Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

Goldiegirl

Personally, if I had taken early retirement in 2003, given the lead in times to the 1995 changes, my risk analysis would have suggested that any further changes to the state pension age wouldn't affect the date that had already been advised to me at that point.

I'm a little surprised at some of the responses Pollycat has been getting.

All she is doing is sharing her story, to illustrate a view that many on this thread share - maybe the 2011 changes are happening too quickly.

She's not whining that her life has been ruined, or her retirement plans have been 'shattered with devastating consequences'. She's just sharing her story.

Furthermore, I see no evidence that her retirement plans have failed, or weren't robust enough. From everything I've seen around MSE, Pollycat appears to be living a happy, comfortable life - I'd say her plans have worked, and are able to withstand the unexpected. I'd call that a success.

So I think some of the comments she's been getting are a little bit unnecessary.

Pollycat

Goldiegirl wrote: »

Personally, if I had taken early retirement in 2003, given the lead in times to the 1995 changes, my risk analysis would have suggested that any further changes to the state pension age wouldn't affect the date that had already been advised to me at that point.

I'm a little surprised at some of the responses Pollycat has been getting.

All she is doing is sharing her story, to illustrate a view that many on this thread share - maybe the 2011 changes are happening too quickly.

She's not whining that her life has been ruined, or her retirement plans have been 'shattered with devastating consequences'. She's just sharing her story.

Furthermore, I see no evidence that her retirement plans have failed, or weren't robust enough. From everything I've seen around MSE, Pollycat appears to be living a happy, comfortable life - I'd say her plans have worked, and are able to withstand the unexpected. I'd call that a success.

So I think some of the comments she's been getting are a little bit unnecessary.

Thanks, Goldiegirl, for understanding - and getting your analysis of me and my choice bang on.

As for your first paragraph - I am 100% in agreement.
However, it seems at least one poster believes that to not expect any further changes to the SPA I'd been aware of since 1995 was "staggeringly presumptious or short-sighted or illogical". :rotfl:

Pollycat

Al. wrote: »

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

As your question was directed at me (you quoted my post), which point were you seeking clarity on?

MoneyWorry

Was reading earlier that the cost to the taxpayer of rolling back to 60 would be 112 billion. Of course the majority of Opposition MPs will support this as they are not in power and don't have the issue of passing this on to the taxpayer.

Pollycat

MoneyWorry wrote: »

Was reading earlier that the cost to the taxpayer of rolling back to 60 would be 112 billion. Of course the majority of Opposition MPs will support this as they are not in power and don't have the issue of passing this on to the taxpayer.

If you read this thread and the other half dozen on the same subect, you will find that not everybody agrees with rolling SPA back to age 60.

I certainly don't.
I was happy with my revised SPA age of 63 years and 6 months that was communicated to me in 1995 in the move towards equality with men.

Nick_C

Pollycat wrote: »

If you read this thread and the other half dozen on the same subect, you will find that not everybody agrees with rolling SPA back to age 60.

I certainly don't.
I was happy with my revised SPA age of 63 years and 6 months that was communicated to me in 1995 in the move towards equality with men.

I can't get my SRP until I'm 66. If you could get yours at 63.5, that would be unfair.

Equal pension ages for men and women are fair (although arguably men should get their pension earlier as women live longer).

Pollycat

Nick_C wrote: »

I can't get my SRP until I'm 66. If you could get yours at 63.5, that would be unfair.

Equal pension ages for men and women are fair (although arguably men should get their pension earlier as women live longer).

Of course equal pension ages for men and women are fair.

But that wasn't always the case, was it?

You do realise that women's SPA used to be 60.......?

In 1995 this was changed but there were transitional arrangements put in place to gradually move women's SPA to 65.
Even the government at that time didn't think that it would be fair just to arbitrarily change from 60 to 65 in one fell swoop. :rotfl:

bmm78

Looking into the issue of how and when the equalisation schedule was announced, the first mention appears to have been in the 1993 November budget:

http://www.johnmajor.co.uk/page4283.html

"State pension age

Finally, I can announce one further decision which will have little immediate effect, but will certainly make a considerable difference to the affordability of the modern welfare state in the next century.

After careful consideration, the Government have decided that the state pension age should eventually be equalised at the age of 65. The change will be phased in over ten years, starting in the year 2010, so it will not affect anyone currently aged 44 or older. By the year 2020, the state pension age in Britain will be broadly in line with that of most of our industrial competitors, although we will still have more generous arrangements than in the United States, where the pension age is to be equalised at the age of 67. All developed countries are making similar changes for similar reasons. Women nowadays tend to spend more of their lives in paid employment. They also live longer than men. Pension schemes need to recognise this, and end the current discrimination between the sexes.

In the next century, the ratio of working people to retired people will fall sharply, and the burdens on taxpayers will rise. The Government's decision will moderate those burdens, eventually by some £5 billion a year, and so help to ensure that they are sustainable. The basic pension is, and will remain, a cornerstone of the welfare state. The Government are committed to it and to retaining its value.

