MSE News: Controversial women's pension plans pass through Commons

edited 30 November -1 at 1:00AM in Pensions, Annuities & Retirement Planning
34 replies 4.2K views
24

Replies

  • hcb42hcb42 Forumite
    6K Posts
    StephenM wrote: »
    You must be at the start of the age group that is in phased transition to 67, and the 8 days comes from the way they are doing the transition.

    Likewise my current state pension date is 15 days before I'm 66 because I'm near the end of the age group that is in the phased transition to 66. However, under the current Tory bill my pension age will go up again to 66 exactly, costing me 15 days of pension (I think I'll manage).

    Don't be surprised if your pension age is at least 67 by the time you get there.


    Ah......!

    Thank you for that explanation. 67 though - sheesh :cry:
  • StephenM_2StephenM_2 Forumite
    373 Posts
    Tenth Anniversary 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    ✭✭
    Karmacat wrote: »
    so the previous lot will probably have been, tho I don't know the date.

    Pension Act 1995. Blame John Major. :D
  • dunstonhdunstonh Forumite
    106.8K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    If we're talking about factual discussion ... thats an awfully emotive word you've just used in criticising me. Not factual at all.

    Not meant in that context. Don't take it that way please.
    Now, with the changes proaby being introduced in this bill thats currently going through parliament, I'll probably be having another 1 year and 3 months increase. Thats six years, yes, but its definitely in two increases, not one. And two sets of legislation, presumably? This latest lot is being introduced by legislation, so the previous lot will probably have been, tho I don't know the date.

    Now you see the what I mean. This new legislation affects you by 1 year 3 months. The 1995 legislation is the 4 years 9 months. Your "whinge" ;) should be about the 1 year 3 month change.

    The MSE article should be about the 2011 legislation. Not trying to pass off 1995 legislation as new.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
  • dunstonhdunstonh Forumite
    106.8K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    My issue, not whinge, *is* with the 2011 legislation. What have I said that made you think otherwise? In my very first post on this thread, I said I had no problem with the equalisation of pension age, which is what the 1995 legislation would have achieved, albeit at age 65, not at age 66.

    Your first post in this thread said "I'm really shocked at the tone of these posts." That indicated you did not agree with comments saying the MSE article was wrong. You then went on to refer to your age going up from 60. post #17 also indicated you didnt appear to be aware of the 1995 legislation (or perhaps the changes brought in by the previous Govt increasing state pension to 68).
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
  • lemontartlemontart Forumite
    6K Posts
    ✭✭✭✭
    can someone explain to me why this is going to cost the tax payer so much when the aim is to have people mainly women paying tax longer which is needed to fund the pensions, yes there will be costs for the changes but surely the savings in not paying the pensions out for x number years to some will go someway to cover that ?

    Personally no probs with having same retirement age but certain it will go up from 66 for me as it stands now as I get nearer.
    I am responsible me, myself and I alone I am not the keeper others thoughts and words.
  • Le73Uq86UvLe73Uq86Uv Forumite
    336 Posts
    Lets hope they don't increase both by one year next year and then for every year on.

    Thats right they would save a lot never having to pay anything.
    Signature removed club member No1.

    It had no link, It was not to long and I have no idea why.
  • dunstonhdunstonh Forumite
    106.8K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭✭
    Le73Uq86Uv wrote: »
    Lets hope they don't increase both by one year next year and then for every year on.

    Thats right they would save a lot never having to pay anything.

    Whilst it is unlikely to be brought forward as much as the move to 66 was, I wouldn't be surprised if we saw the 67 and 68 state pension age increases brought forward somewhere from their current dates.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
  • edited 22 June 2011 at 9:34AM
    Just_landedJust_landed Forumite
    608 Posts
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    ✭✭
    edited 22 June 2011 at 9:34AM
    What i'm waiting for is the day they change the law to bring the State pension age for men to five years earlier than women.

    :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
  • JimmyTheWigJimmyTheWig Forumite
    12.2K Posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    lemontart wrote: »
    can someone explain to me why this is going to cost the tax payer so much when the aim is to have people mainly women paying tax longer which is needed to fund the pensions, yes there will be costs for the changes but surely the savings in not paying the pensions out for x number years to some will go someway to cover that ?
    I think you have mis-read it.
    It is not making these changes that would cost the tax payer money.

    Still doesn't make it right, imo, though.
  • Rise in state pension age is abit of a farce, the goverment have known for years that with increase population growing older and less people paying taxes that something had to be done, I would not be surprised if it increases age even more over the years or stagnates pension payments. Pity our children born after 1977 they have to work til 68 and for those unskilled & low paid, in physical work its going be hard going.
    What about all these jobs even less work for the younger generation , gee whizz this country is in a mess.
This discussion has been closed.
Latest MSE News and Guides

A guide to council tax bands

Lower your band & save £1,000s

MSE Guides

Cinema MoneySaving tips & tricks

Including year's 2for1 movies for £1

MSE Deals