MSE News: Retirement age hike has left women hundreds of pounds worse off

Former_MSE_Megan_F

More than one million women whose retirement was delayed by state pension changes have lost out on an average £32 a week, according to a new report...

'Retirement age hike has left women hundreds of pounds worse off'

Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply. If you aren’t sure how it all works, read our New to Forum? Intro Guide.

ceecee1

This is already common knowledge - how exactly is this news ?

rtho782

Women are now only better off than men in that they get to claim their pension for longer due to longer life expectancy! What a tragedy!

It's the young people that are getting shafted, paying for the pensions of boomers today and then not getting their own until probably 75 by the time I retire!

MABLE

Thats the price of equality.

amersall

Yea this is old news, why do this group of women think they are more entitled than everyone else to get their pension early?, everyone has to wait, not just these ladies.
I agree with this

A Department for Work and Pensions spokesman said: "The decision to equalise and increase the state pension age is both fair and sustainable for future generations and in line with continuing rises in life expectancy.

BLB53

This £5bn saving will go a little way to offset the billions in state pension paid to women from age 60 over many decades.

Mortgagefreeman

The GRASPI's want SP at age 60 for ALL 50's born women. A cursorary glance at their Leadership, shows a group of women who are hardly on the 'breadline'

http://www.waspi.co.uk/meet-the-team

Jane Cowley, Communications and PR, lives in a rather grand farmhouse in Northumberland. Sue Beevers, their Legal Director, lives here.

http://www.floddenedgefarmequestriancentre.com

Quite why these people need their SP early is beyond belief.

Yes,provide additional help for the needy, but not for the greedy.

JezR

Some other conclusions of the report and statements made by authors, not highlighted by MSE article:

• The higher rates of income poverty caused by the higher state pension age are not persistent in the sense that there is no impact of the reform on income poverty rates once women reach their, now higher, state pension age.
  
• The same reform increases the age that single men can claim Pension Credit from 60 to 63 over the same period. 25% of men at these ages are single, and are, on average, poorer than those men who are in couples. The reform reduces benefit incomes of single men aged 60 to 62 by an average of £21 per week (from a pre-reform average of £89), and increases their income poverty rates by 6.1 percentage points (from a pre-reform rate of 23.4%).
  
• The tax and benefit system is much more generous to those above the state pension age than those below it.
  
• Female state pension age today is almost 64, up from 60 in 2010. However increased longevity means that on average they can expect to receive the pension for 25 years which is as long as women reaching the state pension age at 60 in 1993. Even when the state pension age hits 66 in 2020 women reaching the state pension age then will receive their pension for 23 years on average, comparable to the length of time for those reaching the state pension age at 60 in 1987.

Full report is here.

GunJack

I still don't get why they are worse off by working a few years longer, are they all saying their earnings are less than the expected pension? 20hrs a week at min wage is more than what the majority of them would have expected as state pension, surely?? Add to that the extra years of added new state pension for keeping working, it doesn't add up....

JezR

The report indicates that just under half of women aged 60-63 in the period had any paid work, split roughly equally between part and full time. This is a rise of about 10 percentage points overall compared with pre-2010. About a third were in receipt of occupational pensions. Roughly a quarter were in receipt of state benefits, down from over 99%.

GunJack

JezR wrote: »

Roughly a quarter were in receipt of state benefits, down from over 99%.

I assume this is a direct result of them not getting SP, which is classed as a benefit, and the 25% made up of mainly ill-health and/or unemployment benefits?