State pension age for women

atush

kidmugsy wrote: »

I understood that you could draw a reduced pension from 62. No?

Yes, but it is reduced very greatly

missbiggles1

patanne wrote: »

I actually feel quite embarrassed for these women who get their names splashed all over the papers telling the whole country that they couldn't be bothered reading something when they were in their forties (or late thirties) which would affect them in their sixties. I remember sitting one Sunday dinner time in the early 1990s discussing the fact that my younger sister would be unaffected by this by less than 10 days, so it was no big secret. Or was the secret that we actually read or listened to the news?

Rather like the women who seem amazed that they don't get a pension in their own right because they chose to pay the "married women's stamp"!

patanne

I so agree - although I do feel that some were badly misled by their employers who automatically put them on the married woman's stamp without really checking. I was lucky that my employer at the time actually consulted me properly. Or was it just that I actually read the info that they gave me? Who knows now, it was a very long time ago, 46 years to be precise!

greenglide

I was lucky that my employer at the time actually consulted me properly. Or was it just that I actually read the info that they gave me?

It was a long time ago, in a bygone age!

People tended to do "what everyone else did" and lots married women who were working assumed that they would not work for long until leaving to have children. There was a kind of logic in this but they then tended to stay with the short term benefit of low NI rather than paying for "their own" pension. In the seventies not many people thought about pensions and the sources of information were very limited.

JezR

In the discussions that led up to the introduction of SERPS consideration was given to abolishing the married woman's rate at the same time. It wasn't in the end because the government was concerned it would appear as a imposed pay cut if done by default. There wasn't that much of an information campaign at the time - it was left largely to employers. As SERPS was a new concept some may have thought they weren't giving up much as they were thinking of the basic pension only.

mumps

gardener_A wrote: »

Whilst it's true that the rise in SPA for women to 65 was announced many years ago, the real issue is for women like me born between 1950 & 1955.

The original plan was that our SPA would be on a sliding scale, making mine 63. Then 2 years ago that arrangement was scrapped with no notice, immediately increasing to 65 for women born after 1953.


So now I am in the very unfair situation where my friend born in late 1953 qualifies at age 63, but as my birth date is January 1954 I have to wait until I'm 65 1/2. 2 years is not long enough to revise my retirement plans to mitigate for the loss of nearly £16K.


I am not against equalising the pension arrangements for men & women but it is the way it was implemented that is wrong, the original rules should have remained until those on the sliding scale had qualified, because women born 1956 onwards already knew that the SPA was to be65 for them.


The reason for the change has been championed as being introduced to give a pension to all women including those who have taken career breaks - this very little comfort to me having worked without ANY break since age 16.


So to those who immediately dismiss this as just women moaning again - it is a real issue!

I agree with what you say in principle but your figures are wrong for women born in late 1953. I was born in autumn 1953 and I don't get my SP until I am 64 years 9 months.

Sorry, hadn't read the full thread and I see others have already explained this. Also the 3 month blocks for moving the age annoys me, if I was 8 hours older I could retire 3 months earlier I think (a while since I checked.)

bigfreddiel

gardener_A wrote: »

Whilst it's true that the rise in SPA for women to 65 was announced many years ago, the real issue is for women like me born between 1950 & 1955.

The original plan was that our SPA would be on a sliding scale, making mine 63. Then 2 years ago that arrangement was scrapped with no notice, immediately increasing to 65 for women born after 1953.


So now I am in the very unfair situation where my friend born in late 1953 qualifies at age 63, but as my birth date is January 1954 I have to wait until I'm 65 1/2. 2 years is not long enough to revise my retirement plans to mitigate for the loss of nearly £16K.


I am not against equalising the pension arrangements for men & women but it is the way it was implemented that is wrong, the original rules should have remained until those on the sliding scale had qualified, because women born 1956 onwards already knew that the SPA was to be65 for them.


The reason for the change has been championed as being introduced to give a pension to all women including those who have taken career breaks - this very little comfort to me having worked without ANY break since age 16.


So to those who immediately dismiss this as just women moaning again - it is a real issue!

Oth, it's only a couple of years, a couple of years where you can earn a whole lot more than the sp, and build up more sp, surely that's a win-win situation!

And also this is equality, something women all want isn't it?

Cheers fj

Pollycat

patanne wrote: »

I actually feel quite embarrassed for these women who get their names splashed all over the papers telling the whole country that they couldn't be bothered reading something when they were in their forties (or late thirties) which would affect them in their sixties. I remember sitting one Sunday dinner time in the early 1990s discussing the fact that my younger sister would be unaffected by this by less than 10 days, so it was no big secret. Or was the secret that we actually read or listened to the news?

I've not seen the article but I wonder if it's a case of somebody wanting their '15 minutes of fame' regardless of how dim it makes them look.

Glad other posters have pointed out the inaccuracy of gardener A's post about her friend born 'late 1953' getting her pension at age 63.

MoneyWorry

Some of the posts from these people are very melodramatic. I've seen things such as "the government is denying me the chance to enjoy my twilight years" and "if I have to work till I'm 65 I'll be finished." Am visualising Logan's run where everyone evaporates at 66. I'm nearly 55, female, don't want to retire at 60, have the same energy as when I was 20 and not contemplating turning my stiletto clad toes up any time soon. Seriously, I've got private pensions albeit small and if luck is on my side will retire at 64 and 8 months instead of 66 and 8 months....,you can retire any time you wish if you save for it.

Pollycat

MoneyWorry wrote: »

Some of the posts from these people are very melodramatic. I've seen things such as "the government is denying me the chance to enjoy my twilight years" and "if I have to work till I'm 65 I'll be finished." Am visualising Logan's run where everyone evaporates at 66. I'm nearly 55, female, don't want to retire at 60, have the same energy as when I was 20 and not contemplating turning my stiletto clad toes up any time soon. Seriously, I've got private pensions albeit small and if luck is on my side will retire at 64 and 8 months instead of 66 and 8 months....,you can retire any time you wish if you save for it.

I've not seen any posters on this thread saying that.

Or do you mean some of the quotes from the article?

Does anyone have a link to the article, btw?