MSE News: Controversial women's pension plans pass through Commons

Former_MSE_Helen · 21 June 2011 at 12:22PM

This is the discussion thread for the following MSE News Story:

"Under new legislation, the retirement age for men and women is to be equalised at 65 in 2018, rising to 66 by 2020 ..."

Read the full story:
Controversial women's pension plans pass through Commons

Percy1983 · 21 June 2011 at 12:52PM

Well they did want the right to vote, now work as long as us. Equal rights etc.

To say on average women live longer than men is it just be who sees it as wrong is hasn't happened before now?

dunstonh · 21 June 2011 at 1:06PM

Under new legislation, the retirement age for men and women is to be equalised at 65 in 2018, rising to 66 by 2020

The equalisation of state pension age to 65 was passed in legislation back in 1995. So, why does MSE think that there is new legislation making it 65? The change is the bringing forward of the age 66 state pension age.

Also, there is no legislation going through changing the retirement age for men and women. It is only the state pension age that is being dealt with. People are still free to plan to retire at any age they like.

JimmyTheWig · 21 June 2011 at 3:14PM

dunstonh wrote: »

People are still free to plan to retire at any age they like.

As is the norm for MSE, the article is, quite rightly, aimed at most people. Most people can't afford to retire before they reach state pension age.

dunstonh · 21 June 2011 at 3:22PM

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

As is the norm for MSE, the article is, quite rightly, aimed at most people. Most people can't afford to retire before they reach state pension age.

I understand MSE has to dumb things down.

However, the average retirement age in the UK for men is 62. That is despite the 65 state pension age.

That also doesnt excuse MSE trying to pass 1995 legislation as new legislation. This is a trend in the media to play to those that make it appear like its a 6 year increase for women rather than a 1 year increase (most less) for a very small number.

chris_m · 21 June 2011 at 4:17PM

dunstonh wrote: »

I understand MSE has to dumb things down.

It's not MSE in this case - that article is from the Press Association. Clicking on the "Press Association" link at the top gives;

The Press Association is a news wire with a large reporting team. We use it for additional stories on mainstream issues. Views represented do not necessarily reflect those of MoneySavingExpert.com.

hcb42 · 21 June 2011 at 6:20PM

yes but what is the solution?

The rules have to change, and when that change takes place then there will inevitably be losers. Otherwise the change could never be implemented!

Incidentally, when I put my DOB into direct gov it states I can retire at 66yrs and 8 days. For my hubby it is 66yrs on the dot. Why would I have to work another 8 days? Just curious, it is all 23 years away..!

dunstonh · 21 June 2011 at 6:29PM

What I do object to is that when I bought my last house, I was due to retire at the age of 60.

Ok. So, you bought your last house before 1995.

Then when I bought this present house, I became due to retire at the age of 64 years and 9 months.

So you bought your current house after 1995.

Now, I'll be retiring at the age of 66. Thats a kick in the gut.

An increase of just one year. Although I am not sure what house buying has to do with it.

dunstonh · 21 June 2011 at 6:44PM

Karmacat wrote: »

Its part of my personal history. My personal history affects me. I'm speaking from my personal situation, as one of the group mse identifies as being most affected by this situation.

I have no problem if you have to have a whinge about a 1 year increase. That is your right.

However, surely you must see the error in the MSE article about the 6 year increase being new legislation when it isnt doesn't help people. We have seen women post in this section in recent months thinking that the current Govt is putting through a 6 year increase. MSE has a responsibility to get its facts right as it is used by many for its information.

Torry_Quine · 21 June 2011 at 6:47PM

I have no problem with the equalisation of pension ages for men and women. It seems fair to me and yes I am affected.

StephenM_2 · 21 June 2011 at 6:48PM

hcb42 wrote: »

yes but what is the solution?

The rules have to change, and when that change takes place then there will inevitably be losers. Otherwise the change could never be implemented!

Incidentally, when I put my DOB into direct gov it states I can retire at 66yrs and 8 days. For my hubby it is 66yrs on the dot. Why would I have to work another 8 days? Just curious, it is all 23 years away..!

You must be at the start of the age group that is in phased transition to 67, and the 8 days comes from the way they are doing the transition.

Likewise my current state pension date is 15 days before I'm 66 because I'm near the end of the age group that is in the phased transition to 66. However, under the current Tory bill my pension age will go up again to 66 exactly, costing me 15 days of pension (I think I'll manage).

Don't be surprised if your pension age is at least 67 by the time you get there.

MSE News: Controversial women's pension plans pass through Commons

Comments

Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

🚀 Getting Started

Categories

Is this how you want to be seen?

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free