Women SPA this week

lisyloo

I agree with you in general, although not sure about your maths.

You talk about the largest single increase.
I’m not one of those complaining but my age went up 3 times, from 60 to 65, to 66 in 2011 And then 67 in 2014, so i have to cope with the 3 increases. Your maths needs to cater for multiple increases over the same remaining working life.

DairyQueen

Each time the 'W' word is mentioned on this forum I hear the same arguments for/against (mostly against).

All kinds of associated, but not directly related, issues of gender inequality are briefly mentioned but those issues are generally marginalised.

The specific issue of gender equality in SP age has been done to death. The consensus is that most 50s women (of whom I am one) knew about the equalisation many years prior to its implementation. The consensus is that most of us agree that it is fair and just.

I would like to hear more debate on the much bigger legacy issue of gender inequality - i.e. the inequality in non-SP pensions.

A show of hands from any male whose female spouse has a higher non-SP income/pot than him would be an interesting starting point.

Any takers?

lisyloo

At what age do you think this legacy inequality ended?

I’ve had equality (born 1968) and women born 1954 or earlier have an advantage with SP age, so how far off do you think 1954 is?

I know my mum (born 1945) didn’t get to go to uni, but would be interested in when you think we reached the point when girls weren’t told they couldn’t go to uni (only one criteria but a major one i think).

Paul_Herring

A show of hands from any male whose female spouse has a higher non-SP income/pot than him would be an interesting starting point.

We may have one in this very thread:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6008464/women-spa-this-week#15

I'm not a male with a female spouse, so my hand shall remain lowered

lisyloo

Didn’t you say??

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Your inconvenient facts don't fit the narrative, so they will be safely ignored....

:rotfl::T

Oh right you were joking.......doh

Silvertabby

“ 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.
Originally posted by barnstar2077

The most logical place to start would have been to include the re-equalisation of State pension ages in the 1975 sex equality legislation. That way, the increases could have been even more gradual - and no excuses for not knowing, as women could hardly celebrate the good bits of the new laws whilst conveniently ignoring the bad bits.

I can only assume that Harold Wilson didn't do this as he thought that it would be a vote loser - and so left it to the Tories to sort out (now, where have we heard that before?)

enthusiasticsaver

I won't get my pension until I am 66, the same age as my DH. This was known in the early 90s so people have had 25 years to prepare for it. I am sorry but the naivety and ignorance around pensions irritates me. No doubt many ignored the information given at the time and failed to take responsibility for their financial security in retirement. I spoke yet again to a supposedly clever guy who has worked for LGPS for nigh on 30 years and opted out of its very generous pension scheme because he did not want to pay out monthly for it. Now he is facing a retirement in poverty and will have to work well into his 60s. Words fail me. Same goes for women moaning about the spa. They only want equality when it suits them and I am female btw.

Pollycat

DairyQueen wrote: »

Each time the 'W' word is mentioned on this forum I hear the same arguments for/against (mostly against).

All kinds of associated, but not directly related, issues of gender inequality are briefly mentioned but those issues are generally marginalised.

The specific issue of gender equality in SP age has been done to death. The consensus is that most 50s women (of whom I am one) knew about the equalisation many years prior to its implementation. The consensus is that most of us agree that it is fair and just.

I would like to hear more debate on the much bigger legacy issue of gender inequality - i.e. the inequality in non-SP pensions.

A show of hands from any male whose female spouse has a higher non-SP income/pot than him would be an interesting starting point.

Any takers?

Why from any male with a female spouse?
Why not from the horse's mouth i.e the female with a bigger occupational pot?
I'm one.
And my OH had a well paid job in IT
The difference between us is that I worked for the same company for my whole working life and left with a good pension based on final salary.

lisyloo wrote: »

At what age do you think this legacy inequality ended?

I’ve had equality (born 1968) and women born 1954 or earlier have an advantage with SP age, so how far off do you think 1954 is?

I know my mum (born 1945) didn’t get to go to uni, but would be interested in when you think we reached the point when girls weren’t told they couldn’t go to uni (only one criteria but a major one i think).

I was born in 1953 and my teachers encouraged me to go to university.
I didn't want to.

Silvertabby

fred246 wrote: »

It seems amazing that over 100 years after the suffragettes were fighting for equality in voting women are arguing for continued inequality in state pensions. Why have men accepted for all those years that they need to keep working longer even though they die earlier than women?

100 years ago, State pension age was 70 for both men and women. And it was means tested. The means test was dropped, and State pension age was reduced to 65 - again for both men and women - in the 1920s. It wasn't until the early 1940s that women's State pension age was dropped to 60 - primarily in order to facilitate payment of the married men's rate of State pension from 65 (only payable if the spouse was also State pension age, despite the fact that very few married women qualified for a pension in their own right).

p00hsticks

Pollycat wrote: »

Why from any male with a female spouse?
Why not from the horse's mouth i.e the female with a bigger occupational pot?
I'm one.

Me too :-)