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

wotsthat

It is time you stopped sponging from working men and started paying your fair share

I am a working man and I do pay my fair share.

dunstonh

You women need to grow some balls

.... erm, on the other hand, please don't.

snowgo

Pollycat wrote: »

I'm a woman affected by the change in pension date from 60 to 65.

I'm not apathetic.

If women want sexual equality in jobs etc, then it's only fair to have equality in retirement dates.

THAT'S why I'm not up in arms about this!!!!

I'm a woman also affected. I am taking retirement from my job in January 2011 and, because of requirement to give 6 months advance retirement notice to employer, I handed in notice thinking that I would draw state pension at age 64. I've since learned that I will have to wait an extra 2 years before I can draw state pension. It seems quite unfair that my financial planning has been affected and I can't mitigate it by
working longer. I don't have a problem with equality. But what I am
'up in arms about' is that I haven't been given enough advance notice.
Having already accepted one change in state pension age (from 60 to
64), it feels completely unfair to have to accept another when I have handed in my notice. I don't understand why they couldn't let those of us already affected by one pension age change to be allowed to retire as planned. Particularly hard on women like me born in 1954 compared
with those born a year earlier.

molerat

Your planning must be on a knife edge if the delay is going to affect you that much. You should be questioning your original plan to retire early. The "!!!! happens" factor should have been planned in, the loss is not much more than the cost of a fairly major domestic disaster.

custardy

wotsthat wrote: »

I tell you what's stranger..me being a spokesman, sorry spokesperson, for womens rights!

Pay inequality does exist and is acknowledged by the government. I don't think that there's any doubt about this; the reasons for this and whether it's due to discrimination are much less clear. http://www.equalities.gov.uk/pdf/8803-TSO-GenderEqualityDuty-FactSht.pdf

Tim Harford (the undercover economist on Radio 4) did quite a good job of investigating some of the numbers quoted by government and the media but I can't find the link to the podcast.

but not in all sectors,far from it
so shall we just have women retire at 60 while mens age continues to rise?
its a non issue unless you campaign for both sexes to have a lowered retirement age(which isnt going to happen)

missile

wotsthat wrote: »

I am a working man and ......

... getting in touch with my feminine side :rotfl:

custardy

snowgo wrote: »

I'm a woman also affected. I am taking retirement from my job in January 2011 and, because of requirement to give 6 months advance retirement notice to employer, I handed in notice thinking that I would draw state pension at age 64. I've since learned that I will have to wait an extra 2 years before I can draw state pension. It seems quite unfair that my financial planning has been affected and I can't mitigate it by
working longer. I don't have a problem with equality. But what I am
'up in arms about' is that I haven't been given enough advance notice.
Having already accepted one change in state pension age (from 60 to
64), it feels completely unfair to have to accept another when I have handed in my notice. I don't understand why they couldn't let those of us already affected by one pension age change to be allowed to retire as planned. Particularly hard on women like me born in 1954 compared
with those born a year earlier.

so as long as you arent affected,its alright?
i assume you were alright with the men born in 1954 doing an extra year?

snowgo

custardy wrote: »

so as long as you arent affected,its alright?
i assume you were alright with the men born in 1954 doing an extra year?

Think you miss my point. It's about having enough advance notice. That can apply too to men born 1954.

Molerat (sorry don't know how to do double quote in reply)
No not knife edge. But I don't think I implied they were. My point is that it confounds decision making if changes are brought in so late in the day.

molerat

I am male and born in 1954 too, Mrs M in 1955 and we gave up working last year. The changes do affect us both but are a minor irritation rather than a big deal, the cake is still there but not quite as much icing.

snowgo

I think you're right - it is about how you think or psychologically respond to effectively losing £30,000 or whatever the sum is. If you can treat losing £30,000 as a minor irritation it doesn't affect you as much. But it is harder to do that as you get closer to retirement and when it's not the first 'irritation' (change in pension age) you've had to adjust to.