MSE News: Government stands by pension change plans

pandora205

Penny-less wrote: »

Hi. I am one of the ladies affected by these changes as I was born in April 1954. Anyone else affected may find this link useful:

http://www.ageuk.org.uk/get-involved/campaign/state-pension-age-campaign/

Hope this helps.

Penny x

This is a very useful link for any women affected and includes a detailed report from surveys carried out by ageuk, postcards to send to MPs and a model letter to send to local press.

patanne

So we are committed to equalisation of our state pension ages, but why are we not also committed to equalising graduated pension payments. Or would that be asking for way too much? Personally I don't think so - but then this would give women a little more than they currently get and that would never do. Or would it?

roddydogs

Why are some people confusing the "State" pension with the MPs "Private" pension? 2 separate things.

SLWilliams

I too am one of the women born in 1954 who will be affected by these changes, through my working life I assumed I would retire at 60, this was changed due to equalisation and I accepted I would not get my state pension until I was nearly 64, now the goal posts have moved again I will be nearly 66 before my pension is payable. I have already retired from work and now find that my savings and company pension are going to have stretch that much further. How can we plan for our retirement when we are already in our late 50's and not in work. Why does it have to affect us twice. Surely the Government can see some leeway for women in my position. Overall this is a loss of £30,000 at today's rates or £10,000 if you accept the earlier changes were inevitable. I do feel cheated when I have worked and contributed all my life for my old age and pension.

jamesd

I'm unsure why you'd feel cheated compared to a man who worked and contributed all of his life and knows that even when the retirement ages are the same he can expect to die three years younger than a woman of the same age, receiving that much less pension and a smaller portion of his life in retirement.

You could go to work. It's the traditional thing that people do when they want to increase their income and you'll only need to make less than £1,500 a year to be no worse off financially. Since the minimum wage is £5.93 an hour you'd need to work for just 252 hours a year on average, about 31 days. That's little enough so that a couple of years of summer or Christmas seasonal work would let you make sufficient money. Less if you find work that pays more than minimum wage.

Or you could engage in other money making schemes like making and selling things or buying and selling things. Or you could take in a lodger for a year or two if you have a room available.

Or you could look at how your money is currently invested and see whether you can make it make you more money. If you describe what you currently have and how and at what rates it's currently invested I'll be happy to see whether I can see opportunities to improve your results. Did you know about the 8% regular saver account offered by First Direct and HSBC? Or the £150 you can get just by opening a First Direct current account and moving some money back and forth with a couple of standing orders? That's ten percent of your first year target without any great amount of work. Alliance and Leicester is another bank that can be relied on to pay you £100 ior so once a year for opening and then closing a current account with them.

There's a decent chance that you'll be able to make enough from changing how you do some things to hit the extra income or money saving target and handle this without needing to go back to work.