Women SPA this week

barnstar2077

I can see why the government need to raise retirement ages, but they should have started doing it a lot earlier and in smaller well advertised increments. Life expectancy has been improving for a very long time and has only recently started to plateau, so why didn't they see the problem coming?

lisyloo

barnstar2077 wrote: »

I can see why the government need to raise retirement ages, but they should have started doing it a lot earlier and in smaller well advertised increments. Life expectancy has been improving for a very long time and has only recently started to plateau, so why didn't they see the problem coming?

Governments have short terms and don’t have that much interest in resolving long term problems that will make them unpopular in the short term, but agree the demographics have been obvious for a long time.

Thrugelmir

barnstar2077 wrote: »

I can see why the government need to raise retirement ages, but they should have started doing it a lot earlier

Hindsight is a wonderfull human invention.

Malthusian

barnstar2077 wrote: »

I can see why the government need to raise retirement ages, but they should have started doing it a lot earlier and in smaller well advertised increments.

The increments are small. A day older equates to a day or two extra before SPA (unlike WASPI's demand that there should be a six year cliff edge between a woman born 31 Dec 1959 and one born 1 Jan 1960). They were also very well advertised. Hairdressers, teachers and checkout staff all knew about the change.

As for earlier, true, but there is never any time like the present.

Life expectancy has been improving for a very long time and has only recently started to plateau, so why didn't they see the problem coming?

Because it was easier to just get people to pay more tax or cut services.

Both politicians and commentators dishonestly go on about the existing or previous system being "unaffordable" but of course it would be perfectly affordable. It just got to the point where it was easier to raise the State Pension Age than increase the main rate of tax on earned income from 46% to 50%, or VAT from 20% to 25%, or the equivalent.

Thrugelmir wrote:

Hindsight is a wonderfull human invention.

Nothing to do with hindsight. We've known since proper records began that life expectancy is rising.

Asghar

Gers wrote: »

I wasn't affected by the 1995 act but was by the 2011 changes. I know categorically that I didn't receive any notification in 2011 or about the 2011 changes.

Did you recieve a notification, like when you left school, that you would be getting your state pension at age age 60?

lisyloo

Asghar wrote: »

Did you recieve a notification, like when you left school, that you would be getting your state pension at age age 60?

I didn’t get a notification but when I started my first full time job and joined the company pension scheme then I was presented with the facts.
I’ve been lucky with my employers but Who’s responsibility is your personal financial planning?

Anyone taking responsibility for their own financial planning would know and keep up to date with when their SPA was at regulars reviews.

I think ultimately it’s a personal responsibility although it’s undeniable that some people are less capable than others.

nigelbb

lisyloo wrote: »

Well I’m in that cohort and I don’t think I’ve got a legitimate grievance at all.
In fact I’m advantaged through probably living longer.
I’ve know since 1995 it was going to be equalised so plenty of time.

Glad you feel like that. As one of the last people to get my state pension at the age promised when I entered the workforce I suppose that I should feel privileged. I can only say that I would have felt somewhat disgruntled if I had been told halfway through my working life that I would have to work another five years for my pension. I would however have been very disgruntled if ten years before I was due to receive my pension I was informed that I would have to wait another couple of years.

lisyloo

nigelbb wrote: »

Glad you feel like that. As one of the last people to get my state pension at the age promised when I entered the workforce I suppose that I should feel privileged. I can only say that I would have felt somewhat disgruntled if I had been told halfway through my working life that I would have to work another five years for my pension. I would however have been very disgruntled if ten years before I was due to receive my pension I was informed that I would have to wait another couple of years.

And what if you were told you were going to get Another 7 years of life, so say 5 of them working and 2 of them extra in retrirement? Compared to earlier expectations?

I’m looking it as a whole and I think my glass is more than half full with the improvements in longevity.

I think people do need to remember they are going to live longer than when they started their working lives.

I am in agreement about giving people sufficient time to adjust.
Is half a lifetime enough for a few years?? I think it is, especially if men have to work it.
It’s hard for nurses to do a physical job, but also for plumbers, roofers etc. So not sure if there is a gender difference there (probably more men doing physical work).

I do feel many (or at least a proportion) will not be fit after 65 for full time work but that’s a slightly different issue.

OldMusicGuy

nigelbb wrote: »

Glad you feel like that. As one of the last people to get my state pension at the age promised when I entered the workforce I suppose that I should feel privileged. I can only say that I would have felt somewhat disgruntled if I had been told halfway through my working life that I would have to work another five years for my pension. I would however have been very disgruntled if ten years before I was due to receive my pension I was informed that I would have to wait another couple of years.

My SP age has increased by one year, my wife's has increased by 6 years. Neither of us feel disgruntled, we accept that in order for the state to keep paying these benefits in the face of increased life expectancy and rising NHS costs from us oldies living longer, either there had to be changes like this or taxes would have to go up. We'd rather the former than the latter.

My wife was fully aware of these changes and she doesn't pay a lot of attention to financial issues or financial planning.

hugheskevi

The average State Pension is about £140 per week, so £7,280 per year.

The largest increase in State Pension age in 2011 was 18 months, so about £11,000 for someone receiving an average State Pension. So that was about 7 years of notice that income would be £11,000 lower than expected over an 18 month period.

Someone working 40 hours per week on National Minimum Wage would earn that in under 8 months. So a reasonable way of putting it was that a cohort of individuals was given 7 years of notice that they may need to work up to 8 months longer. Or save more during the time to avoid having to work longer, or consume less in retirement, as they wish.

Given the huge tuition fees imposed on the young and over a decade of pay restraint in the public sector (and in many parts of private sector), I think other groups have more legitimate grievances.