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

Pollycat

Nual wrote: »

lets sort out the women first and then there is a chance to make things better for the worn out men too

Why?

The women are being sorted out.
They are being brought on equal terms with men.

Mortgagefreeman

I can't find the article, but read recently, that if the Government met WASPI demands, it would cost every Taxpayer an additional £2,000 :eek:

datlex

I'm penalising the government for doing this by upping my contributions to my private pension so that they have to pay me back more in tax relief. I can afford the extra. I would suggest any woman who can afford to pay extra into their pensions does the same.

colsten

DairyQueen wrote: »

I think I would also be feeling a tad resentful if I had been born in March 1954 as my retirement age would be a full 3.5 years after women born only a year earlier.

It is actually 2.5 years as there is 1 year of age difference between these two people.

colsten

Mortgagefreeman wrote: »

I can't find the article, but read recently, that if the Government met WASPI demands, it would cost every Taxpayer an additional £2,000 :eek:

That is probably a conservative figure. There are around 30 million workers, of which I believe only 23 million pay tax.

According to one of the reports published by the Works and Pensions Select Committee last year, the cost of WASPI would be "at least £77 billion by 2020-21". That would be over £3,300 on average per taxpayer. To that, we'd need to add additional claims that no doubt would be made by men and by younger people (e.g. those born in the early 1960s - - and where would it end?)

colsten

Nual wrote: »

The disparity in age was because men tended to marry women younger than themselves and women tended not to work or paid a married women's stamp, relying on their husband's pension in retirement. So both had state pension income at the same time.

What evidence do you have that this was the reason for the 5 year difference in state pension age?

colsten

datlex wrote: »

I'm penalising the government for doing this by upping my contributions to my private pension so that they have to pay me back more in tax relief. I can afford the extra. I would suggest any woman who can afford to pay extra into their pensions does the same.

Penalising the Government? Did you mean penalising the taxpayer? I do agree with your action and recommendation though

Silvertabby

“ The disparity in age was because men tended to marry women younger than themselves and women tended not to work or paid a married women's stamp, relying on their husband's pension in retirement. So both had state pension income at the same time.
Originally posted by Nual ”

What evidence do you have that this was the reason for the 5 year difference in state pension age? Posted by colsten

Women's State pension age was reduced from 65 to 60 in the early 1940s - but the intention was not to pay women their pensions early, as only a tiny handful of married women actually qualified for a pension in their own right. War work apart, the majority of married women gave up work when they married/when the kiddies came along, and so didn't accrue any pension rights. There was no such thing as home responsibility pension credits or the 'married woman's stamp' in those days either.

Nual is right when he/she says that women tended to be 3 to 5 years younger than their husbands. Men couldn't claim the full married man's State pension at 65 unless his wife was also State pension age (the fact that she didn't actually get a pension was by-the-by) and so the reduction from 65 to 60 for women was simply the easiest way round this problem.

Some ministers protested against this move on the grounds that single women, who had no choice but to work, would 'unfairly' benefit by getting their pensions at 60 - but this was dismissed on the grounds that the benefit to men was more important than the benefit to a lesser number of women.

antrobus

Silvertabby wrote: »

Women's State pension age was reduced from 65 to 60 in the early 1940s -

In the Old Age and Widows Pensions Act 1940. But the pre-war state pension scheme no longer exists.

The Basic State Pension began in 1948 as a result of the National Insurance Act 1946. The key thing about the BSP was that it was both universal and not means tested. Which wasn't the case before. The pension age for BSP was 60 for women from the get-so.

Presumably there was some rationale behind this decision, and it might well have been the same rationale put forward in 1940. I'm not sure it matters any more. We are now in the 21st century, and equality prevails.

bmm78

Nual wrote: »

The disparity in age was because men tended to marry women younger than themselves and women tended not to work or paid a married women's stamp, relying on their husband's pension in retirement. So both had state pension income at the same time.

http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/34801/1/PT120AgeDifference.pdf

The most common age gap throughout the 20th century was the husband being 1-2 years older than the wife.