Back to 60's Judicial Review Outcome

nigelbb

Silvertabby wrote: »

SonOf is right. In 1995, my State pension age was 65.

nigel, are you getting confused with the date the increases actually began - in 2010?

I'm not confused as in 2010 the SPA for women was still 60 which is what I stated.

nigelbb

bowlhead99 wrote: »

As you well know, the state pension age for a woman born in the 1950s has not been 60 years of age since the law changed in the mid 1990s to significant publicity, after consultation in the early 1990s (which started more than a quarter century ago).

It is fair for SonOf to say that for 'many decades' a woman born in the 50s should not have been expecting to retire at 60 and be complaining now that she is having to wait six years longer than that. Retiring at 60 was well and truly taken off the table for ladies born in the 1950s, following the law change in 1995.

The other day a friend commented that she still had her cinema ticket from when her mum took her to see Toy Story as a five-year-old in 1996. This came to mind because since then she's grown into a 29-year old lady with her own career and family, taking her own six-year-old-child to see Toy Story 4 this summer.

That is the sort of timescale we are talking about since her (then 37-year old) mum became aware that she should not expect to retire at 60 ; long enough ago for a (then) five year old to now be talking about where to go for a 30th birthday family holiday next June.

The idea that SonOf is illiterate in financial planning matters and 'god help his clients' seems somewhat far off the mark.

In 2010 the state pension age for a woman was still 60. Any woman retiring earlier than the 6th April 2010 would have done so aged 60 years. Even a woman retiring on 31st December 2010 would have been 60 years of age (& 8 months 6 days).

I was pointing out how recently the change in SPA for women was made. The change was not in 1995 but in 2010 less than 10 years ago.

SonOf

nigelbb wrote: »

Not so. The changes did not start until 15 years later. In 2010 the state pension age for a woman was still 60. Any woman retiring earlier than the 6th April 2010 would have done so aged 60 years. Even a woman retiring on 31st December 2010 would have been 60 years of age (& 8 months 6 days).

So, the state pension age for the OP was changed 24 years ago. It ceased to be 60 in 1995 because she would not reach state pension age until after phasing process started in 2010.

I was pointing out how recently the change in SPA for women was made. The change was not in 1995 but in 2010 less than 10 years ago.

The rules did not change in 2010. They changed in 1995 with a long implementation period starting in 2010.

Triumph13

@nigelbb.
There are two different and equally valid ways of saying when the pension age changed. It entirely depends on whether you are talking about the cohort that the change has an impact on (changed in 95) or the cohort reaching SPA in a particular year (changed from 2010). it's perfectly reasonable to use either definition.
What isn't reasonable is to question someone's professional competence just because they use a different, but still perfectly valid definition to you. You can agree to differ on which definition is most relevant, but I would say that an apology was most definitely in order for that.

nigelbb

Triumph13 wrote: »

@nigelbb.
There are two different and equally valid ways of saying when the pension age changed. It entirely depends on whether you are talking about the cohort that the change has an impact on (changed in 95) or the cohort reaching SPA in a particular year (changed from 2010). it's perfectly reasonable to use either definition.
What isn't reasonable is to question someone's professional competence just because they use a different, but still perfectly valid definition to you. You can agree to differ on which definition is most relevant, but I would say that an apology was most definitely in order for that.

The will be no apology from me. He said that the SPA changed decades ago & I pointed out that in fact it was less than 10 years ago. I was surprised that he seemed unaware but on reflection I suspect that as he keeps banging on about how unreasonable are the complaints of women who lost out by the pension changes that he deliberately phrased it thus in an attempt to bolster his argument.

The pension age for women today 30th September 2019 is 65 years 7 months. The pension age for women in 2010 was 60 years.

