Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • UKParliament
      Verified User verified user
    • By UKParliament Verified User verified user 28th Nov 17, 1:08 PM
    • 695Posts
    • 553Thanks
    UKParliament
    MPs to debate women affected by state pension age increases
    • #1
    • 28th Nov 17, 1:08 PM
    MPs to debate women affected by state pension age increases 28th Nov 17 at 1:08 PM
    On Wednesday 29 November, MPs will debate the subject of women affected by state pension age increases.

    The motion to be debated is:

    That this House calls on the Government to improve transitional arrangements for women born on or after 6 April 1951 who have been adversely affected by the acceleration of the increase to the state pension age.

    You can watch the debate live or catch-up later on Parliament TV.
    Official Organisation Representative
    Iím the official organisation rep for the House of Commons. I do not work for or represent the government. I am politically impartial and cannot comment on government policy. Find out more in DOT's Mission Statement.

    MSE has given permission for me to post letting you know about relevant and useful info. You can see my name on the organisations with permission to post list. If you believe I've broken the Forum Rules please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com. This does NOT imply any form of approval of my organisation by MSE
Page 1
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 28th Nov 17, 1:49 PM
    • 89,840 Posts
    • 56,490 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #2
    • 28th Nov 17, 1:49 PM
    • #2
    • 28th Nov 17, 1:49 PM
    Hasn't this been done to death already. Previous debates saw the opposition MPs support the women (as the opposition doesn't need to pay the bill and bending the truth buys them votes) and half the MPs didnt even seem to know what the changes were or when they were applied with references that anyone with knowledge would have been able to put right.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • greenglide
    • By greenglide 28th Nov 17, 2:07 PM
    • 2,918 Posts
    • 1,889 Thanks
    greenglide
    • #3
    • 28th Nov 17, 2:07 PM
    • #3
    • 28th Nov 17, 2:07 PM
    Can we also have a debate on the subject of men affected by state pension age increases.

    We are supposed to have equality, aren't we?
    • Paul_Herring
    • By Paul_Herring 28th Nov 17, 4:08 PM
    • 6,190 Posts
    • 2,926 Thanks
    Paul_Herring
    • #4
    • 28th Nov 17, 4:08 PM
    • #4
    • 28th Nov 17, 4:08 PM
    We are supposed to have equality, aren't we?
    Originally posted by greenglide
    No clue where you got that idea from. GRASPI have moved their rhetoric onto "fair transitional arrangements" which automatically excludes men, since that translates into a "'bridging pension' paid from age 60 to SPA."
    Conjugating the verb 'to be":
    -o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 28th Nov 17, 5:13 PM
    • 1,912 Posts
    • 2,403 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    • #5
    • 28th Nov 17, 5:13 PM
    • #5
    • 28th Nov 17, 5:13 PM
    “ We are supposed to have equality, aren't we?
    Originally posted by greenglide
    No clue where you got that idea from. GRASPI have moved their rhetoric onto "fair transitional arrangements" which automatically excludes men, since that translates into a "'bridging pension' paid from age 60 to SPA." Posted by Paul_Herring
    Not only that, but GRASPI think it's fair to pay this 'bridging pension' to all women born up to 31 December 1959, while 'sisters' born just one day later - from 1 January 1960 onwards - can wait until they are 66 or more.
    • Hedgehog99
    • By Hedgehog99 28th Nov 17, 5:19 PM
    • 1,395 Posts
    • 2,885 Thanks
    Hedgehog99
    • #6
    • 28th Nov 17, 5:19 PM
    • #6
    • 28th Nov 17, 5:19 PM
    Can we also have a debate on the subject of men affected by state pension age increases.

    We are supposed to have equality, aren't we?
    Originally posted by greenglide
    Yes, but your retirement age has gone up by three years and counting whereas women's has gone up by eight and counting. Talk about moving the goalposts within a working lifetime.

    If these changes are really necessary, they should have gradually increased women to 65 (and I mean gradually, over a couple of generations) and only then started to increase men and women together beyond 65.

    Let's face it, when economic times are good again in the future, are they really going to come back to us and say "you know that final salary scheme we scrapped? Well, we're re-instating it!" or "you can all now retire at 55 if you wish"? They've just been waiting for an excuse to cut pensions and hike the retirement age. I call it breach of contract. Not what I signed up to when I started work.
    • PeacefulWaters
    • By PeacefulWaters 28th Nov 17, 5:24 PM
    • 7,280 Posts
    • 9,003 Thanks
    PeacefulWaters
    • #7
    • 28th Nov 17, 5:24 PM
    • #7
    • 28th Nov 17, 5:24 PM
    Not what I signed up to when I started work.
    Originally posted by Hedgehog99
    No. But employers and governments didn't expect people to live twice as long in retirement either.

