To think the back to 60 campaign is grabby

[Neaoll]

It's been known about for a long time that state pension ages would be equalised.

State pension is just unsustainable, it was never supposed to be something people claim for 20-30 years. Was for people that had a hard time so they didn't starve to death in their last few years. Now it's a top-up to the richest part of society. It should have been linked with life expectancy a long time ago.

I'm in my 40s and dont expect to ever get a state pension. I've been contributing to my private pension ever since I worked to support myself.

Good for you. Here's your medal 🏅

I agree to an extent. The transition period was always going to see a few people squished in the middle which is hard, but the age had to change.

I'm not sure about 'grabby', but I don't fully understand their reasoning.
Why are those women more disadvantaged than a woman in her 40s? They might say they didn't have enough notice, but that assumes that you can plan your life and it will work out that way. There is little job security for most of us.
Where is the cut-off for who should get 'back to 60' and who should not?

Definitely had to change. Sorry for the people it affected but it was common knowledge for many years that the age was changing.

People who work in manual roles or very demanding roles can’t always work into their late 60’s. How is that grabby?

Pensioners are not the richest part of society

Many of those women born in the 50s weren't allowed to have occupational pensions. Women in those days were rarely in high paying jobs, and many gave up work to look after children. There wasn't extra money to invest in private schemes. And then they are suddenly told their state pension won't actually be arriving for another 7 years, with insufficient time to make any alternative arrangements, even if the money were available.

You in your forties have always known what to plan for so well done you for doing so.

60 is far too young. Especially as nearly everyone on here says 60 is middle aged (I don’t agree)

Disagree completely. This has devastated the affected women. The transition time was too short for them to make up the shortfall.

Women who were financially disadvantaged by societal norms (i.e. not encouraged or supported to have a career) should not be the ones to pay for a government cock up.

I would guess that it seems grabby to you because you don't need it..I don't imagine those who have been badly affected by it feel the same. Your use of the word grabby is therefore VVU.

People in manual roles will just have to have a second career.

Compared to millennials waspi people have been far more fortunate. Where's the call to equalise everything further down the pyramid?

They weren't suddenly told. They had decades.

Try and find a job when you get to be over 50. It isn’t easy

People who work in manual roles or very demanding roles can’t always work into their late 60’s

But that's the same for everyone. They are making a case as a special group.

I’m in my 40’s and have contributed to a pension since I started work. So I could be as smug. But the change has been unfair on those women caught in the middle.

They didn’t have the same protections against workplace discrimination. Maternity leave was short. Employers weren’t obliged to consider part time working. Men were more likely to be promoted and have higher pay for the same job as women. Most men (in my sphere anyway) saw home as the woman’s job.

Many women ended up leaving work or stepping down to a lower paid job to manage their children and work. They simply didn’t have the same opportunities as men to earn a good income.

I think people forget just how much the social and work environment has changed over the last 20/30 years. Yes there would have been some women who were very successful at work but that was far far from the norm.

Have you actually read up on this issue properly OP? You don’t seem to really understand the details.

I was when my FIL who retired at 58 with 6 figure savings and a fat private pension was complaining about waiting to receive his pension at 65. Not saying it's wrong necessarily, but he's always been rather scathing of people claiming support from the government

So it's about long-term disadvantage, rather than just the change of pension age?
What is the cut-off year for being part of the group claiming this?

Yes I know all about it.

There will always be a factor of reasons why the group it affects most have been disadvantaged.

I stand by waspi are far less disadvantaged than millennials today who will pay for people's pensions but are unlikely to ever receive it.

'Will just have to have a second career?'

Right, so how easy is that going to be then? To hit, say, 58, feel too knackered to carry on being a window cleaner and land on a new career that doesn't require any other training, skills, and does require someone to give a 58 year old a chance.

I'm your age, how can you not have any empathy for those in the generation or two above? Haven't you seen anyone struggle?

To hit, say, 58, feel too knackered to carry on being a window cleaner and land on a new career that doesn't require any other training, skills, and does require someone to give a 58 year old a chance

That's still the same for all of us.

Neoall I think your sentiment is very unfair and seems to uphold the idea that millennial are pitched against the middle-aged. This group of women have been hit very hard. Some of them are destitute as they have no pension and cannot work or get work. It is discrimination. Men of same age have mostly had work pensions and knew about 65 retire age all their lives.

Try being made redundant at 61 or as happened to the rest of my team, being fired for refusing to accept a new contract with onerous conditions, then having to scrape by on a pitiful private pension for another five years.

As it has already been said on here women in their 50's and 60's gave up their jobs to raise children and then often went back part-time. To suddenly have the rug pulled out from under them is disgusting.

We certainly didn't have decades to plan either.

Not everyone can afford to save for a private pension. Minimum wage jobs have to be done by somebody. Everyone who has worked their whole lives should be entitled to a state pension. Financing it should be prioritised over other unnecessary things (HS2 springs to mind).

It's the fact they changed the goal posts without saying anything, it was to be staggered, I think mine was 62.5, then it goes to 66 with no notification.

I have worked since 16, always paid full stamp, you could opt for married woman's but I didn't.

My sister in law got hers at 60, never worked and my mother who also never worked gets £240 per week, I won't get anything like that. It makes my blood boil.

Yes it has to change but it should've been done gradually, my mother was expecting to retire at sixty, she's 58, to suddenly have that moved by seven years is outrageous. Also she's been in full time work from the age of 15, the children of most mumsnetters couldn't possibly get a job until after they graduate at 21/22. You've already had the extra seven years from her.

The problem is that state pension will soon stop completely anyway as its just not affordable. so if people now retire at 60, they won’t see any money anymore at 80. its better to push it back a bit so people have at least a fighting chance. if its hard to find a job at 60, 80 will be much worse