ex-minister Steve Webb admits bad decision

p00hsticks

GibbsRule_No3 wrote: »

Do we know why they could not have adjusted the extra time we need to do and phased it in, rather than this penalising jump?

I think the justification was that they needed to speed up the increase of womens pension's age to 66 in order that they could then immediately start moving both men and women's pensions ages up for those born slightly later from 66 to 67

Basically, successive governments throughout the latter half of the last century refused to make any adjustments to the SPA to reflect increasing longevity for so long that they're now racing to make sure that pensions are affordable for the taxpayers of this country.

grey_gym_sock

there's no good reason why they couldn't have stuck with the plan (announced c. 1995, well in advance) to increase the SPA for women to 65 by 2020, and then moved everybody to 66 a couple of years after that. IMHO, it's a good principle to give ppl at least 10 years' notice of changes.

that wouldn't have forced them to delay the rise to 67, now scheduled for 2028, IIRC.

DaveMcG

MPD wrote: »

Equality in all things except pension age.

Finish this sentence "I should get my pension earlier than a man born on the same day because..."

You forget that equality could easily have been achieved by reducing the male retirement age and it was bringing forward the increase to 66 in the male retirement age that particularly disadvantaged this group of women.

MARTYM8`

MPD wrote: »

Equality in all things except pension age.

Finish this sentence "I should get my pension earlier than a man born on the same day because..."

I agree. Don't suppose there will be much sympathy from today's 20, 30 and 40 somethings who will be lucky to get their state pension before 70 (if ever!)

The problem is the women were led to believe they would get their pension earlier - so didn't plan for the later retirement date which the government announced.

MPD

This gives those affected longer to accrue pensions, both state and private. They will also have a higher income for longer because they are working longer. All they need to do is plan how to spend their extra income.

MPD

DaveMcG wrote: »

You forget that equality could easily have been achieved by reducing the male retirement age and it was bringing forward the increase to 66 in the male retirement age that particularly disadvantaged this group of women.

Brilliant idea - who pays? As already mentioned today's young will get their pensions even later, do we increase their taxes to pay for the older generations retirement?

DaveMcG

I was merely pointing out that your comment

Originally Posted by MPD

Finish this sentence "I should get my pension earlier than a man born on the same day because...

Was slightly straw-womanish as a woman could quite easily state that equality could be achieved by reducing the male age.

The overall funding of the state pension is another debate. It is obviously only sustainable as a manageable % of GDP. (This also applies to the non-earned income in general eg BtL.)

MPD

Looking at it another way.

I'm going to complain because some people are being treated better than me but I'm going to ignore the fact the majority of people are being treated worse.

Moan all you want (freedom of expression) as long as you accept many others, me included, will be equally vocal about the weaknesses in your argument.

CKhalvashi

MPD wrote: »

This gives those affected longer to accrue pensions, both state and private. They will also have a higher income for longer because they are working longer. All they need to do is plan how to spend their extra income.

True to an extent.

I know I won't see any form of state pension until I'm at least 70 unless some miracle happens, but it doesn't stop the fact that it'll be impossible to work 60-70 hour weeks until I reach that age.

brewerdave

MPD wrote: »

This gives those affected longer to accrue pensions, both state and private. They will also have a higher income for longer because they are working longer. All they need to do is plan how to spend their extra income.

.....except that, unless there is a big change in attitudes in the jobs market, getting or even keeping a job in one's 60s is going to become harder and harder -wait for the howls of rage when the dismissals on the grounds of lack of capability, both physical and mental, start to pile up - the tribunals will be working overtime:(