Women's state pension age: Parliament debate - add your views?

A few years ago I was listening to a discussion on raising the retirement age on BBC radio4. This civil servant blatantly admitted that it would take around 1 million people out of the pension pot due to early death as a consequence of strain and stress.

I'm 59 and won't be able to retire until I'm 66. My health is not holding up and there is no way that I can continue until then, I have always worked in minimum wage, physical jobs. I have been able to stop work recently as my DH is a few years older and able to apply for Pension Credit to support us both. Ironically the amount that we get is almost the same as we were getting when I was working, allowing for a reduction in commuting costs and getting full council tax support.

I've heard that we've been quite lucky to get it at all as when Universal Credit comes in, both members of a couple will need to be at state pension age. DH is 63, so isn't even at male state pension age, but he gets it because he's at the current female state pension age - that's not going to be an option for men in the future. It will be awful when people in their 60s will have to sign on for JSA because they aren't yet old enough for Pension Credit. As if employers will give any of them a chance at that age, older people are completely overlooked in the workplace.

I feel angry that the changes have been made without notifying women individually, and that leaves me feeling a complete lack of guilt in giving up work when I could. I see it as an opportunity for both of us to take early retirement, lots of well paid people have the chance to do that so why not us.

"Retire earlier" ....as a Carer cannot "retire" because the caring duties still have to be done what I mean is that I think Carers who have done in excess of 20 years of caring should have the option of taking the state pension early rather than stay on the paltry sum that is Carers Allowance.

I would like to ask MPs the following:

What are you going to do for female Carers who work over 100 hours a week caring for severly disabled and sick family members, saving the NHS a fortune and who do not have any options of planning for their pension other than placing their loved ones in an institution. Whether the pension age is 60, 66 or 76 we are trapped with little chance to earn a living let alone a pension. My son has been in hospital every month of the last 6 months, no employer will put up with that. Recent legislation recognises that the state pension will not be sufficient to live on so employers have had to set up occupational schemes. Why can't the Government set up a Carers additional pension scheme to offset the lack of an occupational pension.

You know what I would do? Well I would say if that someone had helped the NHS by being a Carer for 20 plus years they should have the right to retire earlier say at 55, they are worn out , their own health has suffered, they will find it hard to re enter the workforce .

Let's just for once have a Government that says a big thank you to hardworking Carers and please do something positive for us rather than throw us a few crumbs from the plate.

I'm 50. Since I started work I have seen my pension age rise from 60 to 65 and now 66. I firmly believe it will continue to rise.
Like others I am happy to accept that men and women should have the same pension age. However, the way this has been implemented and the fact that it means that a lot of us believe that the age will continue to rise must surely be problematic.
I do not plan for retirement because I simply do not believe I will ever be retired. And that worries me. Should it worry the government?
I think I will die in harness so I don't really put much money away in savings. I go on those holidays now rather than putting it off till we retire. My parents retired in their mid fifties and have had a lovely time. DH and I came to the realisation a few years ago that their lives will not be our lives and we will not have the health, youth or pot of money to have that type of retirement.

I think it is a shame that women have lost out. But in the long run it was only fair that the state pension age for women should be brought into line with the retirement age for men. Especially as women live longer. It should have stayed at 65 and have been brought in more gradually. And if women are on a small pension they can apply for pension credit.

^^
Absolutely, it sounds terribly me me me doesn't it. I have teenage children and actually lose sleep worrying about how they will manage in the future re jobs, housing etc (I think I said that at the end of my post).

My point was that the ponzi scheme is getting bigger and bigger but there is less and less money for the 'payout'. I can't really see, anecdotally - and I live in the South East, that the age of dying is increasing rapidly.

I'm not sure I understand why being given more notice in advance of increases in the age of retirement helps as there is little, in reality, that most of us can do to prepare - it's not like we're going to find a huge pot of money at the end of the garden that we can invest. The reality is that most of us have to resign ourselves to working for longer and having a much shorter period of retirement. That's if we can manage to hold on to our jobs.

