That's an interesting point because it is my impression that the Gateway site does not discourage voluntary NIC.

We are only talking here of NIC in relation to eligibilty to the state pension. I am not sure if there are other state provided benefits that would be influenced by voluntary Class 3 NIC.

I do not think there has been any provision for one to enahnce the basic state pension through additional qualifying years. A pity that as it would remove the objection that excess qualifying years are wasted.

Yes, I guess that we have just been lucky. Like yourself, I've been through the government gateway again to get a revised pension forecast.There must be plenty of people who have paid for extra years who no longer need to have done and without any recourse to recompense. I just wonder if there are also people who are continuing to pay unaware of the law change. Are they being advised to stop paying?

Lucky you.....although I cannot complain too much. Managed to take early retirement from a weak private sector employer. I had anticipated have to make good a few years voluntary contributions up to age of 60.

I had 1 incomplete year that I converted for c£20. Held back as soon as restructuring of NIC mooted; and glad that I did so. The DWP Pensions Service has, after 6 months, been updated.With the information I have supplied on-line, they confirm I have 30 qualifying years that will entitle me to the full basic state pension, plus variable bits and bobs from redundant top-up schemes.

Usually when the goalposts are moved, one expects to lose out. This makes a change.

Thanks for that exhaustive reply!

I just thought I would pose the question because I was lucky enough to be able to leave work at 52 after completing 32 qualifying years. Before the law change I had been resigned to paying voluntary contributions for the next 8 or 9 years so the government has saved me a fair bit of dosh. Also, my deferred government pension is index linked until I can take it at 60 and seems to be increasing at a rate not far off that when I was working. Go figure.

ah if only!!

It has been the case - and probably still so - that regardless of your contribution record, if you are below the state retirement age and your income from work is above a threshold, you'll be liable to pay NIC. Your liability does not stop just because you pass the 39 years (women) or 44 years (men) benchmarks. Excess contributions go towards the provision of other state benefits, in general, not specifically for you!

If you work beyond the state retirement age I believe further NICs are not required.

At first sight it these changes seem strange. On one hand we are being told that we should all expect to work longer in order to make future pensions affordable. Until recently, there was a 5 year difference between the state retirement age of women (60) and men (65). Harmonisation is under way.

As women tend to outlive men by about the same margin, perhaps men should have preceeded women in retirement.

Is there a point at which a man is deemed as unlikely to be able to re-enter the job market? I pose this because one of the 'benefits' of successfully claiming Job Seeker's Allowance (JSA) or Incapacity Benefit (IC) was being credited with NIC. For 5 years between 60 and 65, a man receives auto-credits. I believe this also applied at the other end of the working age spectrum for students 16 - 18 thereby allowing them to continue in full-time education.

Making good missed NICs has enabled people to improve their ultimate entitlement to the state pension by converting incomplete years into qualifying years. However, many university students will probably have missed this opportunity because of the 6 year retrospective time limit.

As another reply rightly said, NICs are really an extension of direct taxation. Because NIC is applicable to gross income above a threshold and has no allowances offset, I think it is more likely to kick in before income tax itself.

It seems that people in work will continue to make NICs throughout most of their working lives. I think the rule of 30 will be of most benefit to working women who take time out to raise families. Older people who are unemployed and do not qualify for any financial support may also be deterred from signing on if they have already accrued 30 qualifying years.

Quite an interesting subject and a mechanism well due for general overhaul. A bureaucrats paradise.

National Insurance is just an extension of Income Tax and supposedly part of it covers the poorest state pension in Europe and part covers NHS treatment like hospitals, dentist, etc.

I am 100% sure that you would not be exempted after the 30 year rule starts next year. After all this is England we are talking about.....

Now that the government is reducing the number of qualifying years for a full pension to 30, will people who have already accumulated over that number be able to claim for the overpaid years? directgov.uk only mentions payments after retirement age.