders in Manchester, both by the IRA in 1992 and 1996 and, a generation later, an Islamic extremist who killed 22 at the city's Arena in 2017; the massacre on 7/7, which killed 52 innocent people in 2005; and if that's not enough, Lockerbie. I could go on. Does all that utter horror compare with exposing the pitiful security at Brize Norton and slapping paint on planes? Of course not. This seemed to start in 2016, after the abominable murder of Jo Cox, the Labour MP, by Thomas Mair, a recluse and weirdo unknown to the authorities. He was rapidly branded a 'terrorist' by politicians when it became clear he had a deeply unhealthy obsession with the far-right and its doctrines. He was a member of no terrorist organisation. What he did was appalling, but he was no more a terrorist than any politically-motivated psychopath acting alone. Ms Cox's murder came days before the Brexit vote. Those who branded Mair a 'terrorist' (and the authorities rapidly followed suit) were surely not trying to associate him with the Brexit movement – were they? On Friday, four people were arrested over the Brize Norton incident. If convicted, they must suffer exemplary punishment. However, I hope the Government accepts its responsibilities for such pathetic security. And I also hope that in future it reserves the term 'terrorist' for those who really merit it, rather than diluting it for idiotic troublemakers or lethal misfits.
The Guardian
43 minutes ago
- The Guardian
‘Are we safe, if nuclear weapons are here?': trepidation in Norfolk village over new jets
The genteel west Norfolk village of Marham does not seem to be at the forefront of Britain's military might. A dance class is about to start in the village hall, a game of crown green bowls is under way and swallows are swooping around the medieval church tower as wood pigeons coo. 'It's a lovely, quiet little village,' says Nona Bourne as she watches another end of bowls in a match between Marham and nearby Massingham. Like many, Bourne is troubled by the news that this week thrust Marham to the frontline of UK's nuclear arsenal, in the biggest expansion of the programme for a generation. Without consultation, RAF Marham is to be equipped with new F-35A jets capable of carrying warheads with three times the explosive power of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima. Bourne said: 'When they spread it all over the news that these planes are going to come here from America with these bombs, it makes you think we're going to be targeted. My bungalow is five minutes from the base.' The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament is planning a protest in Marham on Saturday. Bourne, whose son-in-law used to work at the base, is tempted to take part. 'I might join in,' she says. 'My daughter says we've always been a target here, but I am concerned. If I was younger I'd think about moving, but I'm 83, I'm not going anywhere.' Sisters Becky, 29, and Katherine Blakie, 31, are heading to a friend's house for a plunge in their hot tub. 'I read about the weapons on Facebook,' says Becky. 'It's strange to think they'll be here in little old Marham.' Becky, who works in fundraising, is annoyed that the village was not consulted about the decision. She says: 'Marham and the RAF base are intertwined so we should definitely have had a say.' Katherine, a medical student, says: 'It makes you think, 'Are we safe, if people know nuclear weapons are here?'' At this stage it is unclear where the nuclear warheads will be housed, but new jets to be based at Marham have the capacity to drop them. Wherever they are stored, the fear Marham will be a target is widespread in the village. 'Look what happened at Pearl Harbor,' says Patricia Gordon after finishing her bowls match. 'We'd be obliterated here.' She adds: 'And with Donald Trump's finger on the button, does it matter that we've got nuclear weapons or not?' But her partner, Bruce Townsend, 77, a retired lorry driver, thinks the nuclear deterrent works. He says: 'You can't give up nuclear weapons. Iran, and those countries, know damn well that if they start anything, they'll just get wiped out.' He adds: 'I feel the same about the protest as I did about people who tried to ban the bomb. It's stupid. They can't change it.' It is the men in Marham who seem more relaxed about the prospect of nuclear-armed planes on their doorstep. Chris Joice, a carer who used to work at the base, says: 'We've had F-35s for so many years, and having the next model isn't going to make much difference.' Joice is out walking a friend's dog, Millie, who has an RAF roundel pendant strapped to her collar. He is concerned about the lack of consultation: 'I'm just annoyed that all these decisions go ahead and the common man doesn't have a single word in.' He adds: 'No one needs that kind of firepower. I'd rather people rolled dice to settle their beefs.' Others are more full-throated in their support. Jim Smith, 79, a retired construction worker, remembers nuclear weapons at the base in the 1950s. 'They had them up there in 1958 or 59 when they had the V bombers. It stopped a world war then. And it's no different now.' A man on a bike who would only give his name as John recently retired as a grounds maintenance worker at the base. He says: 'They're never going to attack us. It would be Armageddon if it comes to that. So it doesn't make a shite's worth of difference worrying about it.' He adds: 'I don't mind protest, I'm a biker so I'm all about freedom, but I've got better things to do. People protesting here don't live in the real world, they should worry instead about people sleeping on the streets in King's Lynn.' Colin Callaby, 64, is out picking cherries from a tree in the middle of the village. The cherries, which he plans to turn into wine, are the sweetest he has ever known. 'We're right in the firing line,' he says, 'but if there's going to be a nuclear bomb we're all done for so I'd rather be right underneath it and die instantly than be 50 miles away and take weeks to die from radiation.' He adds: 'It's very sad that mankind has got to spend billions of pounds on mass destruction and we can't do something better with that money. But what can you do?'