Another poster mentioned those of us that opted out - I am one of those people and was assured that it would be beneficial to do so. So again, by the time I reach the current retirement age and if I am 'lucky' enough to still be in employment I will have contributed for over 50 years (still not enough I'm sure) but can look to receive pretty much zilch.

I don't want to sound grabby - I believe wholeheartedly in paying taxes and the concept that it benefits society as a whole and that there are many, many people who are a lot worse off than me.

But I just don't understand why large groups of people are able to 'limit' their tax liabilities and why large corporations are enabled to offshore profits when they benefit from the stable infrastructure (governance, roads, it, education etc) that this country provides them to be able to operate in.

I think, somehow, that we are all being conned.

I have no idea need. Maybe its going some way to paying towards all the single worker couples that retired many years ago on a good pensions at 50-55 and spent 30 years retired.

I feel for women that this affects, but in the grand scheme I still think they are the very fortunate people in this country. Compared with youngsters today having to pay a fortune for uni, house prices out of control and for most the prospect of ever retiring is a pipe dream.

I'm younger but when starting work I was under the impression I would be getting my pension at 60 and now that date has changed twice. I had my 30 years of NI contributions but now it's 35.

I was contracted out of SERPS and there is naff all I can do about that now . Having spoken to the pensions helpline people I have been assured I was contracted out at a time when it was 'better' plus I do receive updates from my contracted out people.

Must admit I have never trusted the Government regardless of if they are blue or red so whilst peeved I'm not surprised.

I decided to carry on working when I had my DC much to the horror of my sisters but now looks like it was a good choice. I cannot even begin to tell you how I was judged by them for not being a SAHM, told I was selfish directly to my face by one of them.

If teachers and nurses will need to work until their late 60s, who will be footing the bill for all the sick leave? I don't know what the maximum time I could be off sick on full pay is because luckily I've never needed to take more than a week, but surely there will be huge costs involved.

Good question need.

Pistachiocray
I totally agree that it is a ponzi scheme but we have an increasing population and are going to have to continue to increase the population so the situation gets worse and worse as more people retire.
What I don't understand, however, is where the money is going to. Those in work nowadays pay a much higher rate of NI (although I know this is not really kept separate from general taxes) than my parents/pils did but we can expect to work longer and longer and receive less and less.
I work in registration and see many, many death certificates and, although anecdotal, I just don't see that people are living longer and longer.
I read a few years ago that the statistic that people are claiming their pensions for longer is statistically flawed and that the figures are manipulated and that we believe it because medicine is far more advanced etc.
But on a day to day basis, I would say at least half of the deaths registered in the office I work are below the age of retirement (66).
So where is the money going?

Although not in the same position as a number of posters above, I am 50 but I also feel utterly shafted. I have also worked from the day I left school at 16, have paid full NI contributions/taxes etc and carried on working (although it was part time) when my children were young.
I always had the expectation of retiring at 60 like my mother/mil etc but that milestone is being pulled further and further away.
Now, whilst I have time to plan for this (although exactly how I don't know - I guess to keep working) my fear is that the age of retirement will keep being shoved up and up.

Yes, it is unutterably unfair on those who were born in the 1950s, but I think it is unfair on all of those who are just beyond any cut off point as it is so arbitrary. At present my retirement age is 66 or 67 I think but this will undoubtedly increase.
I just have no idea how people are expected to carry on working until this age in an environment where there are massive cuts etc (particularly in the public sector) and nothing but low paid jobs in the private sector (unless you have a profession) which a lot of people born in the 1950/1960s do not.
I feel like I am going to spend the next 20 years literally clinging on to my job whilst young people have little hope of getting a job and housing.

*Allo that will never happen I'm afraid. There is simply not enough money available. State pension was never intended to be drawn for more than 10 years or so. The nation simply cannot afford to pay out for 20 or 30 years.

The problem is the way in which the pensions are funded. If it was a private company, the DWP would be prosecuted for operating an illegal ponzi scheme!*

I totally agree. The state pension was brought in to be claimed for a few years for people that couldn't work anymore and had had a hard life. We are currently having a generation that are taking out far more than they ever paid in, sadly this will have huge knock on affects and probably affect the younger generation the most.

