State pension - women

atush

Or even the same job.

I agree that those who want equality should have it both good and bad- no argument from me at ALL. Incl insurance rates although we do have the whole mathematical outliers of men dying in car accidents more and dying earlier etc). After all, it was less than 100 years ago where women's mortality was higher than men's as they died so often in childbirth.

but even a few months ago there was yet another report out that said women and men in the UK in the same/equiv job were paid differently. With women being paid the lower. This isn't me making this up. Even apparently in 'womens' jobs such as nursing and retail

the problem with pay in general as regards to retirement is, the less you are paid, the less your retirement income.

There are all sorts of 'reasons' in these reports for the outcome. From women being less likely to ASK for a raise if not offered, to time off for maternity (supposed to not happen but does). To men being started on a higher band, The list is endless.

Pollycat

bigfreddiel wrote: »

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

You've missed my point.
It's not so much the time difference, it's the financial disadvantage - in excess of £6K.
So not such a 'minor' change as you originally made out.

bowlhead99

Ah don't worry, you probably have a higher life expectancy than was imagined when you were younger, so you get more years of the money rolling in That is after all one of the reasons that we no longer pay people their pensions from 60.

Pollycat

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Ah don't worry, you probably have a higher life expectancy than was imagined when you were younger, so you get more years of the money rolling in That is after all one of the reasons that we no longer pay people their pensions from 60.

I'm not worried.

I have a good occupational pension so my state pension - whenever it is paid - will be the icing on the cake.

The point I was making to the OP was that the 'minor change' that affected women aged around 60/61 wasn't exactly 'minor' at all.

I thought the reason that women no longer received their pension at age 60 was to bring them in line with men who have always received their pension at age 65, not because of life-expectancy.

I have known about the move to pay women their state pensions at 65 instead of 60 since it was first introduced and I agree with the principle and the gradual move towards it.

What I don't agree with is the recent 'minor' change that was introduced with very little notice and no gradual change.

bigfreddiel

Pollycat wrote: »

You've missed my point.
It's not so much the time difference, it's the financial disadvantage - in excess of £6K.
So not such a 'minor' change as you originally made out.

We'll I guess you have a point but you can probably earn that £6k quite easily in 14 months, earn your £6k and then 'retire'

Cheers fj

bigfreddiel

Pollycat wrote: »

I'm not worried.

I have a good occupational pension so my state pension - whenever it is paid - will be the icing on the cake.

The point I was making to the OP was that the 'minor change' that affected women aged around 60/61 wasn't exactly 'minor' at all.

I thought the reason that women no longer received their pension at age 60 was to bring them in line with men who have always received their pension at age 65, not because of life-expectancy.

I have known about the move to pay women their state pensions at 65 instead of 60 since it was first introduced and I agree with the principle and the gradual move towards it.

What I don't agree with is the recent 'minor' change that was introduced with very little notice and no gradual change.

Well it's not exactly a major change now is it. Annoying more than anything and after working for say 40 years a few months more is hardly earth shattering.

Cheers fj

lisyloo

Have you any outstanding examples that you can take to the legal authorities.

I do yes.
But I really don't have the time to take problems that don't affect me to the authorities. I have homes, jobs, businesses to run.

If you are trying to imply it doesn't happen then you are wrong.

Why the people involved don't report it I'm not sure.
Perhaps they prefer to "keep their head down" and fear lack of employment and that kind of behaviour not making them employee of the month.

mgdavid

lisyloo wrote: »

I do yes.
But I really don't have the time to take problems that don't affect me to the authorities. I have homes, jobs, businesses to run.

If you are trying to imply it doesn't happen then you are wrong.

Why the people involved don't report it I'm not sure.
Perhaps they prefer to "keep their head down" and fear lack of employment and that kind of behaviour not making them employee of the month.

*this is not a personal attack so please don't take it as such*

The above is a frequently encountered stance, unfortunately it reads far too much like
'What's in it for me - nothing - can't be bothered then'.
For as long as this attitude prevails then inequality in society will also prevail. A sad state of affairs.

lisyloo

'What's in it for me - nothing - can't be bothered then'.

Some people can't be bothered.
Others have genuine commitments - such as caring for others.

I don't think you should judge others unless you know their circumstances.

I would point out though that you are sat their typing on a keyboard instead of getting out their and fighting life's injustices (nothing personal - just saying).

There are risks to bear in mind for the people involved as I also pointed out.
If for example you put a small company out of business but won some "justice" then the person involved may not thank you for it. They may have been happier being underpaid than unemployed, so do be aware of the consequences of your actions because you can't accuse a company of something like that without getting named individuals directly involved.

I don't know you, but I wonder how much justice you could have obtained instead of writing 3532 posts.

Dunnit

The point I was making about equal pension age was that it should have been resolved with the Act in 1970 which was the logical time not the 1990's.
If an employer is breaking the law then more fool people who do not join a union and get their legal entitlement.