    So you could say they didn't sign up for it either.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 28th Nov 17, 5:56 PM
    • 89,840 Posts
    • 56,490 Thanks
    dunstonh
    • #8
    • 28th Nov 17, 5:56 PM
    • #8
    • 28th Nov 17, 5:56 PM
    Yes, but your retirement age has gone up by three years and counting whereas women's has gone up by eight and counting.
    Indeed. Women benefitted from discrimination against men for far too long. However, thankfully, 5 years of that increase were over 20 years ago. So, plenty of time to get used to it.

    If these changes are really necessary, they should have gradually increased women to 65 (and I mean gradually, over a couple of generations) and only then started to increase men and women together beyond 65.
    The 1995 changes had plenty of notice and were gradual.


    Let's face it, when economic times are good again in the future, are they really going to come back to us and say "you know that final salary scheme we scrapped? Well, we're re-instating it!" or "you can all now retire at 55 if you wish"? They've just been waiting for an excuse to cut pensions and hike the retirement age. I call it breach of contract. Not what I signed up to when I started work.
    It has nothing to do with economic times. It has to do with affordability. In the 50s, pensions accounted for 2% of GDP. It hit 5% of GDP in the 80s. It hit 7% in 2001 and hit 8% in 2013.

    Even with the change in state pension age, it is forcasted to be 9.4% of GDP by 2062/63.

    In 67 years, we have gone from 2% to 8% GDP. So, how much do you want to take out of the NHS budget to pay for that? The defence budget has been decimated over that same period.

    In 2013, pensions cost the Govt £138bn a year. The single biggest cost. Healthcare was next at 126bn and welfare third at 117bn. So, what do you want to hit? NHS or Benefits?
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • BLB53
    • By BLB53 28th Nov 17, 6:18 PM
    • 1,169 Posts
    • 960 Thanks
    BLB53
    • #9
    • 28th Nov 17, 6:18 PM
    • #9
    • 28th Nov 17, 6:18 PM
    I guess like remoaners after June 23rd, some people just cannot accept the decision. This motion will be debated, any subsequent vote overwhelmingly lost and I hope that will be the end of the matter...but somehow I doubt it.
    If you choose index funds you can never outperform the market.
    If you choose managed funds there's a high probability you will underperform index funds.
    • mark1959
    • By mark1959 28th Nov 17, 7:08 PM
    • 255 Posts
    • 270 Thanks
    mark1959
    Yes, but your retirement age has gone up by three years and counting whereas women's has gone up by eight and counting. Talk about moving the goalposts within a working lifetime.

    If these changes are really necessary, they should have gradually increased women to 65 (and I mean gradually, over a couple of generations) and only then started to increase men and women together beyond 65.

    Let's face it, when economic times are good again in the future, are they really going to come back to us and say "you know that final salary scheme we scrapped? Well, we're re-instating it!" or "you can all now retire at 55 if you wish"? They've just been waiting for an excuse to cut pensions and hike the retirement age. I call it breach of contract. Not what I signed up to when I started work.
    Originally posted by Hedgehog99
    Women's state pension age have been known to be increasing to 65 from 1995. A reasonable amount of notice most would think.
    Another thing any Govt. should do is decrease men's state pension age by a couple of years as women live on average 2 or more years longer.
    • LHW99
    • By LHW99 28th Nov 17, 8:36 PM
    • 990 Posts
    • 847 Thanks
    LHW99
    On Wednesday 29 November, MPs will debate the subject of women affected by state pension age increases.
    Oh no, not again!
    Yes it was silly they didn't take the decision to do one increase rather than do it in two stages for a certain group. But it had to be done. Time to get over it and move on.
    • DairyQueen
    • By DairyQueen 28th Nov 17, 8:52 PM
    • 99 Posts
    • 132 Thanks
    DairyQueen
    The issue isn't about the equalisation of pension age, it's about the equalisation of pension provision. Women continue to lag by some considerable measure. Where's the justice in that?
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 28th Nov 17, 9:22 PM
    • 1,912 Posts
    • 2,403 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    The issue isn't about the equalisation of pension age, it's about the equalisation of pension provision. Women continue to lag by some considerable measure. Where's the justice in that? Posted by DairyQueen

    No, this issue is about the equalisation of State pension age for men and women.


    The new State pension is determined by NI contributions, not gender.
    • badmemory
    • By badmemory 29th Nov 17, 2:00 AM
    • 1,050 Posts
    • 1,105 Thanks
    badmemory
    This is getting so old & the lies told quite frankly getting boring. Those of us (and I include myself in this) that were stupid enough to trust some man to provide for our future, may well have been screwed by those men but not by the gov or state pension. So please put the responsibility where it belongs. Please do not consider this as any support for any gov or their policies as it certainly does not.
    Last edited by badmemory; 29-11-2017 at 2:03 AM.
    • Paul_Herring
    • By Paul_Herring 29th Nov 17, 8:09 AM
    • 6,190 Posts
    • 2,926 Thanks
    Paul_Herring
    The issue isn't about the equalisation of pension age, it's about the equalisation of pension provision. Women continue to lag by some considerable measure. Where's the justice in that?
    Originally posted by DairyQueen
    How is getting pension for longer than men a 'lag?'

