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

ALIBOBSY

nearlyrich wrote: »

I think you should get a pension when you have paid the equivalent of 30 years NI on minimum wage they is no real financial reward for paying in more.

Look to Italy this is what they did and it nearly bankrupted the system (and that was before the recession).

It is now irrelevant what you paid into the state system as the reality is the state pension is funded entirely from tax income. The huge baby boomer generation had all the benefits of big pay rises and huge house price leaps and now they want to reitre at 60 and the rest of us be crippled in tax as well. It just can't happen.

ali x

sixty

I believe that a man had to have reached State Pension Age (65) for his wife to be able to claim on his contribution record,or has that changed now?

cyclonebri1

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

The huge baby boomer generation had all the benefits of big pay rises and huge house price leaps and now they want to reitre at 60 and the rest of us be crippled in tax as well. It just can't happen.

ali x

That's a poor comment in my view for several reasons, and to blame the problems on one generation is ludicrous.

True we went through a period of high inflation and wage increases to match but we had mortgage interest rates of 13.5% to pay, threaten the younger generation with that and see what it would do to them.

It just can't happen? It can and it has to, but it can't be done by government alone, ie, the state pension. Individuals have to play their part by making suitable preparations for old age.

Don't forget you can retire at any age, but you don't get the state pension untill it's due. I'm 57, had to retire after a series of problems at age 55. I survive very nicely on the pensions I paid into for 30 years, the OAP when it arrives will be a top up and that's the only it can be viewed in future.

jamesd

cyclonebri1, it's not so much blame as observation of facts. The early part of the baby boomer generation has been exceptionally fortunate economically. Hard to know whether the middle and late parts will be as fortunate but the late part is likely to suffer from the tax and spending changes over the next decade and are already more affected by the increased retirement ages.

You're right that mortgage rates were very high but that's not a bad thing for those who could afford to pay those rates for a while. About the best thing that can happen to someone with a big debt is high inflation just after taking it out. Those who were paying the high rates and who survived it gained greatly as inflation reduced the real value of their debt, as wages rose while the numeric value of the debt remained the same. Still very tough times to live through!

Personally, for my mortgage planning I include being able to survive at least a year at 12% interest rate. I'm planning to be able to retire at 55 and saving hard to do that - because I know I could become unable to work at any time.

Writing about the generation doesn't mean all individuals within it, though. Asking some miners about the 80s will clarify that it wasn't all good for everyone, if there was any doubt!

molerat

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Don't forget you can retire at any age, but you don't get the state pension untill it's due. I'm 57, had to retire after a series of problems at age 55. I survive very nicely on the pensions I paid into for 30 years, the OAP when it arrives will be a top up and that's the only it can be viewed in future.

Me too (my problem was I hated the boss and he called my bluff:rotfl:). I was quite looking foward to my £100+ a week payrise in 2019 To add insult to injury I was born just after the start of the tax year so I miss out on extra months of tax allowance too :(

As a response to the OP, women have not lost anything. You cannot lose something you never had. The old saying "don't count your chickens" comes to mind.

RobertoMoir

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

With no desrespect, letters aren't heavy, lumps of iron are, hence my indignation, cheers mate.;)

A sack of letters that weighs 10 pounds would weigh the same as a 10 pound lump of iron. A weight is a weight regardless of what goes into it.

cyclonebri1

Try reading my apology:T


PLus perhaps Alibobsky would be happier if all our generation died tommorrow, less of a burden on him/hersky?

mjm3346

ALIBOBSY wrote: »

The age increases are already there under Labour actually. Both myself and OH will not be able to retire until 67. Wrong to blame this on one party as well as incorrect.

ali x

The planned increases from 2020 have been in place for a long while, the Conservatives move is to hit men with an extra year from 2016 so someone with less than 6 years to go before they could get the state pension will have to wait an extra year.

PasturesNew

I think the age of retirement should fall, for getting the state pension. Imagine for a moment if it were once you've completed 30 years of work.... it would give people the option of retiring after working for 30 years, thus freeing up a job for somebody that's never had one.

What's the real difference in cost? The person most likely to take up this option is probably a home-owner, so paying them a state pension is most likely cheaper than paying the JSA/LHA/CT of a younger person. Also, at 50, the person who has retired is well-equipped to start their own business (experience, time on their hands), so it could work out all round.

Also, say, 5000 50 year olds who are retired are less likely to "get up to mischief" with all their spare time than 5000 people who've never had a job and just hang out at the bus shelter with their mates, thus reducing the unseen costs of youth unemployment.

JoolzS

As I have always understood it the reason the age of 65 for men was originally chosen was because most working men died at around 66 years old. They were given a year to "put their affairs in order". The age of 60 was set for women because most women didn't work therefore no pension would ever have to be paid for them.

The world has now moved on, people are living a lot, lot longer, and at some point changes had to be made.

I could see when I was in my late teens/early twenties that the pension ages of 60 and 65 were stupid and needed to change. I wish I'd also had the intelligence to start paying into a private pension at that age as well, but I was stupid and didn't start paying into one (and too little money) until my 30s.

As others have said in this thread, this has been around for about 15 years. A friend of mine started paying into pensions for her kids as soon as they were 16.

I consider those women who were/are able to retire at 60 as being incredibly lucky, but luck can't keep going on when it is being paid for by taxes paid by the younger generations (and I am still one of the younger generations, being in my 40s). One or two generations were going to be hit badly by a change in retirement age and I always expected myself to be in one of those generations, as turns out to be correct.

As others have also said, it was ridiculous inequality to let women retire on state pensions at 60 when they have a longer life expectancy than men, who couldn't retire until 65.

I am just incredibly grateful to have been born into a part of the world where I don't have to be a baby factory to "provide for my old age" which is the case in more parts of the world than I'd like to think about. We actually have it pretty good here in the UK once you compare it to the rest of the world.

Julie