State pension age to rise to 66 for men from 2016

treliac

In terms of the rate of change and given that the female retirement age is starting from a base point of 5 years behind men anyway, I think you can say the rate of retirement age change for women is likely to be much faster.

luvpump

i want my National insurance payments to date refunded please, as the u.k pension appears to be a giant Ponzi scheme

i8change

Looks like men will have to resort to extreem measures if the want equal pensions:-

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1288613/Married-man-sex-change-wins-right-receive-pension-womens-age-60.html

It's a crazy world! How much would that cost the NHS?

marklv

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Great...An opportunity to earn even more money..

No - an opportunity to work yourself into the grave before you get any pension from this bunch of thieves.

Masomnia

marklv wrote: »

No - an opportunity to work yourself into the grave before you get any pension from this bunch of thieves.

Presumably by 'this bunch of thieves' you mean any incumbent government. Labour were of course increasing the retirement age to 66, the Tories are just bringing it forward.

Is it any great surprise? People living longer and longer, paying in less and taking out more.

I'm planning on there being no state pension at all when I retire.

leveller2911

When I was at college back in 1983 we had some government employed bod come in and explain to us all about NI stamps and the various taxes. We were told that paying NI stamps would qualify us at the age of 65 to retire on a state pension.Yes I know people are living longer but why were we lied to?


IMO its just plain wrong, deceit/lies and more lies.The deal was we work hard during our lives and pay into a system and in return for all of our hard work we get a small pension.

As we are living longer then put the NI rate up to offset the aged population, but the problem with that is the date during each year where we start earning money for ourselves as opposed to tax to the government would need to be adjusted to around November..!!!!!!! disgrace ......nuff said....annoyed now and off for a lemonade..

lostinrates

Masomnia wrote: »

I'm planning on there being no state pension at all when I retire.

That's why we are hedging our bets. DH and I plan to provide for ourselves through his pension, but paying into state for mine. I think its pretty unlikely too.....at least in a non - means tested capacity.

Running_Horse

The danger is even fewer younger people will be able to break into the jobs market with oldies staying on longer. Maybe some kind of mentoring scheme could be set up where older workers stay on part time and help bring on the next generation.

ceridwen

i8change wrote: »

It is bad enough that all these years after the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 there is still purposeful discrimination with regards to men and the State Pension, especially as men have a lower life expectancy. I understood that this was only allowed to continue as women had planned to retire at 60 and required reasonable time to adjust.

With this in mind, how is it possible that the Goverment, at very short notice, are considering upping the pension age to 66 for males by 2016? They won't even have got the female retirement age to the current male one of 65 till 2020!

This is outrageous gender biased discrimination, with absolutely no justification. We all pay the same taxes so deserve equal and fair access to benefits such as pensions. :mad:

Hopefully they won't get away with it:-

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/pensions-italy.406

Ooooh...so dont tempt me to say what I think about such an exhibition of the "Green Eyed Monster"......:cool: - ie jealousy...and not based on any realistic assessment of events....

Would you like to be in the position that many middle-aged women are in - ie that they have been brought up to do "traditional female jobs" and that is precisely what they ARE doing? (ie earning less money than men).

This does not apply - AFAIK - to younger generation women. But - it DOES apply to many middleaged women.

ceridwen

Right - I've had my explosion of justifiable anger at small-minded jealousy.....:cool:

Now - I was only reading earlier today that about 25% of BOTH sexes are "economically inactive" from age 50 onwards - in an article written by someone else with "green eyes" and that reinforces what I have been pondering for the last few days. That is - that many people in their 50s are ALREADY early retired (of BOTH sexes!!!!!) and therefore CANNOT be told "You have to stay on at work - because we (ie the Government) have decided to postpone your State Pension Age on you". One simply CANNOT be told "Stay on at work and postpone retirement" when one has ALREADY retired (ie taken early retirement). Anyone who has already taken early retirement (ie 50-60) is now out of the workforce and that's that - end of story and they are free now to do what they please and that is precisely what they are doing (or being tied-up with being a carer for someone else OR being tied-up with being an age where their own health isnt very good and not conducive to holding down a job any longer)..

The Government cannot discriminate between those in their 50s who have already taken retirement (early) on the one hand and the ones who are still at work. Therefore - I forecast that the Government will be realistic enough to recognise that anyone 50 onwards age group (of both sexes) simply won't be expected to have their State Pension Age postponed (or postponed again - for a second time - in the case of women in the "transitional" age group).

At a very very pragmatic level anyway - many in their 50s are being carers to those even older and would be likely to turn round to the Government if they were forced to stay on in work or go back to work (from early retirement) and say "YOU chose to make me work after I was supposed to be retired - now YOU (ie the Government) will pick up the tab for all the carer duties I have been doing for you:D - so stick that in your pipe and smoke it:eek::D". Thats not even mentioning the fact that I dont suppose for one moment the Government would want "early retirees" competing with young people for scarce jobs if they were forced back into the workforce....