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.

northernmonkeys100 my DH is a joiner aged 62 and self employed as you say in theory but that's a whole other thread. He always says he doesn't think he'll ever be able retire and he too is knackered for more or less same reasons as your dh.
I'm a waspi and my DH supports me all the way as it would enable him to maybe work a day less a week or not have to work Saturdays, or volunteer stay at work till six instead of five weeknights etc if l was getting my full state pension now instead of in six. years time. I've never been a stay at home mum, always did cleaning/telesales/barwork when had babies /toddlers then. back to 'proper' job as soon as dcs ages/school attendance allowed.

The only true grabby people are the ones in Parliment, the same ones who agreed to these changes and who turn us against one another with their sick policies, we are all victims of their decisions.

I don't think I will ever get a state pension because I think it will be abolished and people will have to pay into a private or work related pension. I will be getting my NHS pension in a couple of years even though I left the service many years ago. I paid into it so deserve it and I think I am entitled to a state pension because I have continued to pay national insurance even when I wasn't working because of ill health. I feel desperately sorry for these elderly women who were relying on this pension only to find they have to wait 6 more years until they 66 before they get it. Some of these women are single and are suffering financial hardship because of this. The government should step in and assess which women are suffering financial hardship and let them have their pensions from age 60 as was once agreed many years ago.

Hi again but to all those that say they were promised this and that and they weren’t allowed pensions etc I’m sorry but the world has changed hugely since 1980.
For better or worse globalisation has had a huge effect as well as the extended life expectancy we mostly experience now.
Medical science is keeping people alive for longer and this is having a massive effect on the nations finances.
The fact is we consistently vote for low tax governance. If We pay more tax public services would be better funded including pensions and healthcare.
I have family in Holland and the basic rate is 50% with no excuses for not paying. Go there and see how well everything is funded but their pension age is still 67.
My honest view is things change. Do the best you can. The government has no money. Anything they spend comes from tax take or borrowing and that means your children and grand children will be paying for your retirement forever.

northernmonkeys100
Pensions are paid into for years by the recipient. It's called National Insurance. A pension isn't a perk.

Also northern, your dh should have had a private pension or paid into national insurance even if he wasn't working if he wanted a state pension. This argument isn't about women who didn't bother to pay National insurance at all.

Tree set I never said they were a perk. Not sure you understand but NI contributions pay for lots of other benefits not just SP.
unfortunately NI payments do not cover State Pension payments. So in reality the SP is a perk eg it is not funded by the payments in.

Sorry auto correct Trewser not Tree set!

This thread just shows that people don't understand pensions. You need to pay into a personal pension from a young age when you are working full time over maybe 30+ years to give time for the money to grow.
That is why women finding out with just a few years notice that their pension age has changed is a problem, there is no time for them to do anything about it.
As pointed out it is difficult to get a job over the age of 50 never mind 60+ so many are left in a limbo of just waiting until they are old enough to get state pension existing on very little money.

northernmonkeys100

Does your dh pay tax and NI? You said he won't get a state pension at all. If he has paid enough NI, which he should have, then he will indeed get a state pension. If he's been paid cash in hand for years and not declared it, then that's his own problem.

later is right, this thread shows that people literally don't understand what a pension is.

Of course things change! What many on this thread are saying ( and the women who went to court ) is that the changes must be made visible, easy to understand and phased. What happened with the 50s born women is a change was announced and then another change was quietly brought in with no such publicity.

Few people fail to understand that we can only buy what we have the money for but the government have ( like student loans though that's a whole other thread) been attempting to pay for pensions out of what the will get in, not what they have. When the state pension started it wasn't funded. The expectation was that current workers NI and taxes would pay for it. We live longer and the medical advances keep us alive and dribbling for far longer than we should. And someone has to pay.

So in reality the SP is a perk eg it is not funded by the payments in.

Well it depends how much you pay in. My total NI is getting on for 800 a month if you include employer contributions.

State pension is 129.20 a week. If I'm lucky I might even live long enough to claim it. If not I get nothing from my contribution at all.

Now I'm aware it doesn't just pay for pension but even so. Perk my arse. The reality is that the whole NI thing is a scam that the government can change the rules on at any time they fancy (and as long as it only affects a relatively small number of people or they can set them against each other they won't lose too many votes)

So relieved to be in a position where I can save for my own retirement and not have to rely on this fantastic 'perk'

Each successive government has known since 1950 that the baby boomers would retire, but each failed to ever make any provision.

