State Pension - differing opinions

bigfreddiel

oldtractor wrote: »

my sole source of income in old age is the state pension only.

well you've certainly given me hope that my retirement will be okay now! i only have a small occupational pensionto look forward to.

fj

Loughton_Monkey

atush wrote: »

Oh deary me LM, and here I was likeing you but now .............;-)

What will mrs LM say to that I wonder?

Her heart would tell her to challenge me. Her head would tell her to agree totally.

Since her mouth is bigger than both of them, she's saying nothing!

bilbo51

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

She only had 24. I bought her another 12

What a guy.

There's a song here somewhere I'm sure...

Loughton_Monkey

bilbo51 wrote: »

What a guy.

There's a song here somewhere I'm sure...

.... "I should be so lucky"
.... "As long as he keeps me"

bilbo51

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

.... "I should be so lucky"
.... "As long as he keeps me"

Love it

atush

The pension age for men and women should be equal, and they did give quite a bit of notice for the main change.

The only real cause for complaint was a number of women in their late 50's (all born around 18 months from each other) who were trapped at short notice when they raised the retirement age again for women in such a short period and gave then only a couple of years to plan. Given they had already planned to retire at 65 instead of 60, at short notice the new change was introduced w/o enough lag time for them to plan effectively. Such sweeping changes should be planned further in advance really. Such as raising tuition fees and only giving parents and students a couple of years to plan ( I have twins starting in 2012 so it will be doubly hard for me).

I do think the changes all need to happen, it is the implementation and forward planning that could have been done better.

bigfreddiel

atush wrote: »

Given they had already planned to retire at 65 instead of 60, at short notice the new change was introduced w/o enough lag time for them to plan effectively.

its only one year extra so its not too hard to plan and as the sp is so low you can earn it in a few months!

fj

atush

bigfreddiel wrote: »

its only one year extra so its not too hard to plan and as the sp is so low you can earn it in a few months!

fj

Bull tink. They had been told to wait 5 extra years already and then they got told to wait even longer (more than a year in many cases, a year in others) at short notice. IMHO it was a cokup by those who drafted the plan as they didn't factor in the number affected- probably thought oh well it is just a few and they won't notice or some sort of crap.

Not a lot of women ( I read somewhere approx 60K) but not insignificant. Not really fair on a time scale basis.

My personal opinion was to make the change (as equality should factor for men as much as women) but I do think this small cohort should have been taken out of the tax system on this one point as it was unfair and doesn't really save that much.

In fact it might cost a lot if challenged sucessfully in UK or EU courts.

BTW, I am not personally affected.

Zelazny

Private pension schemes have had to offer equal retirement ages to men and women since 1991, so I don't see why exactly the state pension had an extra 20 years to get itself sorted out...

atush

It should have been done before- but should have given ALL those affected mroe years to plan. To up retirement age twice like that, second time with little warning was just plan Bad planning.