Retirement age for ladies - why so upset? R2 debate

[AiryFairyUnicornRainbow]

Listening to R2 today - a lot of ladies (who have picketed for equality all their lives, presumably) are now up in arms, that their retirement age has moved in line with mens

So before, women could retire at 60 and men 65 - but womens age was 60.

What exactly are pple upset about?

Have ladies been requesting equality since the dawn of time?

Why do you feel hard done by, when my Generation (your sons and daughters) will have to work long past your retirement age?

I have a relative, who is completely up in arms about this, but has only worked probably 15 years in her working life - as was the done thing stayed at home with kids way beyond school age. No private pension, nothing. Yet is a massive womens libber.

These days, women are felt rushed back into work the minute they give birth, and are literally worked to death. SAHM's are frowned upon by the working mothers

Travis my point is that we thought when we got together (late 1980s) that I would retire at 60 and he would retire at 65 so 5ish years different which we could have planned for, used savings etc to now find it has extended to 13 years difference ( actually more like 15 due to his health but I realise that is just bad luck!)

Sorry, Nickiredcar, that just isn't correct.

The most anyone had "taken" from them with less than 30 years notice was 18 months. As I've posted here from fullfacts.org

Assuming I had realised back in 1995 that I WAS affected, my normal retirement age at that time was in 2013. That's 28 years. Some women in the affected group would have expected to retire in 2011 before the changes, that's 26 years.

What the 2011 Act did was to speed up the implementation, and (as I posted earlier) at this date I was 58 and expecting to retire in 2017 at 63 and a few months. The 2011 Act delayed this by a further 10 months. Women slightly older than me would have had less notice. Women slightly younger had a longer delay. After many protests, the 2011 schedule was amended to cap the delay at 18 months OVER AND ABOVE what the 1995 date had been. Note not 18 months in total. And all this in most cases this extra delay with less than 10 years notice.

(apologies for mangling the last sentence in my post)

In most cases those affected by this extra delay had less than 10 years notice.

OP, don't tar all working women with the same brush. I am in my mid-late 50s, started full time work after A Levels and am fully paid up for my state pension, with over a decade to go until I can claim it. I am of the generation that considered ourselves lucky to get three months mat leave and campaigned for the next generation to get financial help with childcare. I made the decision not to have a career break based on being fully paid up for my state pension by 60. If I had known the pension age would have been pushed back, I would have had a few years off with DS as I would have had time to make those years up. I think the next big issue with pensions is the question of fairness between those who started work as teens and have to pay in for 50 years plus before they qualify and those that start work in their mid 20s, work for a decade, have career breaks etc. I would propose that anyone who has worked and paid full NI contributions for 42 years can claim their full state pension If they wish, regardless of age. I don't think the workplace is ready for my generation to still be in workforce for the next 10 years. I am lucky in that I qualify for a final salary pension at 60, but if society tells me I have to work until 67, certain adjustments may need to be made.

Quizshowaddit - I don't really understand this 18month thing. In 1995 I was informed my retirement age would change to 62 and 8 mths. which would have been Feb. next year. In 2010 it changed to 65 which is 2 yrs and 4 mths more. Then in 2011 it changed to 66 another 12 month wait so I will receive my state pension in 2022!

Well if you have figures that prove fullfact.org wrong do forward to them, being a very trust worthy and reliable site I'm sure they would be interested.

Doubletrouble99 - You were born after 5th April 1955? I think your first amended age as per the 1995 act was probably 65, so the 2011 Act added on another 12 months. I don't think the age you quoted of 62 & 8 months was right, can you remember where you got that from?

A quick Google shows their accuracy to very much debated!

Nickiredcar, you are being very selective in which statements you post, and having read their article I can say I think some of their statements are ambiguous at best. I cannot be bothered to argue semantics if you aren't prepared to consider that some of us on this thread are speaking from experience, not through the voice of a lazy journalist.

There was very little info about this change to retirement age. I faithfully read the telegraph for years assuming they kept you up to date on finance only to miss the info about women's pensions and any warning about the 2008 crash.
Look at the constant bombardment about wrongful ppi insurance payments? This is what should have happened over women's pensions.
We weren't warned properly. Bastards.They have saved millions by not paying us.

"The subtext to a lot of these complaints being... at a time when it nolonger impacts on me. Everyone else can go hang."

I'm one of those who said it was done too fast but I am in my early 40s, I'm not asking for it not to be me, I am happy for it to be me. It was still done too soon.

I totally agree with equal pension ages for men and women. I also wonder, however, why those of us in the UK should have to wait so long for our state pension in comparison to many of our European neighbours.

Just seen that Germany allows people to retire at 63 on a full pension If they have paid contributions for 45 years, that would be a humane change here.

Airyfairy. Its Christmas. Imagine you've been having part of your salary removed since you started work on the understanding that this will be returned to you in the form of a small regular income beginning on new years day. Excellent says airyfairy, that means I can do x y or z and arranges life to accommodate this. Now, actually, forget it. Forgo and forget that income for the next five years, wave it goodbye. And forget those adjustments to life, just keep working. Oh, and get stuffed. No appeal. Nobody cares as its only a few old biddies, always whinging about equality, snarf snarf.

People saying we were unreasonable to expect to be written to.

How do you think things happened in the past. If changes were made, people wrote to you. There was no website to check these things until very recently.

I am completely computer literate and I checked this regularly.

I don't expect to pick up personal facts affecting my finances from the Daily Mail etc.

Airyfairy. Its Christmas. Imagine you've been having part of your salary removed since you started work on the understanding that this will be returned to you in the form of a small regular income beginning on new years day. Excellent says airyfairy, that means I can do x y or z and arranges life to accommodate this. Now, actually, forget it. Forgo and forget that income for the next five years, wave it goodbye. And forget those adjustments to life, just keep working. Oh, and get stuffed. No appeal. Nobody cares as its only a few old biddies, always whinging about equality, snarf snarf

Very well said!

Humbug, just to say I was born in 1954 and still have 2 years to go!!!

FunkyKingston "BUT it should have been implemented in a longer time period.

The subtext to a lot of these complaints being... at a time when it nolonger impacts on me. Everyone else can go hang."

Don't presume to read other people's minds. I think it should have been implemented in a longer time period because TWO or more changes were unnecessary and unfair. My age was raised initially and whilst not cheering the fact I accepted it. People are living to be older so obviously the pension age needed to be raised. Not raised by a couple of years then raised again by another couple with very short notice or even no notice.

Travis, you definitely must live in a different world. I can think of at least two 23 year olds who have mortgages. In fact I know a couple of people younger than that who have bought houses (not flats).

Travis, you definitely must live in a different world. I can think of at least two 23 year olds who have mortgages. In fact I know a couple of people younger than that who have bought houses (not flats).

What a snotty remark. If you look it into at all, you’ll see that its very unusual for a 23 uear old now to be a homeowner. Those that do manage it now mostly do so only with family help (gifted deposit, inheritance or rent free living while they save one).

My DM was born in 1952, so luckily just missed the changes. As soon as she hit 60 she made plans to retire before the end of the financial year. It was very important to her to do this, because her own DM at 60 was so riddled with cancer that she died only days after her 60th birthday. She had been medically retired a few months previously, and her last months were spent ill and in pain. DM is 66 now and feels every year is a bonus. She has been able to do what most people dream of in retirement - travel, volunteer and enjoy life.

I know a lot of women who were affected by this at work. The NHS was very good at being transparent and offering support and financial planning seminars though, so fewer women were upset. Not thrilled, but not up in arms either.

For me, I know I will end up being medically retired, probably long before pensionable age. It's not ideal and I'm not looking forward to it. But it was always doubtful I'd even make it working until 60, let alone 67 (and it will be higher in 30 years time, no doubt).

Its not about "equality", and wimen not wanting to work as long as men - it's about the speed at which changes were forced through, and the fact that there were two changes made in quick succession.

And about the fact that we paid to receive a regular sum of money from x date. Where is it? That was our contract. None of us agreed these changes. Where's our missing money? We probably won't be spending it as living longer as we'll all be knackered by 70. Thanks.

I’m sure my state pension calculation said I’d be working until on 68. I will be dead by then.

Waspi are focussing on the financial loss certain women will experience because the amount lost is the only aspect that some people will clearly understand.

When I worked in business, I often found that it was no good mentioning the distress, delay or inconvenience that an incident caused. It was only when I managed to quantify the loss in financial terms that any one could get excited or want to solve a problem.

Is there any particular reason you think that, LordProf?

Woolly, I think the WASPI group are misguided to concentrate on the financial side. I haven't worked out how much more pension I would have had if I'd started getting it at 60 because to me that just isn't the point. It's the inherent unfairness of having an extra delay imposed with very little notice. The initial schedule wasn't pleasant but was better than a cliff edge of everyone born on or after a certain date having to wait an extra 5 years. It's the 2011 Act that really was the final straw.
I think WASPI have done a good job of publicising the issue but they have alienated a lot of people by concentrating on the financial loss rather than the appalling attitude of politicians thinking they have the right to make changes like this without sufficient notice.