Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

ploddo

I had a pension forcast from the Pension Centre in 2005. This was just over nine years from my expected retirement date, I remember opening that letter and thinking, that's ok, I don't have to worry. Since nothing had really changed in my life, ie same job, same NI payments, and I already had the required number of years N.I payments credited, I have never requested another Pension Forcast, there was no reason to think it would be any different. There was no mention of having to work past my 60th birthday in that letter.

audigex

Pollycat wrote: »

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.

That's... pretty much exactly what I'm expecting to happen. Statistically, some people are going to get the bum end of the deal and be the last of each affected "bloc": but there has to be a line somewhere... those affected by this change just crept inside one bloc, sure, but at least they've missed the 4-5 changes that are going to happen before my retirement, eh?. And I don't see any evidence that anyone was 18 months before their SPA and had it moved... anyone affected would be 4-5+ years away, wouldn't they?

And I'm of a generation where SPA and retirement age are, for most people, probably going to be the same thing... my workplace pension scheme pays out at SPA, and there's no way in hell I'm going to be able to save a significant amount on top of that in order to retire early: again, being of a generation with student loans and where buying a home is only a dream for many.

I'm fortunate on that last count in that I've been able to buy a house, but I won't finish paying my mortgage until I'm 56 even assuming I stay in my first home for life... even with 10 years of saving, I'd have to put away well over 1/10th of my salary in addition to my "normal" pension contributions to be able to take early retirement. And that's assuming my (public sector) pension doesn't receive too many detrimental changes in the next 40 years - like the 3 it's had since 1990 - which mean I have to make additional savings to retire at all!

The fact is that someone affected by this petition is going to work between 6 and 15+ years of their life less than me, and is still working fewer years than a man born on the same day which is perhaps still the main point.

jem16

ploddo wrote: »

There was no mention of having to work past my 60th birthday in that letter.

So no date of state pension age mentioned? My 2004 statement had the date on it.

Pollycat

audigex wrote: »

That's... pretty much exactly what I'm expecting to happen

Yes but 20 years ago - on being advised about your SPA being changed -that wasn't what women expected.

mgdavid

Pollycat wrote: »

Yes but 20 years ago - on being advised about your SPA being changed -that wasn't what women expected.

again - why not?
It is simply staggeringly presumptious or short-sighted or illogical to have one change occur and consequently think there won't be any more.

Al.

Pollycat wrote: »

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


I meant this. Really.

If you had 'an early retirement plan', did you check the age at which you would get your state pension?

p00hsticks

Al. wrote: »

If you had 'an early retirement plan', did you check the age at which you would get your state pension?

For women in born in 1953-54, checking their SPA before deciding to take early retirement turned out to be of limited use, as that SPA was then subsequently moved back further at relatively short notice in 2011, when they may have already retired.

Pollycat

audigex wrote: »

The fact is that someone affected by this petition is going to work between 6 and 15+ years of their life less than me, and is still working fewer years than a man born on the same day which is perhaps still the main point.

It might be your main point but it's wrong.

'Fewer years'
I will be getting my state pension 3 months before a man born on the same day as me.

Al. wrote: »

If you had 'an early retirement plan', did you check the age at which you would get your state pension?

Of course I did.
When I took early retirement (in 2003), I knew my SPA was 63 years and 6 months.
It was only in 2011 that I was advised that it would be 15 months later.

mgdavid wrote: »

again - why not?
It is simply staggeringly presumptious or short-sighted or illogical to have one change occur and consequently think there won't be any more.

Oh, how I wish I had your crystal ball. :rotfl:

Al.

p00hsticks wrote: »

For women in born in 1953-54, checking their SPA before deciding to take early retirement turned out to be of limited use, as that SPA was then subsequently moved back further at relatively short notice in 2011, when they may have already retired.

That wasn't the point I was seeking clarity on, but thank you anyway.

Al.

Pollycat wrote: »

It might be your main point but it's wrong.

'Fewer years'
I will be getting my state pension 3 months before a man born on the same day as me.


Of course I did.
When I took early retirement (in 2003), I knew my SPA was 63 years and 6 months.
It was only in 2011 that I was advised that it would be 15 months later.


Oh, how I wish I had your crystal ball. :rotfl:

The issue then, relates to legislation which affects men and women, and the principle of lead in times, and not promulgation - which is what the campaign seeks revision on, generally. In 2003, did you consider that state pension age ps would be refined further?