The proposals on social security overall that I have announced today will in themselves save some £2 billion a year by 1996-97. Nevertheless, even taking these savings into account, we will still be spending £5 billion more on social security in 1996-97 than we planned last year. The social security budget will continue to grow in real terms, but at a more affordable rate than we have seen in recent years. At the same time, we have honoured our manifesto commitments, we have fully protected the real value of pensions and benefits, and we have provided generous help with fuel bills. These are not short-term measures to deal with today's problems. The Government have the courage to take a clear and far-sighted view of the modern social security system. We must make sure that it is a system that future generations will be able to afford. This Government will never take part in any attempt to dismantle the welfare state. We intend to see a better welfare state, well run, well judged and one that meets the priorities of modern society. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will fill out the details in his uprating statement tomorrow"

It was actually Ken Clarke's first budget, and as it does now attracts a lot of media coverage both on television and in print the following day. The budget was and is a mainstream event that dominates the news.

The wording in the speech is pretty clear and there is little ambiguity as to what was going to happen. A key point such as this would surely have attracted a reasonable amount of media attention and discussion.

This is interesting in light of Paul Lewis' evidence to the W&P committee:

Paul Lewis: No, I don’t think that. I think communication could have been done earlier. If
you look back to 1995, the then Conservative Government put it off for a year because
they were too afraid of the political consequences of telling women this was going to
happen. When they did it, they then did not tell anyone because, again, I don’t think they
wanted the consequences. I did a brief press cuttings search, and there was almost no
coverage in the press—tiny bits at the back of the business pages. Nothing major. I think
that is probably also true of “Money Box”, but I couldn’t say.

Surely if the government were looking to hide this news, they wouldn't have included it as a key point in the budget statement? Lewis' suggestion that there was almost no coverage in the press not only contradicts the research of other journalists, but seems implausible given the publicity the budget attracts. Maybe he was looking in the wrong time/place for his research?

jem16

bmm78 wrote: »

Surely if the government were looking to hide this news, they wouldn't have included it as a key point in the budget statement? Lewis' suggestion that there was almost no coverage in the press not only contradicts the research of other journalists, but seems implausible given the publicity the budget attracts. Maybe he was looking in the wrong time/place for his research?

Others have found press coverage in various press releases, including one covered for Saga by Paul Lewis in 2001.

missbiggles1

bmm78 wrote: »

Looking into the issue of how and when the equalisation schedule was announced, the first mention appears to have been in the 1993 November budget:

http://www.johnmajor.co.uk/page4283.html

"State pension age

Finally, I can announce one further decision which will have little immediate effect, but will certainly make a considerable difference to the affordability of the modern welfare state in the next century.

After careful consideration, the Government have decided that the state pension age should eventually be equalised at the age of 65. The change will be phased in over ten years, starting in the year 2010, so it will not affect anyone currently aged 44 or older. By the year 2020, the state pension age in Britain will be broadly in line with that of most of our industrial competitors, although we will still have more generous arrangements than in the United States, where the pension age is to be equalised at the age of 67. All developed countries are making similar changes for similar reasons. Women nowadays tend to spend more of their lives in paid employment. They also live longer than men. Pension schemes need to recognise this, and end the current discrimination between the sexes.

In the next century, the ratio of working people to retired people will fall sharply, and the burdens on taxpayers will rise. The Government's decision will moderate those burdens, eventually by some £5 billion a year, and so help to ensure that they are sustainable. The basic pension is, and will remain, a cornerstone of the welfare state. The Government are committed to it and to retaining its value.

The proposals on social security overall that I have announced today will in themselves save some £2 billion a year by 1996-97. Nevertheless, even taking these savings into account, we will still be spending £5 billion more on social security in 1996-97 than we planned last year. The social security budget will continue to grow in real terms, but at a more affordable rate than we have seen in recent years. At the same time, we have honoured our manifesto commitments, we have fully protected the real value of pensions and benefits, and we have provided generous help with fuel bills. These are not short-term measures to deal with today's problems. The Government have the courage to take a clear and far-sighted view of the modern social security system. We must make sure that it is a system that future generations will be able to afford. This Government will never take part in any attempt to dismantle the welfare state. We intend to see a better welfare state, well run, well judged and one that meets the priorities of modern society. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will fill out the details in his uprating statement tomorrow"

It was actually Ken Clarke's first budget, and as it does now attracts a lot of media coverage both on television and in print the following day. The budget was and is a mainstream event that dominates the news.

The wording in the speech is pretty clear and there is little ambiguity as to what was going to happen. A key point such as this would surely have attracted a reasonable amount of media attention and discussion.

This is interesting in light of Paul Lewis' evidence to the W&P committee:

Paul Lewis: No, I don’t think that. I think communication could have been done earlier. If
you look back to 1995, the then Conservative Government put it off for a year because
they were too afraid of the political consequences of telling women this was going to
happen. When they did it, they then did not tell anyone because, again, I don’t think they
wanted the consequences. I did a brief press cuttings search, and there was almost no
coverage in the press—tiny bits at the back of the business pages. Nothing major. I think
that is probably also true of “Money Box”, but I couldn’t say.

Surely if the government were looking to hide this news, they wouldn't have included it as a key point in the budget statement? Lewis' suggestion that there was almost no coverage in the press not only contradicts the research of other journalists, but seems implausible given the publicity the budget attracts. Maybe he was looking in the wrong time/place for his research?

I'm glad you've quoted this because I was sure I knew of the changes a couple of years before 1995 but haven't been able to find the proof.

I remember exactly where I was when I was told about it because I thought that they were going to change it in one fell swoop and, as my birthday was 5 months after the applicable date, I almost went in to shock! I was so pleased when I could go home and watch the news (no internet then) and found that it would only delay my retirement date by about 6 months because of the sliding scale.