MPs debate transitional state pension arrangements for women

jamesd

Pennylane wrote: »

How about you answer my questions rather than asking more questions? Do you think what I outlined is fair? I would expect increases to be consistent.

To expand a little on what I wrote earlier, I do not think what you outlined is fair.

I am opposed to gender discrimination and support males and females having an equal portion of their adult lives with the state pension available to them and getting to that situation as rapidly as reasonably practical, with loans at student loan interest rates available to those who want to retire in the time between their old and new state pension ages, repayable over ten years. I also support a faster change for men with the same loan arrangement because what we have now is something I believe is unfair to those who are not in the baby boom generation.

I expect people to:

1. pay some attention to mass media.
2. to periodically check arrangements that are essential to their financial health, like the date and amount of state pension they can expect.

I do not require that the government individually contact everyone who may be affected but I do think that it would be a nice thing to do in the context of regularly telling people what they can expect, regardless of gender.

What you did is what I expect: noticing mass media coverage and investigating further.

I think that mass media channels like the MSE Weekly newsletter also have a useful role to play in periodically updating people with key information in small pieces with actions that can be taken.

Triumph13

Pennylane wrote: »

The whole women's pension business is inconsistent.

I've been looking at me and two old friends all born in 53. One friend was born in Feb and has to wait 9 months after her birthday to get her pension, friend born in April has to wait only 3 months. I was born in October and have to wait another 21 months. How is that fair?

From your figures I'm guessing your Feb friend was born before the 6th of the month and your April one on or after the 6th. Ms Feb will indeed have got her pension 9 months after her 62nd birthday on 6 Nov 15. Ms April will get hers on 6 Jul 16 ie 3 months after her 63rd birthday so approx. 6 months older than Ms Feb when she got hers.

If they'd had male twins they would. of course, have had to wait until their 65th birthdays so yes, it is undeed unfair that all three of you get your pensions earlier than a man would and your friends are benefitting from more unfairness than you are.

Malthusian

"Consistency" would have meant saying all women born after a certain date would instantly have had their State Pension Age changed to 65.

So assuming the Act came into force on 6 April 1995: if you were born in 5 April 1935 you would have got your SP on 5 April 1995, but if you were born on 6 April 1935, you would have got your SP on 6 April 2000.

This would have been consistent and would have been the "fairest" solution - because the disparity between the male half of the population and the female half would have been minimised. (And there would have been no need for the later 2011 Act to accelerate the process.)

However, there would obviously have been a huge hoo-hah about women born one day later having to work five years longer. So for the sake of realpolitik the inconsistent, gradual approach was taken instead.

LXdaddy

Malthusian wrote: »

"Consistency" would have meant saying all women born after a certain date would instantly have had their State Pension Age changed to 65.

So assuming the Act came into force on 6 April 1995: if you were born in 5 April 1935 you would have got your SP on 5 April 1995, but if you were born on 6 April 1935, you would have got your SP on 6 April 2000.

This would have been consistent and would have been the "fairest" solution - because the disparity between the male half of the population and the female half would have been minimised. (And there would have been no need for the later 2011 Act to accelerate the process.)

However, there would obviously have been a huge hoo-hah about women born one day later having to work five years longer. So for the sake of realpolitik the inconsistent, gradual approach was taken instead.

So now there are many more cases where being born one day later means you have to wait longer for your SP but each difference is smaller than the alternative postulated by Malthusian.


Which way is "fair"? I'm not sure how you could asses that. But it is clear that retirement ages should be harmonised. If there is to be equality it's only "fair" that men should reach their SP at the same age as women. I'd have been in favour of equalising the retirement age at 60 but that was never going to happen.

Pennylane

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osbornes-callous-raid-womens-7461381

molerat

I see no men have been robbed then ! What a load of sensationalist codswallop.

MPD

Broadly equivalent to the BS printed about Brown's pension raid.

jamesd

Well, he sort of got it right when he wrote "Equalising the retirement age for men and women is right in principle", except that still leaves women getting a state pension for longer than men. He just seems unwilling to accept that correcting wrongs has a cost that real people do have to bear and to be unwilling to have that cost paid.

bigadaj

Pennylane wrote: »

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osbornes-callous-raid-womens-7461381

Are you a knackered woman?

OldBeanz

Kinnock talking about pensions. He didn't believe in the EU until he saw the pensions that he and his wife could collect. No wonder he is now a pensions expert. Would be interesting to know the money the two of them are taking off HMG and the EU in pensions.