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

and it's impossible to make up those extra 5 years when you only have 2 years notice of that requirement

No it's not, you could have bought the added years for a fairly trivial sum something else that was widely publicised and would have been a no brainer as long as you had lived for a couple of years or more past retirement age.

Barbara, I did in fact do that, I cashed in a small private pension. That was, as you point out, a no brainer as long as I live another 2 years. But my point was this change was another cliff edge that not everyone could climb over.

I would like to add here that I do not support WASPI and I consider their demand for compensation to be stupid and actually counter productive to the argument.

Why do people put up with this and see it as a race to the bottom? I’m sick of people constantly looking over their shoulder at someone else and whining ‘it’s not fair! I don’t get x,y z so you shouldn’t either!’

This group of women have been treated appallingly. Loads of us are. Zero hours contracts, crap wages, long hours etc etc. Instead of moaning about what others have we should work together to change things for the better for everyone.

I find it incredibly selfish to begrudge others something.

I will not retire untit I’m 68, doesn’t mean I can’t empathise with those women who thought they could retire in a couple of years and then had that pulled away from them.

Divide and conquer.

Maybe because we don't see an equal retirement age as a "race to the bottom" or retiring at 65 as such a terrible hardship nottaking ? If you want to fund people to retire at 60, feel free to set up a charity to fund it. I can find better causes to support with my surplus cash.

It's hardly a race to the bottom wanting state pensions to be affordable. They have not been funded correctly to allow people to claim them for a decade or two.

Its very selfish to insist on paying them out and racking up the national debt for future generation to pay for.

Is OP trying to be deliberate goady?
Or she deliberately obtuse?
Her following posts are making it worse!

*nickiredcar Fri 07-Dec-18 13:34:02

It's hardly a race to the bottom wanting state pensions to be affordable. They have not been funded correctly to allow people to claim them for a decade or two.

Its very selfish to insist on paying them out and racking up the national debt for future generation to pay for.*

Osborne is on record GLOATING about the amount of money the govt saved by bringing in the 2011 changes. In effect the Tories are making baby boomers pay for (1) the previous Tory govt (prior to 1997), when they didn't want to upset the grey vote by introducing any changes to SPA; (2) the balance of payments deficit run up by the Labour Govt 1997 - 2010 and (3) general Tory policies since 2010 which reward those fortunate enough to provide for themselves and sod the rest of us who aren't high-earners.
As a matter of historical record, when the state pension was first introduced, it was means tested (not based on contributions) and paid to those aged 70 and over, at a time when only a small percentage of people would live long enough to claim it. From the outset, the objective was not to provide a high replacement income for most wage-earners but to provide a safety net against old-age deprivation. The age was reduced to 65 in 1926. At this time married women were not eligible. Major reforms were introduced in 1948 as part of a generalised move towards the setting up of a Welfare State. The retirement age at that time was set at 65 for men and 60 for women. It is a failure to address the increase in life expectancy due to the introduction of the NHS - and antibiotics - that led to the funding crisis that was apparent as early as the 1980's.

(Apologies in advance, I have to go out & wont be able to continue the discussion until much later.)

I know many women who are effected by this but not a single person has said anything to me. I can understand why they are upset to suddenly find out that they can't retire when they planned to though especially when women who are only slightly older are able to. I just think they need to think about who they are complaining too (although everyone I know has done this which is presumably why I haven't heard any complaints).

Whilst I totally accept pensions being equalised,and that with an ageing and growing population it's simply unaffordable to pay out state pension from 60 for both men and women it is all about the notice we were given.As someone approaching 60 with a physical job and self employed I'm shocked at how much more knackered I feel in the last years of my 50s.However I have also been hit by the double whammy of providing free childcare for grandchildren either end of the day and overnight 2/3days a week to enable DD to return to work - and afford their own house .Impossible without both of them working.Another societal change to hit us 'grannies'.
Plus a frail,very elderly mother and another relative with no family who rings us frequently for things.Both of whom undoubtedly worked hard as professional women but have been drawing state pension almost as long as they worked for now as in their 90s.
It's hard not to feel resentful of my mother -who refuses any help but family - and yet at 60 retired ,played a lot of bowls and went of on holidays. With the occasional bit of babysitting through choice not neccesity.We truly are the 'sandwich generation ' and I'm sure it won't be easier for our DCs.I haven't marched or campaigned, or even moaned.Just quietly felt it's a bitg jump from 60 to nearly 67 .I will just have to keep going.And I do have a small private pension ,which is more than some. I just wish I had been given more notice.

