Ladies, take note of the Pensions Spending Review

Trix2

For those women born between 1953 and 1955 the spending review has a particularly unpleasant sting in the tail. We are in the group whose pension age was being equalised with men's. Fair enough. In 1995 when I was 41 that gave me a retirement date of 64 which was sufficient time to organise my and my husband's retirement plans.

But now with the new spending review (and the decrease in the value of annuities) half a million women have to find an additional £11,000 for two further years. Is that just pocket money to the Government - that they think it doesn't matter?

Sorry, that is not enough time to make up the difference. Especially when most women earn less than their male counterparts.

Take note of Doctor Altmann's words:
Dr Ros Altmann, director-general of the Saga Group, said: "A rethink is essential. They penalise at least half a million women making them wait an extra two years for their state pension and even the Government itself admits they will not have time to prepare."

For those of you who are interested the info is on the DirectGov Spending Review page.

Loughton_Monkey

This is all extremely sad for women. It's a matter of expectations, and the goalposts have been changed very quickly. So I am not without sympathy.

That apart, I agree that it should have been done. In fact it should have been commenced roughly at the time of equal opportunities legislation. Even when State Pension Age is uniform for men and women, there is arguably an 'imbalance' because women live quite a bit longer. In other words, the cost of a state pension for women is much more than that for a man of the same age.

pandora205

According to the directgov calculator my pension date has increased by 2 years 6 months (I'm in that age range) which is an enormous jump given it's only a few years off. It would have been another few months if I was born a day later too!

Oldernotwiser

Sorry, where does the extra £11,000 come into it?

wotsthat

Sorry, where does the extra £11,000 come into it?

Two years state pension that was expected but will not now be received.

mjm3346

They don't have to "find" £11,000 or any other amount if they retire at the new state retirement age and if they are putting into their own pension pot they will have a higher pension income as they will have made extra contributions and be drawing it later.

They penalise at least half a million women

Until the male/female retirement ages are at least equal it is still men who are being "penalised".

they will not have time to prepare

Prepare for what? If they work up to the retirement age they will be better off not worse, even if they do not have their own pension they will have had extra time earning full pay instead of only getting a pension.
The only thing they have to prepare for is working a bit longer instead of having 100% leisure time, hardly an issue.
I get "clobbered" for an extra year, do I like it? No, but apart from loss of leisure time I will not be worse off.

molerat

The only people that this has a major negative effect on is those who have retired early and have factored the state pension rigidly into their calculations. Myself and Mrs M have now got 1yr and 1yr 1mth respectively to wait for our payrise, a bit of a bummer but not the end of the world. The unexpected "what if" is something that needs to be taken into account when long term planning, we did and have some slack so will be ok. We have only "lost" £12K in the same way as we "lost" £5 million on the lottery last week.

wakeupalarm

molerat wrote: »

We have only "lost" £12K in the same way as we "lost" £5 million on the lottery last week.

A couple of weeks ago the lottery was £113 Million, so only losing £12K means we should all be trully thankfull. :beer:

pjala

mjm3346 - By the same reasoning, why not do away with a state pension altogether, after all they cost too much.
The lady has paid into NI all her life on the "contract" that she would receive state pension at a certain age. This contract has been broken by the government - which they did not mention in any election material.
Why should anyone just accept this, and be thankful?
Pension planning is all about planning your retirement on what you will get, and £11,000 is going to hit the less well off much more than those on higher pay. It may be difficult to appreciate the income difficulties of other people, but you cannot rationalise away the severe problems this arbitrary decision will be causing.

pjala

In fact the same arbitrary decision is also being taken for CPI increases as opposed to RPI increases for pensions.
As the CPI does not fairly represent inflation, then it will mean pensioners will be taking a real cut in their pensions every year, which will be another grinding slow pension crisis in the making.
Student loans increases are still to be worked out in terms of RPI - this is obviously a cynical maneuvre worthy of the worst kind of con artist - give at the highest loan rate, pay out at the lowest loan rate, both of which are supposedly built in to represent a real estimate of inflation.

Loughton_Monkey

pjala wrote: »

As the CPI does not fairly represent inflation, then it will mean pensioners will be taking a real cut in their pensions every year, which will be another grinding slow pension crisis in the making.

I know they would argue that CPI is a closer approximation of inflation for a pensioner than RPI. That may or may not be so, but the 'rub' is in the reduction itself. Wait until Mortgage Interest Rates start rising again - and then see RPI go through the roof!