Govt back down again.

StevieJ

I understand that some women will be unfairly penalised by the new legislation but I also know women who have retired on £40k final salary pensions and then claimed the state pension 5 years in advance of some guy on a pittance, also is it not true that most females occupy a disproportionate number of public sector office jobs with final salary pensions? Just a thought

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-15289798

wotsthat

Now I'd call it a climb down too. IDS isn't calling it a climb down though - he calls it listening.

That will free up a lot of women, I hope, from their concerns and worries. We have listened to them and I hope that people believe we have acted well.

StevieJ

wotsthat wrote: »

Now I'd call it a climb down too. IDS isn't calling it a climb down though - he calls it listening.

If they actually did what Webb is stating here i.e. on an individual basis, fair enough, but they are not.

"Raising state pension ages have to be done but we need to look at the individuals who are being affected and try and make sure the increases are not too sharp," he told Sky News.

Graham_Devon

I'm worried about havinbg to work longer than my parents.

Would they listen to our age group?

What if we ask them to work a year longer, which means our age group will only have to work 3 years longer instead of 4?

Would they listen to that? Or would it be grossly undfair as they have done their bit?

Effects 33,000 women. Costs the taxpayer £1bn to chuck on the debt pile.

chewmylegoff

330,000 it says.

Graham_Devon

chewmylegoff wrote: »

330,000 it says.

I was reading the MSE version, which states 33,000.

Spose 330,000 would be more accurate!

The Department for Work and Pensions says a plan to raise the state pension age to 66 in 2020 will be delayed by six months from April 2020 to October 2020, bringing good news for 33,000 women.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm worried about havinbg to work longer than my parents.

Would they listen to our age group?

What if we ask them to work a year longer, which means our age group will only have to work 3 years longer instead of 4?

Would they listen to that? Or would it be grossly undfair as they have done their bit?

Effects 33,000 women. Costs the taxpayer £1bn to chuck on the debt pile.

Women's groups said that 330,000 would be affected. According to IDS 250,000 men will benefit too.

It's a pity they've backtracked as it's £1bn that could have been saved earlier. I think the government will be delighted though that this is the only concession they've had to make. It's only £1bn and easy to implement.

And no GD they won't listen to you. Although before the election you were part of a hard working family you are now an income stream. Don't forget we're all in it together.

Thrugelmir

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I
Would they listen to our age group?

Some of us have less time to save for the 2 year delay in payment of state pension.

For a working couple that's a loss of around £21k of income based on basic state pension.

Hard to see how everyone can keep working or stay in employment to 67 either. So their has to be a significant change of attitude. With far more emphasis on long term saving (whatever form it is).

mystic_trev

wotsthat wrote: »

According to IDS 250,000 men will benefit too.

Yes - I'm one of them! Well chuffed :j

pqrdef

Thrugelmir wrote: »

With far more emphasis on long term saving (whatever form it is).

One man's saving is another man's debt. You save money, you give it to somebody else, who spends it. Then you're relying on his ability to pay it back later, notwithstanding having spent it. Doesn't always work.

But even if it does, it's still pay-as-you-go really. If the next generation can't afford to support you in retirement, they'll reduce your lifestyle to fit their means, one way or another.