State pension - women

bigfreddiel

Yet again a woman who was interviewed after the budget today was moaning on about how unfair it was that she wasn't eligible for her state pension until she was 64! The way it came across was as tho' it was this gov and this budget to blame.

As all of us mse'ers know this was all set out in 1995 but some how the woman interviewed must have forgotten!

Okay there was a minor change by the current administration, but still the main changes were announced 20 years ago - plenty of time to have done something about it.

Cheers fj

Pollycat

bigfreddiel wrote: »

Yet again a woman who was interviewed after the budget today was moaning on about how unfair it was that she wasn't eligible for her state pension until she was 64! The way it came across was as tho' it was this gov and this budget to blame.

As all of us mse'ers know this was all set out in 1995 but some how the woman interviewed must have forgotten!

I don't know why they have to stick a microphone in front of people who are clueless about the issues being discussed.

And that means presenters too.
Loose Women discuss all sorts of things and get the wrong end of the stick.

bigfreddiel wrote: »

Okay there was a minor change by the current administration, but still the main changes were announced 20 years ago - plenty of time to have done something about it.

Not such a minor change in my case.

I had been aware for many years that my state pension age was to be 63 years and 6 months but the 'minor change' has now made it 64 years and 8 months.
A big change at pretty short notice.

Dunnit

I guess I have a viewpoint over this as my wife is 10 years younger than her sister but will wait an extra 7 years for her pension (no quips about marrying the wrong one please). Some people are going to be miffed about missing out even though they knew it was coming.
1. Firstly when the change was made to equal pay in the early seventies the retirement age should have changed then.
2. When the changes were made in the nineties there was no product available to fill the gap from 60-65. Indeed GB's penalising of pensions through the benefit system made it unattractive for many women to pay into a pension.
3. Until GO's changes there were few ways to retire a few years earlier i.e. taking the equivalent of the state pension from your own pension early.
Of course tying retirement age to mortality suggests that women may soon have to wait until after men to draw their pensions, if equality is to be achieved.

kidmugsy

Dunnit wrote: »

Of course tying retirement age to mortality suggests that women may soon have to wait until after men to draw their pensions, if equality is to be achieved.

My dear Sir, that would be quite the wrong sort of equality.

atush

1. Firstly when the change was made to equal pay in the early seventies the retirement age should have changed then.

Not sure what planet you live on, but women still aren't paid the same as men in many cases for the equiv job.

2 and 3 are OK

drumtochty

There are plenty people on this forum who moan on about the state pension system especially those who even misquote their pension statement to back up a well held grudge with no logical back up.

I quite like telling them on the forum where to get off and stop moaning.

Sorry I'm getting to the point of stopping watching this stuff on TV as it is just there to fill a soundbite.

Dunnit

atush wrote: »

Not sure what planet you live on, but women still aren't paid the same as men in many cases for the equiv job.

2 and 3 are OK

Wikipedia is your friend:

"The Equal Pay Act 1970 is an Act of the United Kingdom Parliament which prohibits any less favourable treatment between men and women in terms of pay and conditions of employment."

The government should have enabled equality in pension age with this act.

atush

Sorry but until that act is actually enforced, it means nothing.

bigfreddiel

Pollycat wrote: »

Not such a minor change in my case.

I had been aware for many years that my state pension age was to be 63 years and 6 months but the 'minor change' has now made it 64 years and 8 months.
A big change at pretty short notice.

Well it's only 14 months - it will just fly by!

Dunnit

atush wrote: »

Sorry but until that act is actually enforced, it means nothing.

There is no reason why it should not be enforced. Have you any outstanding examples that you can take to the legal authorities.

The point I was making is that logically pensions should have been aligned at the same time. That part of the law would then have been enforced.

kidmugsy

atush wrote: »

Not sure what planet you live on, but women still aren't paid the same as men in many cases for the equiv job.

That can be made necessarily true just by rigging the definition of 'equivalent'.