Employment pension for woman after 60

xylophone

The situation described in my post above is unfair on women (as it will be on men) who were members of contracted out occupational schemes - they quite reasonably expected that the State Pension/Scheme Pension arrangement would be honoured.

The public service schemes recognised the inequity and compensated for it.

There is also the question of the change of index linking to CPI rather than RPI - those whose schemes link to RPI will have noticed ......

xylophone

Apropos of the above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Webb


"In a letter dated 12 April 2010,[6] Webb said on behalf of the Liberal Democrats: "We are very clear that all accrued rights should be honoured: a pension promise made should be a pension promise kept."

Oh yeah?:mad:

Lincsdebt

Regarding those who think I should not be complaining, I wasn't, but am entitled to a personal opinion that this move is brutal for some women. I knew the date would be changing, in my case it was to around 63 I think. Suddenly it went up another three years. I was just asking why there is disparity between my and my husband's old work pension.


I am lucky as I am still fully employed at 61, that isn't the case for a lot of women my age. They struggle to find any kind of work, as employers are still mainly ageist. This isn't confined to women I know, older men are in the same position, but that is a separate issue to the pension.


It would have been better if the government had moved the pension age for both sexes to, say 63, then moved it gradually to 66 or whatever it will be in the future. But governments only care about saving money don't they?

kidmugsy

Lincsdebt wrote: »

But governments only care about saving money don't they?

On the contrary, this government and its predecessor have been hosing money at pensioners because pensioners tend to vote.

saver861

Lincsdebt wrote: »

I have a (small) personal pension from a previous employer's final salary scheme, which I took in my late 50s. I was 60 last year and it went up by only about £1 a month, having previously increased by around 5%.

I called up and asked why, to be told, "it's because you are now getting a State Pension". I pointed out that I am not now entitled to this until I am 66, so my situation was no different from last year but they said that was the way it is.

Well that does seem incorrect. I would look further into it. The system seems to not have allowed for the change in spa. However, the curiosity would be that the change from 60 was announced in 1995, so why have the pension company not changed their policy?

Lincsdebt wrote: »

Regarding those who think I should not be complaining, I wasn't, but am entitled to a personal opinion that this move is brutal for some women.

Well I think you would have a right to complaint and opinion on the above case. Unfortunately there are some on here who don't think that should be the case and thus they follow the herd.

Lincsdebt wrote: »

It would have been better if the government had moved the pension age for both sexes to, say 63, then moved it gradually to 66 or whatever it will be in the future. But governments only care about saving money don't they?

Clearly it is right that everything is equalised - no question about that. The mess was made in 2011 changes however and there are many out there who have had these changes impacted on them without the 10 years notice that the government themselves say should be the minimum.

So, I'd say you do have a right to complain and have an opinion....

xylophone

On the contrary, this government and its predecessor have been hosing money at pensioners because pensioners tend to vote.

Regardless of whether or not this is the case, the situation outlined in my previous post 2 is not fair - and as for the statement by Steve Webb.....

And those in schemes with an RPI link would quite reasonably have expected their GMPs to be RPI linked as they were when they became members of their schemes - except in the rare year that CPI equals or exceeds RPI, these pensioners have lost out.

Those members of occupational schemes who retire in the next few years will also lose out as their GMP will no longer be index linked through the state pension - and what did Webb say about promises kept?

jem16

Lincsdebt wrote: »

I knew the date would be changing, in my case it was to around 63 I think. Suddenly it went up another three years.

Nobody's pension age suddenly went up another three years so you have something wrong there with your ages.

The 2011 Act had a maximum of 18 months further increase relative to the 1995 Act.

What month and year were you born? If you were 60 last year, that would be 1955 sometime. From March 1955 it was 65 after the 1995 Act and then became 66 so I doubt the 2nd increase was much more than 12 months for you.

Lincsdebt

jem16 wrote: »

What month and year were you born? If you were 60 last year, that would be 1955 sometime. From March 1955 it was 65 after the 1995 Act and then became 66 so I doubt the 2nd increase was much more than 12 months for you.

It is immaterial now what my SP age was, in any case it wasn't 65 ever.

jem16

Lincsdebt wrote: »

It is immaterial now what my SP age was, in any case it wasn't 65 ever.

If you were born after March 1955, it became 65 after the 1995 Act. You can check here.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/26/schedule/4/enacted

If your birthday was in January to March, it was no more than 4 months short of your 65th birthday.

It was never 63.

Lincsdebt

Sorry but this has all gone off on a tangent now and I feel that I am being made out to be a liar. If you refer to my original question it was as to why I no longer get an increase on an employment pension I had.


I'm entitled to my view about having started work at 16 and thinking I could retire at 60, but it is now 66. But it has changed more than I expected, and there is nothing I can do about it. This is my personal opinion. Thank you.