55 year old women lose approx £30k in State Pension

noh

harz99 wrote: »

Bit like your contradictory post's; in 116 you were working at 60, and in 123 you didn't work from 60-65!!!

I would suggest you start a new thread if you wish to discuss how/why you can/do stop paying NIC's and autocredits etc.

Until then I believe the comment in my post 120 to be correct; unless of course one of our acknowledged experts can correct me.

Yes your comment in post #120 is correct.

noh

hansi wrote: »

But that contradicts your post 122 doesn't it?

No it doesn't.

The "He" I was referring to is you.

ceridwen

mitchaa wrote: »

The system is/was sexist. Women wanted equal rights so you've got to take the rough with the smooth.

Actually - the reason as to why womens State Pension ages is rising to match mens is because of a MAN. It was a MAN that brought a claim to have the same State Pension Age as a woman. He intended to have HIS State Pension Age brought down to 60 to match a womans one. What actually happened was that the Government had to accept the principle of both sexes retiring at the same age BUT didn't want to pay men their pension for 5 years longer - so equalised by making women suffer equally and putting our State Pension age UP to the same as mens.

The only consolation to that - as a woman - is that that man went to all that time/trouble/expense because he was jealous of women and found that, in the event, he lost.

**************************

Another point to make is that traditionally women have married men a few years older than themselves (ie about 5 years older). Womens State Pension age was set at 5 years younger than mens deliberately - for the sake of MEN (so that their wives would retire at about the same time as they themselves did).

Just had to point out, in fairness, that everything on the State Pension front HASNT been set up to benefit women - it was actually set up to suit MEN.

Just for those who haven't got their facts right:D

custardy

ceridwen wrote: »

Actually - the reason as to why womens State Pension ages is rising to match mens is because of a MAN. It was a MAN that brought a claim to have the same State Pension Age as a woman. He intended to have HIS State Pension Age brought down to 60 to match a womans one. What actually happened was that the Government had to accept the principle of both sexes retiring at the same age BUT didn't want to pay men their pension for 5 years longer - so equalised by making women suffer equally and putting our State Pension age UP to the same as mens.

The only consolation to that - as a woman - is that that man went to all that time/trouble/expense because he was jealous of women and found that, in the event, he lost.

**************************

Another point to make is that traditionally women have married men a few years older than themselves (ie about 5 years older). Womens State Pension age was set at 5 years younger than mens deliberately - for the sake of MEN (so that their wives would retire at about the same time as they themselves did).

Just had to point out, in fairness, that everything on the State Pension front HASNT been set up to benefit women - it was actually set up to suit MEN.

Just for those who haven't got their facts right:D

so women get it earlier
a man goes to court with nothing to lose (his pension will be 65 at worst) and everything to gain
now you say women will "suffer" through working to 65 but i suppose you dont see it the same for men?
as for men marrying younger women,generalise much? so you are saying the pension age was set this way so the couple got their pension at the same time?
so then if the man dies years before the woman,then what? surely using that rational the man should have retired at a younger age?
soif the system is set up for men then they will "suffer" with women retiring later? and women should welcome this feminist move?

ceridwen

jamesd wrote: »

Women on average live about three years longer than men. This change is just part of moving to a more equal system, though there's not yet any plan to have women retire later than men to allow for that extra life expectancy, just this reduction of the inequality.

You slipped a little personal viewpoint in there quietly:cool: - ie the words "there's NOT YET any plan to have women retire later". If some people have green eyes - yours must be positively emerald brilliance:cool:. That is a nasty trick to play - ie to put forward ONE persons (biased) viewpoint - and try to present it as an inescapable fact that at some point things will change for everyone else just to suit your personal preferences and envies...

You have just put forward the viewpoint of ONE person and ONE person ONLY - ie yourself (and there could be said to be a little bias here - in view of the fact that you are a man yourself;)).

1. The current generation of women will probably live for much the same length of time as men - I believe the relationship between the two lifespans is starting to change (possibly because of all the women who are now doing "double shift" - ie both a paid job AND the lions share of the housework at home, thus saving the man doing some of HIS share.......). EDIT: and of course mustn't forget that less men are being killed in wars (a thing thats less likely to happen to women) and there is less physically arduous work than there was (ie the work that men tended to do).

2.Equality legislation is now that both sexes retire at the same age - once womens State Pension age has finished being phased in to equalise mens. One could not subsequently raise the State Pension age of either sex without discriminating against the sex in question.:D

Geoffo_M

ceridwen wrote: »

You slipped a little personal viewpoint in there quietly:cool: - ie the words "there's NOT YET any plan to have women retire later". If some people have green eyes - yours must be positively emerald brilliance:cool:. That is a nasty trick to play - ie to put forward ONE persons (biased) viewpoint - and try to present it as an inescapable fact that at some point things will change for everyone else just to suit your personal preferences and envies...

You have just put forward the viewpoint of ONE person and ONE person ONLY - ie yourself (and there could be said to be a little bias here - in view of the fact that you are a man yourself).

We are so lucky to have the view of such an unbiased person. Thank you so much

custardy

ceridwen wrote: »

You slipped a little personal viewpoint in there quietly:cool: - ie the words "there's NOT YET any plan to have women retire later". If some people have green eyes - yours must be positively emerald brilliance:cool:. That is a nasty trick to play - ie to put forward ONE persons (biased) viewpoint - and try to present it as an inescapable fact that at some point things will change for everyone else just to suit your personal preferences and envies...

You have just put forward the viewpoint of ONE person and ONE person ONLY - ie yourself (and there could be said to be a little bias here - in view of the fact that you are a man yourself;)).

1. The current generation of women will probably live for much the same length of time as men - I believe the relationship between the two lifespans is starting to change (possibly because of all the women who are now doing "double shift" - ie both a paid job AND the lions share of the housework at home, so given i do the lions share of housework/childcare then has my expected lifespan become even shorter?thus saving the man doing some of HIS share.......). EDIT: and of course mustn't forget that less men are being killed in wars (a thing thats less likely to happen to women) and there is less physically arduous work than there was (ie the work that men tended to do).

2.Equality legislation is now that both sexes retire at the same age - once womens State Pension age has finished being phased in to equalise mens. One could not subsequently raise the State Pension age of either sex without discriminating against the sex in question.:D

....................................

wireframe_2

ceridwen wrote: »

Just had to point out, in fairness, that everything on the State Pension front HASNT been set up to benefit women - it was actually set up to suit MEN.

Butthurt much?
Welcome to equality.
Now get back to work for 10 more fkking years.
Just like the rest of us.

ES10

So when do women get the equal pay and opportunities to go with equality in the pension age ?

custardy

ES10 wrote: »

So when do women get the equal pay and opportunities to go with equality in the pension age ?

in what scenario?
where i work everyones on equal pay/opportunities regardless of gender

But i guess inequality is okay as long as it doesnt effect you?