Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

Pollycat

mgdavid wrote: »

So when you did your risk analysis prior to early retirement, what mitigation did you come up with in the event any of the rules changed?
Might the obvious one be to go back to work, like t0rt0ise above?

When we did risk analysis prior to early retirement - way back in 2003, a long 8 years before the 2nd lot of changes- there was no reason to consider that any goverment would - after changing SPA once for a group of women - then hit them again with (in the scheme of things) pretty short notice.

Thanks - but I don't need suggestions for 'mitigation'.

SnowMan

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-state-pension-impact-on-an-individuals-pension-entitlement-longer-term-effects

Figure 16 above shows that in terms of median net lifetime nSP income in retirement, although on average women receive less nSP per week than men up until approximately 2040, this is offset by the fact women tend to live longer than men, so the total amount of net nSP received through the whole of retirement by women is consistently higher than that of men (by on average more than 10% for those reaching SPa between 2016 and 2060).

At face value that's a staggering statistic saying that men are those facing inequality under the new state pension.

I do hope WASPI (given their name stands for women against state pension inequality) now address this important inequality by having a petition to insist on an automatic 10% increase to all men's state pensions post 2016 :rotfl:

mgdavid

Pollycat wrote: »

When we did risk analysis prior to early retirement - way back in 2003, a long 8 years before the 2nd lot of changes- there was no reason to consider that any goverment would - after changing SPA once for a group of women - then hit them again with (in the scheme of things) pretty short notice.

Thanks - but I don't need suggestions for 'mitigation'.

Then your crystal ball was faulty.

molerat

Both myself and MrsM are affected by the 2011 changes and retired in 2009. The delays of 6.5 and 12.5 months respectively from the 1995 changes are, I consider, a minor blip as our plans were robust enough to stand up to the "!!!! happens factor".

Pollycat

mgdavid wrote: »

Then your crystal ball was faulty.

Don't be silly.

mgdavid

Pollycat wrote: »

Don't be silly.

given you don't think it's your fault and want to put the blame elsewhere it's the most polite way I could put it. Why did your plan fail when both t0rt0ise and molerat got it right?

Pollycat

mgdavid wrote: »

given you don't think it's your fault and want to put the blame elsewhere it's the most polite way I could put it. Why did your plan fail when both t0rt0ise and molerat got it right?

You appear to be labouring under the misapprehension that my early retirement financial plan failed.

Pollycat wrote: »

Thanks - but I don't need suggestions for 'mitigation'.

I meant this. Really.

audigex

Pollycat wrote: »

So how much notice did you have of your SPA of 68?
For a SPA of 68 years you must have been born around early 1980s so that gives you probably 35 or so years notice of the change.

As for 'knowing when you're retiring', a lot of women - me included did know when their SPA was.
I knew at age 42 or so that I wouldn't be receiving my SP at age 60 but instead at age 63 years and 6 months.
Fine by me - that's what equality is all about.

Then in 2011, aged 58, I was advised that my SPA wouldn't be 63 years and 6 months but 64 years and 9 months.
It's this later change that many women think was too short notice.

Plenty of notice

But I doubt that will be the last change. We (as a nation) have known for decades that the state pension age would face several jumps.

Whenever you do it, someone is going to feel like they've lost out: the only way to avoid that would be to declare the rises only apply to people born after the date the age is changed.

I understand that it's frustrating to find that you were expecting to retire in ~5 years and it was actually be ~6 years, but at the end of the day you're still retiring at 64 and 9 months, whereas I can expect to work until at least 70 and quite probably older than that. Seems like you're still getting a pretty good deal to me. Enjoy your 5 years of extra retirement over us younger generations who'll probably retire just as our bodies give up entirely.

Goldiegirl

audigex wrote: »

I understand that it's frustrating to find that you were expecting to retire in ~5 years and it was actually be ~6 years, but at the end of the day you're still retiring at 64 and 9 months, whereas I can expect to work until at least 70 and quite probably older than that. Seems like you're still getting a pretty good deal to me. Enjoy your 5 years of extra retirement over us younger generations who'll probably retire just as our bodies give up entirely.

Er.... I think Pollycat said she already retired back in 2003.


State pension age isn't always retirement age.


You don't HAVE to work until you are 70 - you can still retire earlier than that if you make plans.

Pollycat

audigex wrote: »

Plenty of notice

But I doubt that will be the last change. We (as a nation) have known for decades that the state pension age would face several jumps.

Whenever you do it, someone is going to feel like they've lost out: the only way to avoid that would be to declare the rises only apply to people born after the date the age is changed.

I understand that it's frustrating to find that you were expecting to retire in ~5 years and it was actually be ~6 years, but at the end of the day you're still retiring at 64 and 9 months, whereas I can expect to work until at least 70 and quite probably older than that. Seems like you're still getting a pretty good deal to me. Enjoy your 5 years of extra retirement over us younger generations who'll probably retire just as our bodies give up entirely.

OK, let's put it another way.
You think your SPA is 68.
18 years before you reach 68, you are told your SPA is actually going to be 71 years 6 months.
Then, 6 years before you reach the SPA you thought you had, you're told it's being put back again to 72 years & 9 months.

And for the record, it's SPA we're discussing, not retirement age.