MSE News: Women's state pension petition gathers over 50,000 signatures

Malthusian

I think the discussion on whether the discussion on WASPI has exhausted itself has exhausted itself.

Pollycat

Malthusian wrote: »

I think the discussion on whether the discussion on WASPI has exhausted itself has exhausted itself.

Then feel free to opt out.......:D

Malthusian

RickyB2000 wrote:

I would certainly say young people WONT have something better. They will have something much worse. Pretty much across the board (pensions, taxes, student loans, retirement dates etc). The last thing I would want to see is them delay this SP age change and increase the burden on young people somewhere to make up the shortfall.

Leaving taxes and student loans to one side - the reason for the state pension age increase and the increase in retirement ages is because the young people will live longer than people retiring today. At the risk of Pollyannaism, having a few extra years of life and everything to enjoy in it is more important than having a few extra years on the State Pension. Someone born in the 1980s will almost certainly get more State Pension than someone born in the 50s or 30s, because although their State Pension starts later it will stop later still. (Due to the reluctance of government to increase the State Pension age, this won't necessarily hold over shorter age gaps.)

saver861

Pollycat wrote: »

Because you keep saying that the discussion on WASPI has exhausted itself:

I think I've tried to explain my point as fully as I can.

While not wishing to appear impolite, nonetheless, I won't be responding further on this.

saver861

Malthusian wrote: »

Someone born in the 1980s will almost certainly get more State Pension than someone born in the 50s or 30s, because although their State Pension starts later it will stop later still. (Due to the reluctance of government to increase the State Pension age, this won't necessarily hold over shorter age gaps.)

Well if you go back a few decades, its likely that many only did not get to collect their state pension for very long in comparison. Neither of my parents even lived to their spa.

The current government aims are that people on average, should not spend more that than a third of their adult life on pension.

RickyB2000

Malthusian wrote: »

Leaving taxes and student loans to one side - the reason for the state pension age increase and the increase in retirement ages is because the young people will live longer than people retiring today. At the risk of Pollyannaism, having a few extra years of life and everything to enjoy in it is more important than having a few extra years on the State Pension. Someone born in the 1980s will almost certainly get more State Pension than someone born in the 50s or 30s, because although their State Pension starts later it will stop later still. (Due to the reluctance of government to increase the State Pension age, this won't necessarily hold over shorter age gaps.)

It's an interesting one, have people's max age increased, or is it just that more people are surviving to that max age. For example, apparently someone aged 65 today is likely to have a life expectancy of ~83 years (pretty similar to someone born today). When they were born in 1950 their life expectancy was 65 years. If true, then it feels more like only some people will get many more years (not dying in 40s or 50s), rather than everyone getting a couple of extra years at the end - which would also suggest those who survive to 65 get to enjoy relatively more time in retirement now than those in the future. Obviously this is not the only cause of increased life expectancy, I wouldn't say people are not living longer (but are they in good health when they finally retire?)

Doesn't change the finacial argument as they all need to be supported.

Outer_Limits

Can you pension-savvy folk put me straight on something please?

All this uproar is about the short notice for spa's...

Someone born around the mid 1950s told me recently that she had 5 months notice that she would wouldn't qualify for the married couple's pension, nor inherit a share of her husband's pension.

(Long story but her own pension won't be much.)

Is this possible, considering the upset over the notice in this thread?

jem16

Outer_Limits wrote: »

Is this possible, considering the upset over the notice in this thread?

Apart from there being no such thing as the Married Couples pension, the simple answer is no as transitional arrangements are protecting those women.

xylophone

Someone born around the mid 1950s told me recently that she had 5 months notice that she would wouldn't qualify for the married couple's pension, nor inherit a share of her husband's pension.

For 2017 read 2016 - transitional arrangements.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/181235/derived-inherited-entitlement.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/480248/Your_State_Pension_explained_autumn_15.pdf

Has your friend obtained a new state pension statement?

https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-statement

Outer_Limits

Thanks for answering

Going by your second link xylophone she won't qualify for anything above her own limited contributions (she mentioned next April) but it looks like she may inherit some increase if widowed.

I think she is probably going to get a surprise about when her pension starts too, so yes I will urge her to get a statement, thanks.

That was very helpful