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

Mehitabel9860

Karmacat wrote: »

I don't object to the equalisation of pension age. My issue is with the speediness that women of my age are being legislated about.

As a woman born in 1953, I appreciate the demographic problem and the need to equalise pension ages. But it is being done too fast and unfairly, and the goalposts may yet be moved again. I've worked since I was 15, paid "full stamp" (that is, not the reduced Married Women's Rate) on the government promise of a "full" pension at age 60. I've paid my dues - and was to retire at 62(plus) but now I'll be nearly 64. Fine if there was a job for me to stay working in, which there isn't (thank you, spending cuts). On a practical basis, all the concessions that go with retirement are denied to me - my husband has had his Bus Pass since he turned 60, I cannot have mine for at least another five years. Come on Powers That Be, let us women most affected have a "Grey Pass" for half price bus fares at least!

Oldernotwiser

Mehitabel9860 wrote: »

As a woman born in 1953, I appreciate the demographic problem and the need to equalise pension ages. But it is being done too fast and unfairly, and the goalposts may yet be moved again.

Announcing a change in 1995 and implementing it in 2010 can hardly be described as "fast"!

susan47

Well I'll have to wait till I'm 66 to get my state pension, while my sister who is 6 years older than me will get hers at 61. It shows that it has been introduced too quickly, in my opinion.

Having said that, I think they should have started the changes sooner. I don't mind waiting till I'm 66 and I think everyone has to share the pain (though the bankers don't seem to be sharing it). I just think that to raise it year by year is ridiculously quick. If I have to wait till I'm 66, it seems very unfair that someone just a few years older can get 5 more years than me.

But we do all have to take a hit. My husband is a lecturer and he won't be striking because he thinks it's fair that he takes a hit too...We're in our fifties now and we don't want to put an undue burden on future generations.

margaretclare

Karmacat wrote: »

This is my first post quoted above. Yes, I said I was shocked at the tone - the tone, not the attitude to the mse article. I've bolded my statement at the beginning of my second paragraph - I don't object to the equalisation of pension age. I *wasn't* aware the legislation dated back to 1995, you're quite right, but thats pretty much a tangent for me, as that legislation isn't an issue for me. As I've said, I think its right. My issue is with the speediness that women of my age are being legislated about.

When state retirement pensions started, way back in 1909, the age was 70. Then it went to 65 for both sexes, then in the early 1940s because of lobbying by single women's groups (an awful lot of 'spinsters' in those days due to the carnage in WWI) the age for women was changed to 60. Now it's being put back to 65 for both sexes, or older depending on when you were born.

Bogof_Babe

I was born in 1952 so am not affected by the most recent increments, and as far as I know will still get my state pension at 61 years and 10 months.

My sister who is only 22 months younger than me will now have to wait for hers until she's just short of 66, and is rightly aggrieved. She works as a primary school teaching assistant, and will be the age of her charges' grandparents by the time she finishes work, which in itself is not ideal.

I would happily defer my own pension by two months, if it meant this recent development could be avoided. If all of us not yet in receipt of our pension but not affected by the latest changes did the same, would enough savings be generated to allow those 330,000 most severely affected women to remain on their originally scheduled date?

mumps

Mehitabel9860 wrote: »

As a woman born in 1953, I appreciate the demographic problem and the need to equalise pension ages. But it is being done too fast and unfairly, and the goalposts may yet be moved again. I've worked since I was 15, paid "full stamp" (that is, not the reduced Married Women's Rate) on the government promise of a "full" pension at age 60. I've paid my dues - and was to retire at 62(plus) but now I'll be nearly 64. Fine if there was a job for me to stay working in, which there isn't (thank you, spending cuts). On a practical basis, all the concessions that go with retirement are denied to me - my husband has had his Bus Pass since he turned 60, I cannot have mine for at least another five years. Come on Powers That Be, let us women most affected have a "Grey Pass" for half price bus fares at least!

I was also born in 1953 but I will be nearly 65 when I get my pension, if I was one day older I could retire 4 months earlier. The change for women born in, I think, 1953 and 1954 is very fast.

sarah2000h

When I started work in 1974 it was stated that I would receive a pension when I reached 60 but the government has changed this which I think is unfair as I was budgeting thinking that I would receive my pension in 2015. I now have to wait until 2021.
It would have been fairer to say all new employees will recieve their pension when they are 66, then everyone knows where they are with their finances.

molerat

After the announcements in 1995 you were not going to get a pension at 60 so you have had time to plan for that one. As others have stated, the MSE article is Daily Mail-esque in that it is misrepresenting what is really happening in this change, you have been put back 2 years max. http://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk/state-pensions/state-pension-age-calculator? will show what your post 1995 announcement pension age was, it has not yet been updated

StephenM_2

sarah2000h wrote: »

When I started work in 1974 it was stated that I would receive a pension when I reached 60 but the government has changed this which I think is unfair as I was budgeting thinking that I would receive my pension in 2015. I now have to wait until 2021.
It would have been fairer to say all new employees will recieve their pension when they are 66, then everyone knows where they are with their finances.

Assuming 2015 is the year when you hit 60, you've had 16 years to adjust your budget for the fact that you won't get your pension in 2015. That should be long enough.

Edit. Too slow. Molerat got here before me.

dunstonh

When I started work in 1974 it was stated that I would receive a pension when I reached 60 but the government has changed this which I think is unfair as I was budgeting thinking that I would receive my pension in 2015. I now have to wait until 2021.

You havent been receiving your pension at 2015 for over 16 years. You made an incorrect assumption.

It would have been fairer to say all new employees will recieve their pension when they are 66, then everyone knows where they are with their finances.

The state pension age changes have no impact on individual scheme pension ages or the date you choose to retire other than if you havent made sufficient retirement provision and are reliant on the state.