State pension age for women

MoneyWorry

Not on here Pollycat. In the main, the good folks on here are clued up. Am not the best at doing links, but there is yet another article on the Daily Mail App (the umpteenth as it is one of their favourite topics!!!) and the comments have to be seen to be believed. The other posters are in reply to the DWP's articles on Twitter and Facebook.

I still can't see how people can have lived in such a bubble since 1995.

bigadaj

MoneyWorry wrote: »

Not on here Pollycat. In the main, the good folks on here are clued up. Am not the best at doing links, but there is yet another article on the Daily Mail App (the umpteenth as it is one of their favourite topics!!!) and the comments have to be seen to be believed. The other posters are in reply to the DWP's articles on Twitter and Facebook.

I still can't see how people can have lived in such a bubble since 1995.

I don't think it's 1995, more like 1955 for most.

kidmugsy

"October 2010 - revised changes
The commitment in the Coalition Agreement fell foul of EU equality laws which allowed the government to equalise state pension ages as late as April 2020 but would not allow further discrimination between men and women during that process. So in the Spending Review of October 2010 the plans were revised. Women's state pension age would now be raised more quickly to reach 65 in 2018 and then both men and women's pension age would rise to 66 by 2020." So we can blame Brussels.

From:
http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_history.htm

xylophone

I don't think it's 1995, more like 1955 for most.

1995 announcement of equalisation of pension age when those born in 1955 would have been forty.

The point is that these women would have thought that the latest they would receive their pension would be age 65 which they may have thought was fair enough.

What has angered and confused is the subsequent changes?

http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_history.htm

bigadaj

xylophone wrote: »

1995 announcement of equalisation of pension age when those born in 1955 would have been forty.

The point is that these women would have thought that the latest they would receive their pension would be age 65 which they may have thought was fair enough.

What has angered and confused is the subsequent changes?

http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_history.htm

Yes, I realise that, my comment was related to the media approach and the gullibility or lack of interest by their readers.

Subsequent to the equalisation of pension age then amendments have been the same for everyone, so moan if you want but you're in the same boat as everyone your age, just arguably lost out in comparison to those who are a few years older.

molerat

xylophone wrote: »

1995 announcement of equalisation of pension age when those born in 1955 would have been forty.

The point is that these women would have thought that the latest they would receive their pension would be age 65 which they may have thought was fair enough.

What has angered and confused is the subsequent changes?

http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_history.htm

I had already retired before the 2011 changes were announced so all planning was done based on my SP at 65 and MrsM at 64/11. Luckily there was a "!!!! happens" allowance in the plans so self funding the extra 6.5/13 months to the revised SP ages is not a major problem. It is one thing moving the goal posts during the pre match briefing but complicates things when it is done after the game has started.

mgdavid

molerat wrote: »

I had already retired before the 2011 changes were announced so all planning was done based on my SP at 65 and MrsM at 64/11. Luckily there was a "!!!! happens" allowance in the plans so self funding the extra 6.5/13 months to the revised SP ages is not a major problem. It is one thing moving the goal posts during the pre match briefing but complicates things when it is done after the game has started.

one of the risks of early retirement, which you had catered for. One shouldn't be surprised when a risk comes to fruition.

p00hsticks

Pollycat wrote: »

Does anyone have a link to the article, btw?

I'm not sure if it's the same as the article the OP was referring to , but molerat's post #10 has a link.

The topic was also featured on todays Moneybox programme on Radio 4

Pollycat

p00hsticks wrote: »

I'm not sure if it's the same as the article the OP was referring to , but molerat's post #10 has a link.

Thanks.

What a load of tosh there is in that DM article.

And the retirement date is moving away from women so quickly that many who are just a few weeks from state pension age today could be forced to wait months — or even years — for their pension.

Someone 'a few weeks from state pension age today' will receive their pension in 'a few weeks'.

And why have they featured 3 woman who are ill and 1 who is looking after a sick partner?
It's a change that affects all women of similar age.
I'm just amazed that so many women appear to have not known about these changes.

SnowMan

Moneybox had an item on this also (it is the first item)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b069c143

I have some sympathy for those woman given very limited notice of the acceleration of the increase of State Pension Age to age 65.

But I find it extraordinary that Wendy from Manchester says on the programme her date of birth is 25th May 1953 and that she was expecting her state pension at 60 years 9 months and now it is being paid from what I calculate as 63 years 5 months.

20 years ago Wendy should have been aware that her SPA was increasing to 6th July 2016 i.e. 63 years 1 months. So the short notice of the acceleration in increasing SPA to age 65 only pushed back her SPA by 4 months.

That Wendy can go on moneybox and misrepresent the facts in this way is disappointing and embarrassing. Wendy was clearly aware that SPA was increasing from 60 to 65 (or else why would she have said 60 years and 9 months). So the real problem has clearly been Wendy's own failing to check out how the change announced 20 years ago affected her.

It seems strange also that their campaign is called Women Against State Pension Inequality because if that was their aim then they should be campaigning either for State Pension Age to be put up to 65 immediately for women or for it to be immediately reduced for men.

Sex equality is a really important issue, but this sort of contrived nonsense of a campaign doesn't help the cause at all.