Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

Pollycat

agent69 wrote: »

I'm curious what you mean by 'led to believe'?

OK, 'led to believe' is not actually the correct term.

I was told by the Government around 1995 that my SPA would be put back from age 60 to age 63 and 6 months - and that stayed the same until the changes in 2011.

agent69 wrote: »

Either way I don't see that having 5 years notice that you need to work for another 15 months should ruin your life. I assume the simple answer is to work a bit longer?

Did I say it has 'ruined my life'?

Saying it's 'not fine' with me is hardly bleating that it's 'ruined my life', is it?

agent69 wrote: »

Irked yes, but still in a better position than a man of equal age.

Irked, yes.

A man of equal age would have always known his SPA was 65 years.
I'm not saying this is right - just stating a fact.
I'm saying that I (and many other women of similar age) were told that their SPA would be x date (as part of the move to equalisation) and then had it put back.

saver861

Pollycat wrote: »

Absolutely fine with the move to equalise the SPA for male and female.

From what I can gather, there is nobody against the equalisation. Everybody agrees they should be the same.

Pollycat wrote: »

What I'm not fine with is being led to believe that my SPA is x date for well over 15 years and then being told - less than 6 years before that x date that they've changed it again to be x date + 15 months.

The crux of the problem for most people. This is not a gender issue, but simply not enough notice issue to a somewhat longer pension age.

The government decided just two years after making the changes in 2011 that a minimum of 10 years should be given before any changes occur. However, some have had as little as 6 years noticed and up to an additional 18 months to wait. Most reasonable people would see this as unreasonable!

dunstonh

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I do have a problem with the retirement age being made later and later. Expecting people to continue to work at an elderly age is not right IMO. It also takes work away from the young.

People live longer. So, it has to change. Someone who is aged 65 today will likely live longer than someone aged 45 in 1970.

The young would have to pay for you if the retirement age was earlier. So, there is no moral high ground to be claimed here. Just hard and cold reality that there is not enough money in the public coffers to allow it.

noh

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

I have no problem with the retirement age being the same for women as it is for men.


However, perhaps if women did have true equality with men more women would feel the same.


I do have a problem with the retirement age being made later and later. Expecting people to continue to work at an elderly age is not right IMO. It also takes work away from the young.

The retirement age is not being made later and later.
It is the age at which state retirement benefit is paid that is being increased.
An individual is free to retire from work at any age they like.

saver861

dunstonh wrote: »

The young would have to pay for you if the retirement age was earlier. So, there is no moral high ground to be claimed here. Just hard and cold reality that there is not enough money in the public coffers to allow it.

But thats not the problem though is it in this case. From what I can gather, everyone accepts equalisation and everyone accepts that people live longer and retirement ages will go up.

Where the retirement is going up most will have more than half of their working life to make adjustments. The problem is that many impacted by the additional spa have had as little as 6 years to make adjustments. That is the big difference.

Many that I speak to who have retirement ages of 67 say they do not intend to work until then. They will be making necessary arrangements to allow them to retire early. They have sufficient notice to allow them to do it.

agent69

Pollycat wrote: »

Did I say it has 'ruined my life'?

So if you're in favour of equality and the change (towards equality) hasn't had a major impact on you, what have you got to complain about? It comes across that you are having a moan just for the sake of it.

For the first 50 years of my life I was told that I would retire at 65. Then somebody decided to increase it to 66. That's life, just got to live with it and move on.

System

Surely the simplest answer is those that are working have to carry on until 65 only get paid the pension amount. Any difference between pension and what they actually earn can go in a pot to pay those who are not working?

dunstonh

But thats not the problem though is it in this case. From what I can gather, everyone accepts equalisation and everyone accepts that people live longer and retirement ages will go up.

The person I was responding too doesnt believe it should go up. I think most do understand it if they think logically. However, you will find those that think everyone should get it from 60 but they dont say how they are going to pay for it.

The problem is that many impacted by the additional spa have had as little as 6 years to make adjustments. That is the big difference.

We are now on 5 pages on this thread (and the other thread has multiple pages too) and it is clear that most people think the last change was too short and that the 1995 timescale was fair. I am not sure we need to keep repeating that point now.

Many that I speak to who have retirement ages of 67 say they do not intend to work until then. They will be making necessary arrangements to allow them to retire early. They have sufficient notice to allow them to do it.

Sensible people with their heads screwed on.

Pollycat

agent69 wrote: »

So if you're in favour of equality and the change (towards equality) has had a major impact on you, what have you got to complain about? It comes across that you are having a moan just for the sake of it.

I don't really care how it comes across to you - because my point is shared by a large number of posters on this and the other thread.

It's not the move towards equality that was introduced in 1995 that I (and many others) have an issue with.

It's the very late change that came in 2011. :wall:

agent69 wrote: »

S
For the first 50 years of my life I was told that I would retire at 65. Then somebody decided to increase it to 66. That's life, just got to live with it and move on.

OK.

How much notice did you get that your SPA would be changing from 65 to 66?
FTR, it's not when you can retire, you can retire any time, it's the date that your state pension will be paid that is under discussion.

saver861

dunstonh wrote: »

The person I was responding too doesnt believe it should go up. I think most do understand it if they think logically. However, you will find those that think everyone should get it from 60 but they dont say how they are going to pay for it.

I don't think there are many out there who think the spa should remain at 60 - that's simply impossible. The only caveat I would add is that those women who paid NIC's before the 1995 change might reasonably think the years they accrued before 1995 could have been paid at 60. So if a woman started working in 1980 and had 15 years NIC's in 1995, all those years were paid on the understanding that pension would be paid at 60. They may feel shortchanged.

dunstonh wrote: »

We are now on 5 pages on this thread (and the other thread has multiple pages too) and it is clear that most people think the last change was too short and that the 1995 timescale was fair. I am not sure we need to keep repeating that point now.

That is the crux of it and, how ever often repeated, it seems many still think the change should have been done at a stroke etc. etc. However, I suspect for many, if not directly affected its not an issue.

dunstonh wrote: »

Sensible people with their heads screwed on.

Each generation learns from the one before - except those who are blind to progress.