Triumph13

I was trying to be reasonable as people do use a lot of sloppy and inexact language, but if you absolutely insist that one definition is right and one is wrong then legally it is absolutely plain which one is right and it isn't yours.
The 1995 pension act does not say 'the pension age will change at these future dates'. It says 'the pension age for someone born between x and y is now z'.

lisyloo

merrydance wrote: »

Confusing if I was born in 1950 I would have my state pension at 60. Born 1956 have to wait 6 more years until I am 66. Doesn't seem fair to me.

You had a better chance of going to university.
My mum born in 1945 did not have a chance but her brothers did (sexism at the time).
Interestingly I asked women about this and it appeared 1953 was about the turning point, so arguably you had better (career) opportunities.
You have better healthcare, drugs, operations and longevity.

The lady born 1950 might have died of cancer or heart attack that the lady in 1956 survives.

Fair?

bowlhead99

nigelbb wrote: »

The will be no apology from me. He said that the SPA changed decades ago & I pointed out that in fact it was less than 10 years ago.

The SPA for the woman who started the thread and to whom he was responding, did change decades ago.

I was surprised that he seemed unaware but on reflection I suspect that as he keeps banging on about how unreasonable are the complaints of women who lost out by the pension changes that he deliberately phrased it thus in an attempt to bolster his argument.

His comment was a direct response to a woman who started this thread saying that she had to wait 6 years longer than she thought she would. He observed that the relevant state pension age (for her, and her cohort who were waiting for the judicial review outcome) has been more than age 60 since the law changed several decades ago.

He doesn't need to 'bolster his argument' ; he simply stated something contextually factual, i.e. the context was: 'I've had to wait another 6 years for my pension from what I thought it was going to be' ; 'well you thought wrong because your pension age increased from 60 several decades ago'

No 'bolstering his argument' needed, he was just telling the truth, and we all knew what he meant in the context of what he was saying. Whereas you inserted yourself into the discussion trying to pick an argument.

The pension age for women today 30th September 2019 is 65 years 7 months. The pension age for women in 2010 was 60 years.

Yes, but you know perfectly well that there is no woman who is starting to receive pension today who in 2009 was going to get a pension at age of 60. Nobody suddenly had a six or seven year extension put upon them within the last decade, or two decades, because the rules that stopped women getting pension in the month they turned 60 were created and publicised in the early '90s, rather than the early '00s or '10s.

nigelbb

lisyloo wrote: »

You had a better chance of going to university.
My mum born in 1945 did not have a chance but her brothers did (sexism at the time).
Interestingly I asked women about this and it appeared 1953 was about the turning point, so arguably you had better (career) opportunities.
You have better healthcare, drugs, operations and longevity.

Interestingly enough the SPA for women was equalised with men for those born in November 1953 onwards.

nigelbb

bowlhead99 wrote: »

The SPA for the woman who started the thread and to whom he was responding, did change decades ago.

His comment was a direct response to a woman who started this thread saying that she had to wait 6 years longer than she thought she would. He observed that the relevant state pension age (for her, and her cohort who were waiting for the judicial review outcome) has been more than age 60 since the law changed several decades ago.

He doesn't need to 'bolster his argument' ; he simply stated something contextually factual, i.e. the context was: 'I've had to wait another 6 years for my pension from what I thought it was going to be' ; 'well you thought wrong because your pension age increased from 60 several decades ago'

No 'bolstering his argument' needed, he was just telling the truth, and we all knew what he meant in the context of what he was saying. Whereas you inserted yourself into the discussion trying to pick an argument.

Yes, but you know perfectly well that there is no woman who is starting to receive pension today who in 2009 was going to get a pension at age of 60. Nobody suddenly had a six or seven year extension put upon them within the last decade, or two decades, because the rules that stopped women getting pension in the month they turned 60 were created and publicised in the early '90s, rather than the early '00s or '10s.

The resentment over the change in SPA for women especially the 2011 change arises from the fact that women see older sisters, friends, cousins etc who were able to retire at 60 less than ten years ago. In due course when we really are decades on from the change in 2010 there will not be the same disgruntlement.