    If it was about "equalisation of provision" (whatever that actually means, but I'll assume 'same pension received over retirement,') then women would be getting their pension at a later age than men. Or less pension per year.

    Neither of which is what GRASPI are demanding. In fact it could be argued that they're arguing for the exact opposite.
    Conjugating the verb 'to be":
    -o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 29th Nov 17, 8:31 AM
    • 18,538 Posts
    • 47,728 Thanks
    Pollycat
    Oh no, not again!
    Originally posted by LHW99
    Precisely!

    What a waste of time.
    • Clifford_Pope
    • By Clifford_Pope 29th Nov 17, 8:54 AM
    • 3,410 Posts
    • 3,500 Thanks
    Clifford_Pope
    Talk about moving the goalposts within a working lifetime.

    .
    Originally posted by Hedgehog99
    Goalposts are bound to be moved during a working lifetime. The point is that there should be sufficient notice given of important changes, to allow a fair and appropriate timescale for any required adjustment.
    All the evidence suggests that these particular changes had a notice period of many years.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 29th Nov 17, 9:15 AM
    • 3,421 Posts
    • 5,237 Thanks
    Malthusian
    The issue isn't about the equalisation of pension age, it's about the equalisation of pension provision. Women continue to lag by some considerable measure. Where's the justice in that?
    Originally posted by DairyQueen
    A woman who puts the same in as a man gets the same out as a man. Actually more because if they buy an annuity, they get the same rate as a man even though they will live longer.

    What sanctions are you proposing against women for putting less into pension schemes?
    • DairyQueen
    • By DairyQueen 29th Nov 17, 11:41 AM
    • 99 Posts
    • 132 Thanks
    DairyQueen
    The equalisation of SPA is very, very old news. The principle is a no-brainer. However, this inequality has been addressed outside of its wider context.

    I am concerned that WASPI's constant harping on an issue that is so specific, and so difficult to justify in isolation, has detracted attention from a much more pervasive issue of gender inequality: the imbalance between male and female pension provision. By that I mean both SP and private pension.

    I am a 1950s woman. I am also in the fortunate position of having decent (self-earned) state and private pension provision, but that is more the result of circumstance not foresight. My ability to build a pension has not been compromised by child-rearing or lengthy career breaks. Despite that, I guarantee that a man born on the same day, with an identical career and family circumstance, will have more pension than me courtesy of his career-long higher salary.

    It's all well-and-good taking the moral high-ground on specific issues of gender equalisation but we have yet to outlive a legacy of paternalism, nor have we dispensed with gender-specific roles. Nor have we addressed the insidious gender pay gap that stubbornly defies the appearance of equality that our society accepts as real.

    Trusting a partner is central to the success of committed relationships, and relying on a partner is often a financial necessity. It goes with the territory. The interests of the individual are usually sacrificed in the interests of the couple or the family. There are plenty of couples for whom the imperative was/is child-care, and invariably the woman's career/income is compromised in order to fulfil that imperative one-way-or-another.

    How many men have taken time-out to raise children? (Raise your hands please) Or worked part-time, or reduced their responsibilities and salary, in order to fit their job around their children? How many men have compromised their career, income and pension provision in order to care for elderly or disabled relatives?

    How many women have sacrificed their pension entitlement on divorce in order to secure a home for themselves and their children (a necessity because of their impaired earning ability)? Or through one/both parties' ignorance of the value of that entitlement? How many couples have made joint decisions that result in a disproportionate amount of pension held in the name of the highest earner? The highest earner is invariably male.

    Check the stats.

    There are plenty of exceptions: stay-at-home-dads, same-sex couples, equal-income couples, male carers, high earners, but these are the experiences of a minority of families. Women are usually the main family carers and men are commonly the primary breadwinners. Facts supported by every population-wide statistic and report. Guess who ends up with the lion share of a couple's pension provision as a result? Guess which party's lifetime income and associated pension provision is significantly reduced?

    These traditional roles haven't substantially changed, nor has the gender pay gap, but we are busily legislating on idealistic assumptions that they have.

    Oh, and I am aware that the nSP will be of significant benefit to many women but there are plenty in their 50s caught in the transition period: too late to make-up NI deficits and the loss of a widow's pension following a late divorce, or for whom the demands of elder care ensure that they are dependent on OH until they can claim a pension reduced through lack of recent earnings. There is no automatic NI credit for the latter group (unlike those caring for children) so let's hope they have the cash/knowledge to make voluntary NI payments.

    It seems to me that the WASPI campaign has focused media and public attention to such an extent on the justice of equal SPA that the wider issue it should seek to address - the disproportionate number of low-income female versus male pensioners - has been completely marginalised.
    • squirrelpie
    • By squirrelpie 29th Nov 17, 11:59 AM
    • 14 Posts
    • 3 Thanks
    squirrelpie
    Error loading player: No playable sources found
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

283Posts Today

1,161Users online

Martin's Twitter