They would have known that but I don't think they could have anticipated the increase in life expectancy. They would not have known that some of the baby boomers would still have parents alive, for instance. Also, the only the provision they could have made was higher taxation; another thing you are complaining about.

This thread just shows that people don't understand pensions. You need to pay into a personal pension from a young age when you are working full time over maybe 30+ years to give time for the money to grow.
That is why women finding out with just a few years notice that their pension age has changed is a problem, there is no time for them to do anything about it.

It's a good job they were told in 95 that pension age was pushed back 7 years and had over 20 years to do something about it.

The acceleration as part of cuts (along with everyone else) in 2010 they've also had many years notice for the extra year (ish).

But people keep repeating as if they were given no notice and suddenly told to wait 7 more years. It's really not helpful.

I feel desperately sorry for these elderly women who were relying on this pension only to find they have to wait 6 more years until they 66 before they get it. Some of these women are single and are suffering financial hardship because of this.

While I hate the thought of being regarded as elderly at 60, I do think there is scope for addtional help to people over 60 suffering financial hardship if they are unable to work due to poor, but not that poor, health or if they lose or unable to do their job. I would be hard to find new employment at that age.

But people keep repeating as if they were given no notice and suddenly told to wait 7 more years. It's really not helpful

But it happened:

What happened with the 50s born women is a change was announced and then another change was quietly brought in with no such publicity

It's the last bit that is significant, OP

The problem was the implementation especially when the accelerated it. My mother and mil are 2 years apart in age and had retirement ages 2.2 years apart

It didn't happen. In 1995 it was big big news.

The acceleration was also a big story in 2010 and added about 1 year or 18 months to many.

If your approaching pensionable age and are going to rely on the state pension I don't see how you could miss all the prominent headlines..

My mother and mil are 2 years apart in age and had retirement ages 2.2 years apart

0.2 years? That's nothing really compared to the younger people paying for it that will never receive it.

There's always going to be slight loosers when it's increased.

Pensions are paid into for years by the recipient. It's called National Insurance. A pension isn't a perk.

It isn't a savings plan either. Some people will pay in more than they take out eg high earners and, sorry to be morbid, people who die before they reach pension age. Others will take out way more than they pay in eg low earners and people who live to be 100.

@Neaoll it wasn't decades, it was about 10 years. Retirement was still 60 when I started work and I'm only in my 40's. My mum was already 50 when they altered her retirement age - she is of an age before maternity leave, before day nurseries on every industrial estate, before breakfast and after school clubs. None of my friends mums worked either apart from as dinner ladies or in a shop whilst the kids are at school.

10+ years was the notice on the acceleration to 67. More than enough time to plan for the extra year.

95 is when people were told it's moving to 68

*67!

The acceleration was also a big story in 2010 and added about 1 year or 18 months to many. If your approaching pensionable age and are going to rely on the state pension I don't see how you could miss all the prominent headlines

It's not about me. By 2010 the government should have been contacting individuals. By their own admission they didn't.

Here's how the message got through:

www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comment/article-7254221/VICTORIA-BISCHOFF-Government-complete-dogs-dinner-pension-age-campaign.html

Baroness Ros Altmann served as minister of state for pensions between 2015 and 2016 : in an article in the i in October of last year (11/10/18) she said:

“The Department for Work and Pensions had failed to properly inform those affected by the huge 1995 changes. Indeed, the DWP inadvertently led these women to believe their state pension age was 60. It wrote to millions of them between 2003 and 2005 about their state pension, without bothering to mention that they would not be getting it at age 60. Even in 2015, when women’s pension age had already rise to 62, some pages on the Government’s website said women would start their state pension at age 60.”

“I believed the Government’s changes had been wrong, leaving many of these women no real chance to build resources to replace the state pension they would not receive.”
Having lost out in private pensions for most of their working life , state pension may make up most or all the expected retirement income of women approaching pension age now. This group often had a particularly raw deal in pensions in their younger years.
Yet the (mostly male) ministers did not appreciate many women’s lives are not the same as men. Without private pensions to fall back on, these short-notice changes to state pension age are likely to cause hardship for many.”

inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/as-pensions-minster-i-was-told-to-ignore-women-facing-hardship-from-state-pension-age-changes-243068

(emphasis is mine)