Pre budget report.Bus passes and prescriptions

Doc_N

PolishBigSpender wrote: »

But it's not *due* at 60 - because they changed the rules.

Yes - they changed the rules for pensions.

Isn't this common sense that you won't receive retirement-related benefits if the retirement age is raised? I'm really struggling to see what you expect here - benefits such as a bus pass and free prescriptions while still being of working age?

It might, or might not be common sense, depending on your viewpoint. The bus pass and free prescriptions have been available to men and women of working age for some time now, though.

It's pretty obvious to me, and I'm not British!

It's easy to say it's obvious after the event. Hindsight, as they say, is a wonderful thing. There has never, ever, until now been any suggestion that prescriptions and bus passes would follow the higher pension ages.

Why on earth would the government pay retirement-age related benefits to women under 65 when men don't receive the benefits at the same age?

Actually, the benefits are payable to both men and women under 65 as things stand now.

Erm...you keep working past 60, like you're expected to do as you won't have reached retirement age?

Why on earth should the British taxpayer pay freebies to you, just because you assumed that for some bizzare reason, you would be entitled to free bus passes/etc before you were of retirement age?

Why on earth should the British taxpayer pay freebies to anyone? Why should the rich have access to the NHS? Why should all people over the age of 75 get a free TV licence? Sometimes there are illogicalities - that's life.

You're being a little harsh................

From Poland...with love. ?!

EdInvestor

Doc_N wrote: »

BBC Radio 4's Money Box team (who are pretty clued up) obviously didn't agree with you when they wrote:

But, tucked away on page 84 of the pre-budget report, the Treasury said this age threshold will rise gradually in the future.

See link at post 16. This is not a new idea.

Why on earth would the government pay retirement-age related benefits to women under 65 when men don't receive the benefits at the same age?

Orihgninally, when retirement ages were set up, men got the benefits at age 65 and women at age 60.The reason for this was that officials noted that men tended to be five years older than their wives, so the gap enabled them both to retire at the same time.

This was subsequently found to be against EU rules so had to be equalised.Women's ages were to be raised gradually over a 10 year period starting next year.As an interim measure, the payment of additional benefits like pension credit etc was lowered for men to the women's retirement age,so the error was not compounded and were then to be gradually raised over the 10 years starting soon..

Somewhat of a palaver it must be said and because all these decisions were made 10 years ago for enforcement 10 years in the future, many people (and journalists) paid little attention at the time. Even now the intricacies of benefits get little press coverage, you may have noticed.

Doc_N

EdInvestor wrote: »

See link at post 16. This is not a new idea.

Orihgninally, when retirement ages were set up, men got the benefits at age 65 and women at age 60.The reason for this was that officials noted that men tended to be five years older than their wives, so the gap enabled them both to retire at the same time.

This was subsequently found to be against EU rules so had to be equalised.Women's ages were to be raised gradually over a 10 year period starting next year.As an interim measure, the payment of additional benefits like pension credit etc was lowered for men to the women's retirement age,so the error was not compounded and were then to be gradually raised over the 10 years starting soon..

Somewhat of a palaver it must be said and because all these decisions were made 10 years ago for enforcement 10 years in the future, many people (and journalists) paid little attention at the time. Even now the intricacies of benefits get little press coverage, you may have noticed.

Yes, yes - we know all this. But until the PBR there was never any hint (or even conjecture) that the bus pass and the prescription exemption would be linked to the rising pensionable age. It was always a thought that might have lurked at the back of a few pessimists' minds - but that thought never seemed to appear anywhere authoritative. If I'm wrong on that, please post a link - I must have missed it.

It's very easy to be wise after the event. For example, I think it would be a sound idea to merge the functions of all local authorities across the country. I won't be the only one thinking that, for sure. But the idea's never been seriously aired, and it would be ridiculous to say after it happened that it was obvious to everyone that it was going to happen. That's the position with bus passes and presciption charges - it was always a vague possibility, but few people had made the necessary logical link and were aware of that.

seven-day-weekend

Doc_N wrote: »

Yes, yes - we know all this. But until the PBR there was never any hint (or even conjecture) that the bus pass and the prescription exemption would be linked to the rising pensionable age. It was always a thought that might have lurked at the back of a few pessimists' minds - but that thought never seemed to appear anywhere authoritative. If I'm wrong on that, please post a link - I must have missed it.

