What Benefits at 60?

jackyann

It is true that the change in women's retirement age from 60 to 65 has been signalled for a long time. I do think that the small cohort who got caught in the change from 65 to 68 had relatively short notice for a big change - but it really should not catch anyone by surprise!

Quite often questions arise on these boards that show that people take little notice of changes, and don't take steps to keep themselves informed ( see also "married woman's stamp")

I am not criticising anyone (we all have things we don't do too well at!) but it shows that we do need to take notice - which is why this board is so helpful!

OldBeanz

Pain for us in as much as the wife is 7 years younger than me and I have maintained a job which allows me to retire at 60. Because she has taken time off for children and moved as my job required, her pensions have switched to 65 then 67.
Her sister is 10 years older and will draw her pension 17 years earlier.

jem16

McKneff wrote: »

I find it quite annoying that the Scots can use there free bus passes down here in England, but we cant use ours up in Scotland grrrr

Where did you get this idea from?

Rather than get mad over a misinformed idea, perhaps it would be best to get the facts first?

[Deleted User]

Hi,

am I reading things right here, it appears in some of the posts that some women are not happy because they were born too late, meaning they would rather be older than they actually are?



:eek:

oliveoil99

Even though we knew the changes were going to happen since 1995 all woman still got there state pension at 60 until April 2010, all my female siblings got their state-pension at 60 born in 1948, 1949 and 1950 I was born in 1952 at get my pension exactly 9 months from to-day 6th July 2014. Why did it take 15yrs between 1995 and 2010 to bring about any change apart from talking about it?

oliveoil99

dunstonh wrote: »

No. Its an increase of 4 months. 65 to 65 and 4 months is just 4 months difference.

Her state pension age hasnt been 60 since 1995. The consultation period for that was a few years. She would have been in her thirties when the state pension proposal to increase to 65 took place.

If that is the case why did my 3 sisters get their state pensions at 60yrs in 2008, 2009 and 2010?

hugheskevi

Why did it take 15yrs between 1995 and 2010 to bring about any change apart from talking about it?

Because that was what the 1995 legislation stated would happen, as was agreed by the Parliament of the time.

It is perhaps a little surprising that legislation scheduled to take effect 15 years hence wasn't brought forward at some point, as it so often is, but I'm not sure anyone can complain that legislation designed to give people adequate time to adjust took effect on exactly the date it was intended.

oliveoil99

If medical predictions are to be believed even with the pension age going to 67/68 we will still be getting our pensions for years longer than was ever intended unless something else is on the horizon!!!!

bigadaj

oliveoil99 wrote: »

If medical predictions are to be believed even with the pension age going to 67/68 we will still be getting our pensions for years longer than was ever intended unless something else is on the horizon!!!!

Very true, when the pension was originally brought in I believe it was claimed for an average length of two years.

swingaloo

dunstonh wrote: »

Its not. The move from 60 to 65 has been known for 20 years.

I am fully aware of that, what I meant was that its a big difference in retirement age for being born exactly 2 years apart. The OPs wife is 2 years younger than me and yet has to work 4 years longer.