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

Linton

RickyB2000 wrote: »

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.

The actual numbers from the ONS spreadsheet:

For someone aged 65 in 2016 average male life expectancy is now about 87. Using data from when they were born in 1951 their life expctancy would have been estimated as 69. Of those who reached 65 half would be dead before they were 76.

Someone born in 2016 has a life expectancy of 93. So yes people are living very much longer. They are also much healthier at say 65 as a far smaller % of people are dying in the 12 year period of 65-76.

jem16

bmm78 wrote: »

Not exactly anything life-changing there - save a bit more, skip a holiday or two. The response is feeble when the campaign is supposedly based on the impact of the lack of notice, rather than the impact of the changes.

I found this statement more interesting;

Lin Phillips: We are the least able to afford it. We had to be outside school. We did not have maternity leave. You gave up your job if you were having a child. You could not build up a pension. I know, because I worked for Barclays Bank when I left school and women were not allowed in the pension scheme. I went to the Halifax part-time after. Part-timers were not allowed. If I had known then what I know now, I would have chosen differently.

I'm the same age group. Not sure what "be outside school means" though - I stayed at school until age 18.

As to the rest I did have Maternity leave, I did not have to leave work to have my children although I chose to do so for 5 years ( building up NI through HRP ).

I would also question why Lin did not choose to take out a private pension if neither bank offered her one just like the many thousands of people who did when their employer did not offer a scheme.

RickyB2000

Linton wrote: »

The actual numbers from the ONS spreadsheet:

For someone aged 65 in 2016 average male life expectancy is now about 87. Using data from when they were born in 1951 their life expctancy would have been estimated as 69. Of those who reached 65 half would be dead before they were 76.

Someone born in 2016 has a life expectancy of 93. So yes people are living very much longer. They are also much healthier at say 65 as a far smaller % of people are dying in the 12 year period of 65-76.

It would be good to see some data regarding being healthier. We are quite good at keeping people alive with debilitating or limiting conditions that would have killed them before. I certainly hope we are living healthier!

With regards to retirement age, the original comment was in context to this thread, where those in the 1950's want to retire at 60 which must put them in an enviable position compared to younger generations. I know socially, financially and even from an equality point of view it makes sense, but it still means those who retire at 60 today would get over 25 years in retirement. With a retirement age of 67, the ONS chart only goes up to 2064 (so born in 1999) and they are just getting 25 years again (and it assumes they didn't increase the retirement age beyond 67). So in this context the young (women) are worse off than their predecessors.

Never mind the fact that retirement planning feels a lot harder for young people with defined contribution pensions - people may be forced to work a lot longer if their defined contribution pension is not what they hoped (as the state pension is not exactly enough to let you live in luxury). The previous generations had their nice defined benefit pensions they could plan around (I know, a sweeping generalisation - a lot of the previous generation would have been in defined contribution pensions as well)!

patanne

I think a lot of this is about accepting personal responsibility. I certainly knew by the late 80s that I was going to have a problem if I HAD to retire at 60 (in 2006). I was 'lucky' in that I found a job where I could state my retirement age as 65 so that the pension I could accumulate in that job would, with my state pension, finance my retirement. But why would you expect someone else to accept responsibility for your future when you don't accept any yourself. This is why I have such sympathy for those affected by the 2011 changes, they just haven't had time to accept the reponsibility for the affect of those changes.

As for the 1995 changes, I remember discussing these well before 1995 including hoping that it would involve a reduction for men as well as an increase for women. I also find it difficult to believe that any woman in her 40s & 50s doesn't know about the changes. I'm not saying that they know just when they are retiring but they know it is not at 60. I've heard it discussed at work, amongst friends and even in the hairdressers.

Linton

RickyB2000 wrote: »

..... With a retirement age of 67, the ONS chart only goes up to 2064 (so born in 1999) and they are just getting 25 years again (and it assumes they didn't increase the retirement age beyond 67). So in this context the young (women) are worse off than their predecessors.

....

You need to look at the "cohort" figures from the ONS spreadsheet. These are given by year of birth from 1951 to 2060 against survivors at each age.. So the real problem with them is those born prior to 1951, not those born recently.

RickyB2000

jem16 wrote: »

I found this statement more interesting;



I'm the same age group. Not sure what "be outside school means" though - I stayed at school until age 18.

As to the rest I did have Maternity leave, I did not have to leave work to have my children although I chose to do so for 5 years ( building up NI through HRP ).

I would also question why Lin did not choose to take out a private pension if neither bank offered her one just like the many thousands of people who did when their employer did not offer a scheme.

I assume they mean outside the school gates at 3:30 to collect children so couldn't work.

Isn't a retirement date arguably a random line in the sand? What changes between 59 and 60? The only thing I can think of is people who have taken early retirement in say their mid 50's with just enough savings to get them to 60. Is this likely to be a large group (you would think these are the ones better and planning and keeping on top of the detail)? I guess these people may now have a gap to fill to 67 due to 2011 change. Not to say I wouldn't be miffed by the change, who doesn't want to retire as early as possible (or at least get some extra cash), esp if it was an inferred 'guarentee'

RickyB2000

Linton wrote: »

You need to look at the "cohort" figures from the ONS spreadsheet. These are given by year of birth from 1951 to 2060 against survivors at each age.. So the real problem with them is those born prior to 1951, not those born recently.

I was looking at this one:

2014-based expectation of life, 1981-2064, principal projection, United Kingdom (Excel sheet 596Kb) 11-Dec-2015

I get the same outcome using the women's cohorts chart, though the time in retirement of a women aged 60 today changes to 28 years, with the predicted time in retirement for someone born in 1999 who reaches 67 is ~27 years.

Goldiegirl

The Lin Phillips comments interested me..... Because, as a coincidence, my employment history is also Barclays and Halifax.

I'm assuming she must be about 7 years older than me, but certainly when I joined Barlcays in 1976, women were allowed in the pension scheme. Indeed, I've still got the paperwork, so that I can claim a small pension from them in a few years time.

I joined Halifax in 1981, and there were part timers in the pension scheme at that time.

So, even if when she started her jobs she wasn't able to, she would have been able to join the pension schemes within a few years. And both schemes were excellent final salary schemes.

Plus, as she's worked in the financial world, you have hoped she was at least a little bit financially aware, and would have kept up with finance related things in the news.

All sounds a bit disingenuous to me!

jem16

Goldiegirl wrote: »

I joined Halifax in 1981, and there were part timers in the pension scheme at that time.

So, even if when she started her jobs she wasn't able to, she would have been able to join the pension schemes within a few years. And both schemes were excellent final salary schemes.

Within teaching it used to be that part-timers were not automatically enrolled in the pension scheme but had to opt in. Later that changed to had to opt out just like full-time staff. So yes part-timers were still allowed in the scheme and I would expect most schemes were like that to be honest.

Plus, as she's worked in the financial world, you have hoped she was at least a little bit financially aware, and would have kept up with finance related things in the news.

All sounds a bit disingenuous to me!

Agreed. It's amazing what people "forget" when they want to.

jem16

RickyB2000 wrote: »

I assume they mean outside the school gates at 3:30 to collect children so couldn't work.

That's a possibility. I had that issue too but had to make arrangements for my children to be collected as and when necessary.

I guess these people may now have a gap to fill to 67 due to 2011 change.

Yes I have that gap to fill till age 66. I thought it was 65 but is now 66. However as I did not stick my head in the sand for 20 years I will manage although I would rather have had more notice for the 2011 changes.

Those that took no notice of the 1995 changes have no-one to blame but themselves as the information was there if you wanted to educate yourself.