The thing is Snuggle I dont think combining work with caring for gc and looking after the older generation is anything new, I think its as old as the hills (people used to due younger yes but they aged younger too). I think its the generation who retired at 60 then enjoyed 15+ years of leisure thats the anomaly.

To be honest the people complaining about this the most are boomers and part of the luckiest generation ever. at least the next two generations after have way more to complain about.

The retirement had to be made equal.
Nobody was even 2 years' notice.
Everybody had decades to plan.

There had to be a cut off point. If the women who feel they've been treated unfairly had their pension aged changed back you would just be moving the cut off point and a new group of women would emerge to say exactly the same thing.

Yabu ok. Women born in the early 50s have been let down with multiple push backs of their pension age.
My sister has been out of work for a couple of years. She should have had the security of a pension but is still stuck on JSA.
She is a slight women in her 60s who has only every had manual jobs. Her chance of finding work is virtually impossible. Instead she volunteers 30 hours per week.
It is crap.

One person's push- back is another person's equalisation.

The waspi women on radio 4 that are just wanting cash for this seem to be rich

The most recent change was 2011. Hardly decades to plan.

It's an inconvenient truth but retirement as a construct was only supposed to last about 5 years before death, with a certain percentage of people dying before ever drawing pension.

Due to increased life expectancy and a couple of generations, we've all come to assume we deserve to spend 30+ being economically inactive whilst enjoying a comfortable retirement.

Reality is that it was never supposed to be thus.

The government did slow down its proposed timetable so no-one would face new changes of more than 18 months.

18 months is the most anyone will be affected by the 2011 changes. Hardly much and they will still be one of the luckiest generations ever to receive a state pension. You can't rely on any state benefit as the rules can and will change.

Waspi women are really embraassing themselves with this campaign.

fullfact.org/economy/increasing-state-pension-age/

18 months of living on JSA with little chance of work is a long time though.

The 2011 Pension Act moved the goalposts for many men too.

I can't even read anymore, I'm so hacked off. Really op? I will be working another 13 years to retire at 67.Hopefully our caring government won't move the goal posts again but I'm not holding my breath. I can hardly manage physically now and I had no spare money for pensions when I was bringing my son up as a lone parent whose ex husband fucked off with his bit on the side, had another 4 kids and never paid a penny of maintenance. So, OP. Just do one.

18 months on JSA is a long time, I'd agree, and if it had happened instantly with no chance to plan, then it would be a scandal. That isn't really the case, though; the first people who had to wait an extra 18 months would have expected to retire around this time last year, and instead will need to wait until May next year. So around six or seven years to plan, for someone in their late 50's.

That said, I agree that for many people of that age - men as well as women, and particularly those who are lower paid or doing a physical job - it would be tough. I'm not sure that many of the WASPI women fall into that category, and I'd have a lot more sympathy if they were arguing that all people with limited ability to work or little prospect of finding work should be treated fairly. Instead, they do seem to be pushing the line that they shouldn't be lumped in with those sorts, even though their problems wouldn't exist if we had a fair benefits system (and yes, the state pension is a benefit, it's just viewed as less scummy by the DM reader types).

I can't even read anymore, I'm so hacked off. Really op? I will be working another 13 years to retire at 67.

Why are you hacked off? Did you want tax payers to sub you to retire at 60?

You've got so much time to plan. With the average age its crazy to expect people to retire at 60. With house prices as they are, wages going down and turions fees not to mention the prospect of never having a state pension young people have it very hard.

I'm retiring at 50. I will get there as already paid off my mortgage and have other assets that I'm building up to provide a good income.

Nickiredcar- way to gloat there 👏🏻.
Don't you understand that people on minimum or low wage jobs have nothing spare to put into a pension?