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

SnowMan

saver861 wrote: »

I'm not sure this is correct.....

Take the case of a women born in mid June 1954. She had expected to pick up her pension at age 64 under the 1995 changes. Then in 2011 that was moved again and according to the website her new spa is now 65 yrs, 8 months and 20 days. That is 21 months after the original expected date, i.e. nearly two years.

Under the 1995 changes a female born (say) 16th June 1954 would have had an SPA of 6 September 2018 (so not age 64)

That has changed to an SPA of 6 March 2020 i.e. 18 months later.

The increases under the 2011 changes were limited to 18 months

Pollycat

mumps wrote: »

I think if you look at the government site it always says don't make financial decisions based on the information so you knew you were taking a gamble. Hopefully you have enjoyed it and it was worth the gamble. The 15 months might be tough but perhaps the extra years of retirement make up for that.

In fairness, my decision to retire wasn't in any part dependent on receiving my state pension so it wasn't really a gamble.

mumps wrote: »

I thought the changes were 2011 not 2010?

You're right, my mistake.
That just makes it worse.

Pollycat wrote: »

I too took early retirment from my job (in 2003) with immediate payment of my occupational pension with the expectation of receiving my state pension on the date I'd been told I would get it - that expectation was set 8 years before I retired (1995).
7 years after my retirement, I was told that I'd have to wait an extra 15 months (that was in 2010).

I'd anticipated my pension being paid earlier for 8 years instead of 7 and had even less time to get used to the idea it was going to be 15 months later. :cool:

wacko911

As someone in my 30's looking at the ageing working population there is a fair chance I will pay into the state pension all my live and never get a return. So being delayed by 6 years is nothing.

There is no pension pot, the money I pay in today goes straight out to today's pensioners. When there is far less paying in than those getting paid out the entire ponzi scheme will fall.

gadgetmind

mumps wrote: »

I think the difference with changing the age for access to private pensions is that you don't actually lose the money.

I know at least two people whose retirement plans involved moving overseas where their private pensions could cover most of their needs from age 50. With almost zero notice, their plans were totally scuppered, and one of them was already building a property with their PCLS being required for a fair bit of the construction.

Labour raised the age to 55 in 2010 as part of their departure "poison pill" for the coalition (the other big part being 50% tax!) with zero consultation and almost zero notice.

System

It seems to me that thre are four factors here that make it almost impossible to arrive at a fully equitable system:

1) Historical inequality in women's favour, in having a lower pension age despite a longer life span.
2) The inevitabality, given a 30 + year contribution period, that changes will have have to be made at some point which to some extent will alter the goalposts for people already enrolled in the process.
3) The changing life spans of people in general, and the even more marked differences between different sections of the population.
4) The arbitrary debaring part-way through the process of some, but not all, of the various factors contributing to variations in life span.

greenglide

As someone in my 30's looking at the ageing working population there is a fair chance I will pay into the state pension all my live and never get a return. So being delayed by 6 years is nothing.

If the State Pension were to be abolished in future what do you think would happen to existing pensioners? It may have gone through multiple changes again and it may be subject to means tests, new rules for entitlement but something remotely linked will probably be still around.

There is no pension pot, the money I pay in today goes straight out to today's pensioners. When there is far less paying in than those getting paid out the entire ponzi scheme will fall.

There is no pot and there is no money being paid in.

It is funded by general taxation with the payment of NI contributions being an entitlement rule, not actual funding. Any alleged link to the National Insurance Fund is tenuous at best, it is all smoke and mirrors - none of the benefits are actually linked in any way to the health or otherwise of the fund. From 6/4/2016 the Additional Pension link will be lost anyway.

Goldiegirl

mumps wrote: »

So does that mean it is OK to give less notice because people would object to 20 years notice? I don't see the logic in that, I was talking about not having enough notice not people saying they hadn't kept up with changes.

You completely misunderstand the point of my comment


What I'm saying is, if 20 years notice was given for the 2011 changes, at the end of those 20 years, there'd still be people who'd think they hadn't been given enough notice of the changes or weren't aware of the changes.

JezR

No contribution to the National Insurance Fund has come from general taxation since 1997, ended by Gordon Brown.

The NIF ballooned into a large surplus in the early 2000s and was thought by some at the time sufficient to pay a general pension increase on its own.

In recent years the surplus has reduced sharply initially from recession and more latterly slow growth in earnings. It may need to be topped up again soon, although removing the top slice on contributions diverted by Brown to the NHS might help (and if all NI contributions had gone into the fund instead of being appropriated elsewhere before reaching it the issue probably wouldn't have arisen).

saver861

Goldiegirl wrote: »

You completely misunderstand the point of my comment


What I'm saying is, if 20 years notice was given for the 2011 changes, at the end of those 20 years, there'd still be people who'd think they hadn't been given enough notice of the changes or weren't aware of the changes.

That's red herring.

The fact is those who found out in 2011 the retirement date they had been working towards is moved - 18 months in some cases. They lose out, its not about not knowing the changes were coming. It is about having enough time to adapt - and for many women born in the 50's, they have been impacted more negatively than many others.

Why would we say - ah well, that's ok - tough luck for them. It should have been smoothed out fairly so that a certain group does not shoulder a bigger burden than others.

OldBeanz

saver861 wrote: »

...

Why would we say - ah well, that's ok - tough luck for them. It should have been smoothed out fairly so that a certain group does not shoulder a bigger burden than others.

Presumably you are talking about men. Pay equality since the early seventies when the pension age should have been aligned.