MSE News: Guest Comment: Why women may lose out under the new state pension

greenglide

I also have friends who are struggling physically with their jobs. Same for men, I know.

Welcome to the world of equality of pension age. I find it difficult to feel much sympathy for women who cite things like "struggling physically with their jobs" when they are simply being required to work the same length of time. Since the female life expectancy is longer than for a male is there not a case for the female SPa to be later than the male one?

saver861

I think there are some women who have been caught out a little. I don't think anyone disagrees with the raising the ages to be the same for men and women.

However, many born in the 50's are taking a hit - having had their pensions go up from 60 to 64 first of all - no complaints - but then going to 66 for lots born in the 50's is a bit of a heavy hit.

Add to that, many women paid into a worthless 'married woman's stamp' as advised by employers etc at the time.

Seemingly they have a petition going too...

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/110776

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

Add to that, many women paid into a worthless 'married woman's stamp' as advised by employers etc at the time.

How is it worthless when they are going to get 60% of the basic state pension for a much smaller NI payment?

OldBeanz

My wife is in her fifties and will be hit with a retiral age of 67. Women have had 20 years to adjust to this and are only coming into line with men. The extra year is the same for men.
The gripe should be about the lack of pension products available at that time to fill the gap. No one bothered in the nineties. New freedom regulations mean that women in their fifties should now be packing their pension

As for Married Women's NI "as advised by employers etc at the time" where did this advice come from? Why would employers give that advice? The women I knew at that time simply saw it as more money in their pockets and did not ask or consider the consequences, in the same way that many did not prepare for working an extra 5/6/7 years.

Goldiegirl

Nual wrote: »

Yes but...Its those of us born in the mid 50s who found out in our 40s that we wouldnt get a state pension until 65, and didnt think much of it because it was so far away.

But whose fault is it that these women didn't think much of it?

You can't really blame anyone except the individual in question. The information was out there, but individuals can't be forced to act on it.

I expect we've all made mistakes in life, whether financial or not.

But there's no point in blaming others for your own mistakes, which seems rife in society these days.

Savvy woman and her ilk should be advocating that women face up to decisions (or inaction) that they took in years gone by, and take responsibility for themselves, by making the best decisions now to maximise their retirement income.

There's no point in simply crying ' it's not fair', passing the blame to someone else, and STILL do nothing to help themselves.

I reiterate that I'm in my mid 50's, so I have been affected by these changes.

Linton

OldBeanz wrote: »

......

As for Married Women's NI "as advised by employers etc at the time" where did this advice come from? Why would employers give that advice? The women I knew at that time simply saw it as more money in their pockets and did not ask or consider the consequences, in the same way that many did not prepare for working an extra 5/6/7 years.

It was all to do with social attitudes prior to the 1980's. For much of the population at that time a wife's income was seen as incidental "pin money" with the real bread earner being the husband whose responsibility it was to financially support his wife. For the poorer part of the population where a wife's income may have been essential any extra saved from paying lower NI couldnt be ignored.

And of course retirement was less of a general financial concern as on average people didnt live nearly so long after leaving work.

Goldiegirl

OldBeanz wrote: »

The gripe should be about the lack of pension products available at that time to fill the gap. No one bothered in the nineties. New freedom regulations mean that women in their fifties should now be packing their pension

.

Products were available in the 1990's. Personal pensions were available. If you were in a company pension you could pay AVCs.

If people had have bothered to look into it, they would have more options today. The information was out there.

Who is to blame that nobody bothered?

Linton

Goldiegirl wrote: »

Products were available in the 1990's. Personal pensions were available. If you were in a company pension you could pay AVCs.

If people had have bothered to look into it, they would have more options today. The information was out there.

Who is to blame that nobody bothered?

Its not a question of blame. You cant blame people for not foreseeing circumstance 25 years later. Governments didnt. At that time pensions were very much a niche concern. And SERPs was going to guarantee everyone a realistic basic standard of living.

I wonder what we will be blamed for in 25 years time for not doing. After all it will be obvious that X was going to be a major problem.

coyrls

Linton wrote: »

I wonder what we will be blamed for in 25 years time for not doing. After all it will be obvious that X was going to be a major problem.

My guess is not understanding the risks of flexi access drawdown, running out of money and saying we weren't warned.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

How is it worthless when they are going to get 60% of the basic state pension for a much smaller NI payment?

Well I stand to be corrected but my understanding was that the married womans stamp did not contribute to their pension.