It's very easy to be wise after the event. For example, I think it would be a sound idea to merge the functions of all local authorities across the country. I won't be the only one thinking that, for sure. But the idea's never been seriously aired, and it would be ridiculous to say after it happened that it was obvious to everyone that it was going to happen. That's the position with bus passes and presciption charges - it was always a vague possibility, but few people had made the necessary logical link and were aware of that.

I'm sorry, but it WAS obvious to me (apart from it also saying so in various documents).

Nothing has changed actually, in this respect. These things have always been linked to State Pension age and still are.

Doc_N

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I'm sorry, but it WAS obvious to me (apart from it also saying so in various documents).

Nothing has changed actually, in this respect. These things have always been linked to State Pension age and still are.

Good for you - delighted that you and EdInvestor were apparently so prescient. I've still to see any document suggesting it, though, and to most people it will have come as a great surprise. I doubt, in fact, even now, whether there is much general awareness.

seven-day-weekend

Doc_N wrote: »

Good for you - delighted that you and EdInvestor were apparently so prescient. I've still to see any document suggesting it, though, and to most people it will have come as a great surprise. I doubt, in fact, even now, whether there is much general awareness.

Many people still don't know about the rise in Pension age, depite the fact that it has been on the cards for well over a decade. The same as many women years ago did not know about married womens' 'stamp' not providing them with a pension at all. Most people don't take a lot of notice.

I know someone in her early 40s who still thought she was going to get her Pension at 60, this was only a year ago.

exil

Anyone who gets these benefits at 65 will be fortunate - anyone now under 50 will have to wait till they're 66 - and so on up to 68....

and the Institute of Directors wants it to be 70....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8314621.stm

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

ceridwen wrote: »

....visions of serried ranks of mutinous women being frogmarched into shops/offices/factories/etc when they KNOW themselves that they are supposed to be retired now

- and envious-looking young people on the "other side of the street" getting angry that WE are still in THEIR jobs when its time for us to hand them over to them now..

One would actually feel sorry for employers at that point - at the thought of all those mutinous people being forced into work when they know they are now retirement age. I certainly wouldnt want to try and get any work much out of them...

I actually have thought about this myself.
Raising the retirement age must surely cause some problems as to job availability.
There is'nt enough to go round now when women retire at 60,so what will happen when they will be forced to work an extra 5 -8 years as I understand the retirement age will eventually be 68.
There surely must be going to be problems with more unemployed younger people and the money gained by not paying pensions to 60 year old women will probably have to just be paid out to younger people on unemployment benefits.
Just a thought.......

patanne

How many women do actually retire at 60. My co pension doesn't cut in until I'm 65 (only 14 months to go). 40% of the staff where I work are already over 60 (and those are women). So how much difference is it going to make other than actually reducing the total state pension paid out caused by not so many increasing their pension by deferring.

Bogof_Babe

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

I actually have thought about this myself.
Raising the retirement age must surely cause some problems as to job availability.
There is'nt enough to go round now when women retire at 60,so what will happen when they will be forced to work an extra 5 -8 years as I understand the retirement age will eventually be 68.
There surely must be going to be problems with more unemployed younger people and the money gained by not paying pensions to 60 year old women will probably have to just be paid out to younger people on unemployment benefits.
Just a thought.......

It's going to take the next 20 or so years for this to be fully implemented. The whole dynamics of the job market will have changed many times in the meantime. Today's job shortages may not even exist in a few years, or on the other hand they may have got ten times worse.

I do think it is fair to equalise retirement age (and I am one of those affected and will have to wait 22 months longer for my pension) but I'm not sure what upper age is realistic as an eventual target, as people do become less able to cope with long days, commuting, and other aspects of workaday life as they get older. I'm nearly 58 and I can't imagine how I'd be now if I had to go back to the job I left 8 years ago.