MPs to debate women affected by state pension age increases
UKParliament
Posts: 749 Organisation Representative
On Wednesday 29 November, MPs will debate the subject of women affected by state pension age increases.
The motion to be debated is:
That this House calls on the Government to improve transitional arrangements for women born on or after 6 April 1951 who have been adversely affected by the acceleration of the increase to the state pension age.
You can watch the debate live or catch-up later on Parliament TV.
The motion to be debated is:
That this House calls on the Government to improve transitional arrangements for women born on or after 6 April 1951 who have been adversely affected by the acceleration of the increase to the state pension age.
You can watch the debate live or catch-up later on Parliament TV.
Official Organisation Representative
I’m the official organisation rep for the House of Commons. I do not work for or represent the government. I am politically impartial and cannot comment on government policy. Find out more in DOT's Mission Statement.
MSE has given permission for me to post letting you know about relevant and useful info. You can see my name on the organisations with permission to post list. If you believe I've broken the Forum Rules please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com. This does NOT imply any form of approval of my organisation by MSE
I’m the official organisation rep for the House of Commons. I do not work for or represent the government. I am politically impartial and cannot comment on government policy. Find out more in DOT's Mission Statement.
MSE has given permission for me to post letting you know about relevant and useful info. You can see my name on the organisations with permission to post list. If you believe I've broken the Forum Rules please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com. This does NOT imply any form of approval of my organisation by MSE
0
Comments
-
Hasn't this been done to death already. Previous debates saw the opposition MPs support the women (as the opposition doesn't need to pay the bill and bending the truth buys them votes) and half the MPs didnt even seem to know what the changes were or when they were applied with references that anyone with knowledge would have been able to put right.I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0
-
Can we also have a debate on the subject of men affected by state pension age increases.
We are supposed to have equality, aren't we?0 -
greenglide wrote: »We are supposed to have equality, aren't we?
No clue where you got that idea from. GRASPI have moved their rhetoric onto "fair transitional arrangements" which automatically excludes men, since that translates into a "'bridging pension' paid from age 60 to SPA."Conjugating the verb 'to be":
-o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries0 -
“ We are supposed to have equality, aren't we?
Originally posted by greenglide ”No clue where you got that idea from. GRASPI have moved their rhetoric onto "fair transitional arrangements" which automatically excludes men, since that translates into a "'bridging pension' paid from age 60 to SPA." Posted by Paul_Herring
Not only that, but GRASPI think it's fair to pay this 'bridging pension' to all women born up to 31 December 1959, while 'sisters' born just one day later - from 1 January 1960 onwards - can wait until they are 66 or more.0 -
greenglide wrote: »Can we also have a debate on the subject of men affected by state pension age increases.
We are supposed to have equality, aren't we?
Yes, but your retirement age has gone up by three years and counting whereas women's has gone up by eight and counting. Talk about moving the goalposts within a working lifetime.
If these changes are really necessary, they should have gradually increased women to 65 (and I mean gradually, over a couple of generations) and only then started to increase men and women together beyond 65.
Let's face it, when economic times are good again in the future, are they really going to come back to us and say "you know that final salary scheme we scrapped? Well, we're re-instating it!" or "you can all now retire at 55 if you wish"? They've just been waiting for an excuse to cut pensions and hike the retirement age. I call it breach of contract. Not what I signed up to when I started work.0 -
Hedgehog99 wrote: »Not what I signed up to when I started work.
No. But employers and governments didn't expect people to live twice as long in retirement either.
So you could say they didn't sign up for it either.0 -
Yes, but your retirement age has gone up by three years and counting whereas women's has gone up by eight and counting.
Indeed. Women benefitted from discrimination against men for far too long. However, thankfully, 5 years of that increase were over 20 years ago. So, plenty of time to get used to it.If these changes are really necessary, they should have gradually increased women to 65 (and I mean gradually, over a couple of generations) and only then started to increase men and women together beyond 65.
The 1995 changes had plenty of notice and were gradual.Let's face it, when economic times are good again in the future, are they really going to come back to us and say "you know that final salary scheme we scrapped? Well, we're re-instating it!" or "you can all now retire at 55 if you wish"? They've just been waiting for an excuse to cut pensions and hike the retirement age. I call it breach of contract. Not what I signed up to when I started work.
It has nothing to do with economic times. It has to do with affordability. In the 50s, pensions accounted for 2% of GDP. It hit 5% of GDP in the 80s. It hit 7% in 2001 and hit 8% in 2013.
Even with the change in state pension age, it is forcasted to be 9.4% of GDP by 2062/63.
In 67 years, we have gone from 2% to 8% GDP. So, how much do you want to take out of the NHS budget to pay for that? The defence budget has been decimated over that same period.
In 2013, pensions cost the Govt £138bn a year. The single biggest cost. Healthcare was next at 126bn and welfare third at 117bn. So, what do you want to hit? NHS or Benefits?I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). The comments I make are just my opinion and are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice and you should not treat them as such. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.0 -
I guess like remoaners after June 23rd, some people just cannot accept the decision. This motion will be debated, any subsequent vote overwhelmingly lost and I hope that will be the end of the matter...but somehow I doubt it.0
-
Women's state pension age have been known to be increasing to 65 from 1995. A reasonable amount of notice most would think.Hedgehog99 wrote: »Yes, but your retirement age has gone up by three years and counting whereas women's has gone up by eight and counting. Talk about moving the goalposts within a working lifetime.
If these changes are really necessary, they should have gradually increased women to 65 (and I mean gradually, over a couple of generations) and only then started to increase men and women together beyond 65.
Let's face it, when economic times are good again in the future, are they really going to come back to us and say "you know that final salary scheme we scrapped? Well, we're re-instating it!" or "you can all now retire at 55 if you wish"? They've just been waiting for an excuse to cut pensions and hike the retirement age. I call it breach of contract. Not what I signed up to when I started work.
Another thing any Govt. should do is decrease men's state pension age by a couple of years as women live on average 2 or more years longer.0 -
On Wednesday 29 November, MPs will debate the subject of women affected by state pension age increases.
Oh no, not again!
Yes it was silly they didn't take the decision to do one increase rather than do it in two stages for a certain group. But it had to be done. Time to get over it and move on.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards