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

Younger people have it very tough these days. Unless they work in the public sector they are unlikely to get a pension at all.
Has AutoEnrolment passed you by?

I think we’re wrong to be comparing how it was, and how it is now for women. These comparisons miss the point.

The women most affected by the changes made plans for all their working lives, based on retirement on 60. The notice of ALL the changes was minimal.

I would argue that the changes in retirement age are fair but the was it’s been implemented is grossly unfair. It should have been phased in gradually.

Completely agree hoho. Equality of entitlement? Of course yes, who could disagree? Implementation? Appallingly unfair. A private company would be before the courts for this theft.

Sorry to link to a DM article, but I'm in a hurry. Will find another source later as I've come across these statistics years ago as well:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5997301/amp/Giving-birth-cuts-womans-life-expectancy-two-years-Having-children-speeds-ageing-process.html

Article is from July 2018.

A couple of decades notice is not enough notice

@nickiredcar

Under the 1995 Act, the government decided that the pension ages of both men and women would be equalised by 2020, but under the later 2011 Act the coalition government speeded up the latter part of the timetable. This is the issue, so not 20 years as you state.

The change in the State Pension age mean I am waiting six years longer than originally expected, for the State Pension.

Working patterns were different in the past. As a woman born in the 1950s we:

*didn’t have access to a workplace pension
*had been out of the labour market
*had or have caring responsibilities
*don’t have a private pension.

The more recent changes at most added 18 months and theyve had many many years notice for that to plan for these months - fullfact.org/economy/increasing-state-pension-age

So I believe they've had ample notice for the changes and waspi women saying they just had a few years notice for 6+ extra years are either lying or being very ignorant.

So six years difference literally means such an upheaval of your retirement plans?

Of course it does. I made the move to self employment with the expectation of working until I was 60. By the time I found out I would be working until 66, it was too late to go back into paid employment. Fortunately, I've worked enough years to have all my NI stamps. Many women don't. Yep, they changed that too.

For those of us who planned ahead, it blew a great big hole into those plans. I will now be working for longer than my DH. Yep, you read that right. The calculation of women's retirement rates means I work for an additional 2 months. That's how screwed up the whole mess is!

I support the harmonising of retirement ages, but not at 5 years notice.

You believe what you like. Most of those campaigning on this issue agree with equalisation, but say the way it has been handled has been a mess.

My argument is that the changes should have been phased in more gradually. The cut off is virtually one day. If you were born on the 5th March 1953 then you're quids in. I was born in 1954 so I'm one of the hardest hit.

Most of those arguing beleive in equalisation unless it affects them

Most of those arguing beleive in equalisation unless it affects them.

He's just miffed because the 'girlies' are fighting back.

When I started fighting for equality, I couldn't take out a bank loan or mortgage without my husband's 'permission'. I even had to get his signature to complete my tax return! I was turned down for a job because the 'men wouldn't like it', and at job interviews was told I had to wear a skirt and makeup in the office. I wasn't invited to join a pension scheme because that was for 'husbands'. Now I'm told I'm to be equal by waiting longer then my husband for a pension.

But your waiting longer for your pension because you are younger equality isn't meaning men and women should get their pensions at the same time regardless of age.

The government didn’t write to any woman affected by the rise in the pension ages for nearly 14 years after the law was passed in 1995. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) started sending out letters from April 2009 onwards. Responding to a Freedom of Information request, the DWP revealed that some women did not find out until they were 59 that their SPA of 60 had been delayed.

Someone made a really, really good point earlier in the thread

The state pension is just over £160 a week, which is equivalent to about 20 hours a week at the minimum wage

The argument here and from the WASPI group is that women are going to have to carry on in back-breaking full-time work for an extra 6 years.

When actually, they can do any part-time minimum wage job for the same weekly income as if they were retiring and getting the state pension

I'm not arguing that.

The really good point you speak of seems to be overlooking everything that's wrong with the situation.

When I started fighting for equality, I couldn't take out a bank loan or mortgage without my husband's 'permission'. I even had to get his signature to complete my tax return! I was turned down for a job because the 'men wouldn't like it', and at job interviews was told I had to wear a skirt and makeup in the office. I wasn't invited to join a pension scheme because that was for 'husbands'. Now I'm told I'm to be equal by waiting longer then my husband for a pension

So true. I recall being blatantly passed over for promotion because a man who had children would need the extra money more than me! (They actually told me this!). Here was one woman in a senior post out of a staff of hundreds). Questioning the situation virtually blacklisted you!

nickiredcar You are not coming across as a very nice person.

We get it You hate baby boomers.

they can do any part-time minimum wage job

I don't see employees giving an unskilled 60 year old a job over an unemployed young person. I spose they might but I would suspect the options are care worker (can by physical and might need a car) or care worker.
Round here I can't think of much else, maybe M&S shelf stacking.I would think Tesco (who will have people queueing up for jobs round here) would choose someone physically stronger.

Going back into a skilled job they'd probably want full time, nursing, where there are shortages demand 12 hour shifts nowadays.

Tesco jobs are highly prized where I live, not easy to get.

I realise that does depend where you live.

I was looking for clerical jobs in my 50s and didn't even get as far as an interview. I knew I couldn't cope with anything physical or even standing up for long periods.
It doesn't do anything for your self esteem when you can't even get a min wage job and eventually I stopped trying for the sake of my mental health.

I planned to retire at 60. However, given I now won't get my state pension till 67 I'm going to carry on working. I shall have to take advice as to whether to cash in some and invest elsewhere at 60 or to defer taking my private pensions in the hope they might accrue more value in the 7 years to follow. Either way I truly doubt I will make enough extra money to compensate for the increases in the cost of living from drawing my private pensions when I am aged 60 to not taking them till 67, so I'll be worse off, and then unfortunately I'll likely only have 3 or 4 years of pension till I pop my clogs (all females in my family seem to die by aged 69-72).

Still, it'll leave more cash in the government kitty for everyone else.
It's indeed unfortunate that successive governments have for years and years failed to spot the skeleton in the closet that as the average age of dying increased so too should the pensionable age increase for fear of upsetting the older voters.

What was the rationale for unequal retirement ages in the first place?

Aridane, I was told back in the day when a state pension was first introduced, most women wouldn't get a pension of their own (because it was still quite rare for married women to work). The state scheme only paid the married rate if BOTH of you were over 65. Men on the whole tend to be older than their wives, so a lot of the time the married rate was only paid when the man was well over 65. Paying out when the woman was 60 instead was supposed to alleviate some of the hardship. This was I think 1940, and this was carried forward into the new scheme that was introduced as part of the general Welfare State reforms in 1948.

Speculation: Maybe because retired women are more likely to continue to contribute to society - looking after grandchildren, volunteering in numerous ways, and this effort is actually needed to keep society going?

No idea if that's true but if it is then perhaps we should have a two-tier retirement deal whereby anyone male or female can retire 3 years before their official pension age if they commit to spending 30 hours a week working productively for the greater good?

I've just been googling to find if there's any more info. Can't find a definitive answer but did see that married women were excluded from any pension but married men got an increased pension. The first state pensions prior to WWII were age 70 for both sexes. Maybe the difference in age was introduced when married men stopped getting their wife's pension, to account that usually there are a few years age gap between men and women in a couple and couples tend to want to retire at about the same time?

iLevictoiChete, there is some interesting background in this article
www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-scandal-of-womens-pensions-in-britain-how-did-it-come-about