It should of been linked with life expectancy decades ago, but pollutions are croud pleasers and only think in the short term.

It occurred to me that instead of talking about a 6 year change we should actually be talking about 12 years. Because we will get our pensions 6 years later AND pay 6 years more contributions.

I feel shafted by this. Born 1957. There must be many women like me who raised children and also were the family carer - I looked after DH's two elderly parents, who came to live with us for that reason, for 10 years, through their various strokes, dementia, and incontinence. It was a hell of a time to be honest but we got through it. Then my own mother became in need of care and came to live with us.

It didn't seem to matter about the years I missed paying NI, since at the time a wife got credit by for her husband's contributions.

Now I'm facing a very reduced pension because not only am I short of contributions but they have kept putting the age up so the gap has got wider still, and I'm sure many women of the era will be in the same boat, having been designated the obvious ideal choice as the family carer for elderly relatives.

If we had known rather than this being handed down as a retrospective change, then we could have done things differently.

I have no problem with the state pension age being the same for men and women, but the botched way in which this is being implemented is appalling, and significantly disadvantages women.

I was given just 18 months notice of a 6 year increase to my pension age.
DH received 10 years notice of a 1 year increase to his pension age.
How is this fair?

I knew about the changes in the retirement as I watch a lot of news programmers and agree that men and women should have the same retirement age for their state pensions. I always thought it was wrong that women received theirs at 60 but men had to wait until 65. However I think the bigger issue is ensuring that people can physically and mentally continue working later into their 60's. Thankfully I've a good pension with my work which should enable me to still retire at 60.

I'm in my early 40s and I am working on the assumption that state pension age will be more than 75 by the time I get there. I am generally supportive of the changes as it seems crazy to expect 20-30 years of being supported by younger taxpayers after only 42 years of non-retired adulthood.

I was well aware of the changes in law that gave due warning that this was coming but I can see that there might be many people who don't pay much attention to the news so there ought to have been a properly managed publicity and mailing campaign. There should be some additional support for people affected by this especially helping people with demanding physical jobs to transition to something more manageable for their last few years of working.

To avoid the same hoohar coming around again, there should be a defined formula that says that state pension retirement age will be pegged as a specific percentage of the current average life expectancy as calculated when you reach 50, so that you get plenty of warning for what your state pension age will be but future variations can be encoded into law now that will still work whatever happens with future improvements to long term health and life expectancy.

Just to cheer up those working in local government, civil service, NHS, teaching, police, fire brigade etc even further. Do you realise that as you paid into your occupational pension and paid reduced SERPS you won't qualify for the full basic pension? The reduction is a significant one.

im 54 now.....and am expected to nurse until im 66....i already have a bad knee, crumbling vertabrae of my neck and lower back, and am putting off the operation i need on my foot because i cant afford the three months off to recover...patients twice my size think i 'have the training to lift them'...god knows how i will do it at 66!

I'm right there with ygou storynanny! I teach P1 and have done for nearly 30 years. So I'm either expected to teach 4 year olds until I'm 67 (mother nature makes sure that you don't have one of your own by that stage...but it is OK by the government that I'll have 30+!!!) Or else I'll need to move from the only key stage that I've ever known, that I adore and that I'm good at teaching....in fact I'm apparently "outstanding"!!!

Affects me too, I am 60 in September. How can I still work with 4-7 year olds for another 6 years at the same level of physical activity as I have done since 1978?

This really angers me. My mum has worked for god knows how long. She has had her retirement age change twice. How is that fair?

I'll be 59 in March. Not getting state pension till 66. I've never had any notification to say it was changed to 66. I keep all official correspondences in my filing cabinet, so definately never received anything. No matter, I've been following progress, so have not been in ignorance. I signed the petition to have this debate, and received a really snotty email detailing what I already knew, and that I was informed in writing of the changes.

Not impressed at all. I've worked since I was 14. I know I didn't pay NI contributions at that age. I took time off to bring up children. Returned to work for slightly more than minimum wage. Then had to leave work to help care for my mum for 7yrs. who developed alzheimers. Despite continually being told there's lots of jobs out there, at my age I think I'll never be employed again.