Ladies, take note of the Pensions Spending Review

mjm3346

pjala wrote: »

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.

Who said anything about being thankful? I will have wait at least an extra year and am certainly not thankful.

There was and is no "contract" the age has been changed before and will change again.

It is nothing to do with income difficulties, THERE IS NO LOSS OF INCOME when you reach state retirement age. The retirement age is changing not the pension you receive when you get there.

pjala wrote: »

but you cannot rationalise away the severe problems this arbitrary decision will be causing

What severe problems? with several years notice some women will need to work longer before they reach state retirement age, eventually working as long as men already have to.

Stargazer57

pjala wrote: »

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.

From the Conservatives 2010 Election Manifesto

We will phase out the default retirement age and hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66
http://www.conservatives.com/Policy/Where_we_stand/Pensions_and_Older_People.aspx

dunstonh

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!

That is impossible. At most your retirement age can only have increased by 1 year based on recent changes. I suspect you are mixing up the 1995 changes with the 2010 changes.

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.

The increase is just 1 year and was in the manifesto. It was also only brought forward by 4 years based on existing legislation that was put in place by the previous government.

What contract has "the lady" signed that says she gets a pension earlier?

StevieJ

dunstonh wrote: »

That is impossible. At most your retirement age can only have increased by 1 year based on recent changes. I suspect you are mixing up the 1995 changes with the 2010 changes.

I thought she was due to retire at 64 based on the 95 formula and now it is 66, due to the amended acceleration to 65 by Nov 2018.

molerat

dunstonh wrote: »

That is impossible. At most your retirement age can only have increased by 1 year based on recent changes.

Not according to this http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/SpendingReview/DG_192159

An example, Female DOB 6 Jan 1954, old date 6 Nov 2017, new date 6 Jul 2019.

dunstonh

StevieJ wrote: »

I thought she was due to retire at 64 based on the 95 formula and now it is 66, due to the amended acceleration to 65 by Nov 2018.

I take that back then.

I misread it on the basis of the age increasing to 65 under 1995 legislation to 66 under proposed 2010 (i.e. the one year).

jamesd

pjala wrote: »

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?

It's tough for the government to have been elected on this plan because we don't currently have an elected government, we have one chosen by the Liberal Democrat party. That gives both the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives a convenient excuse for breaking their individual election undertakings, one they have been exploiting. it may be worth it long term, though, since there's nothing quite like experience to help inform voters of the consequences of proposed electoral system changes in the form of unelected governments and unreliable electoral promises.

It seems to take about £17 a week in savings to accumulate the £140 a week for a year involved in this case. £140 under the new proposals, a major windfall to many women and others with incomplete contribution records. It's very likely that most women will be substantially better off even with a one year delay and that more would be required to offset the extra cost.

Trix2

molerat wrote: »

Not according to this http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/SpendingReview/DG_192159

An example, Female DOB 6 Jan 1954, old date 6 Nov 2017, new date 6 Jul 2019.

Thanks for all the interesting responses. However just to confirm. I have put my date of birth in and currently the 'state pension age calculator' gives a date of 6 March 2018, when I will be 64. The new date given on the Spending Review page moves this to 6 March 2020. By my reading that is 2 years!!!

parcival

My wife is in the same boat - born August 1955. It was not all that long ago that she was expecting to get the state pension at 60. Then it was raised until 65 and now 66.

I seem to remember that Duncan Smith said that he recognised that a relatively small number of women would be hit twice by the latest increase - however he has chosen to ignore it.

He is getting a letter and I suggest that everyone else drops him a line....

Cambridgegirl

What about those of us who will find it difficult to work those two extra years, not because of any specific health problem, but as we get older we are not so quick mentally as younger colleagues around us. I'm 56 and I'm already aware that I am not as quick mentally as I once was and I know a lot of people in the same boat.

I could probably just about manage 64, but to have to work another two years I'm not sure that I will be up to scatch in my current job. Plus we are also blocking jobs that could be done by younger people who are still trying to establish themselves in the job market (I have a 24 year old daughter in this position). Not to mention all these people the government think should be back in the job market i.e. those with disabilities!