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.

You won't get a full pension on 35 years' NI if you were contracted out at all. This applies to a lot of people so everyone should check by getting an individual forecast from the govt.
This was information that wasn't well publicised when the new state pension started.

@Drabarni But we're talking about state pensions and none of those other things you've listed are compatible.

Calling someone thick on a message board, just reflects on yourself.

A poster said letters are sent out if you don't have enough ni contributions in a year. Well I have never received a letter regarding that. When I did check the Government website I saw that I had a couple of years missing just a couple of weeks ni so where were my letters?

Perhaps you have enough contributions overall to qualify. The qualification period has decreased over the years. I have had a letter to say my contributions were short. Having done nothing, I telephoned a few years later to be told I have I have a full contributions record.

I've had to top up my mum's national insurance contributions in the thousands so that she can qualify for a full state pension. She gave up work to look after us. While put of work her previous job became obsolete because of technology so once we were old enough she took the work she could get. Part time jobs. 3 at once. They combine her income for tax purposes but for ni purposes it isn't combined so she did not pay ni contributions.
No-one told her she could claim ni for being a carer for her grandchildren, or for her sick mother. When she was told she was lacking in contributions she wasn't far off retirement and had no way to top up. Plus it really was not well known that the retirement age es changing until just before it did.
H
I don't think it's grabby. I think they were done over

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.

This captures exactly what is wrong with this policy. It fails to reflect the enormous changes in the position of women in the UK labour market over the past 50 years.

Why this sudden leap to age 67, when by comparison , the DWP has been implementing graduated and well-publicised increases to the pension age beyond 65?

It's not as if the DWP was in the dark as to how to go about implementing this policy fairly, and as to the implications for these women if it failed.

There should have been a staged rise e.g. to 62.5 first.

"People should just shut up and fund others lifestyles that they won't receive themselves

Really? Bet you would be the first to complain if childfree by choice me agreed with that.

^Riv
In 2015 the government website was still saying that women would get their pension at 60

I don't think it was. I was 60 that year so it would have applied to me and was under no illusion that my SP was waiting for me! Sorry but you are wrong. I knew long before I was 60 that my pension would arrive a lot later. But it was not an issue as I didn't intend to stop working at 60 anyway.

How do you know this, please?^

Absolutely, I could have written this. I can't see how anyone can't have known by 2015. If they knew and spotted a mistake on the government website, I am surprised they didn't email to point out the mistake.

MN "you should have checked the Government website"

Also MN "the internet is a luxury. Why have you got a smartphone/tablet etc.

"In 2015 the Government website was still showing retirement at 60."

In an election year? The hell you say!

People are posting who IT DID NOT AFFECT. If you got your pension at 63.5 it does not affect you - if I you are 60 it does not affect you.
If you are the OP it is not the fact that you want an early pension it is the fact you were given little warning of the changes. A small cohort of women so please if you weren't born in 1954/55 don't come on telling us how you sorted your life as it does not apply to you Aaaaaa!

^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.

This captures exactly what is wrong with this policy. It fails to reflect the enormous changes in the position of women in the UK labour market over the past 50 years.

Why this sudden leap to age 67, when by comparison , the DWP has been implementing graduated and well-publicised increases to the pension age beyond 65? ^

But it wasn't sudden. The SPA was increased to 65 when that poster's mother was 34 years old. That was 26 years from her old SPA and 31 years from her new SPA. The additional 2 years was a little more sudden but still a good few year ahead of her revised SPA.

People are posting who IT DID NOT AFFECT. If you got your pension at 63.5 it does not affect you - if I you are 60 it does not affect you.

Eh? Since when can we only post about things that affect us/
Also, it does affect any woman, we used to be able to retire at 60 and now we can't.
No

But they are posting saying they had all the info about the increase which they would have as they were t in this little 2-3 yr birth year. It is only this small group who have the issue. It didnt even sound from the verdict that the lawyers knew the that it wasn't just a whinge about pensions- it's the lack of warning which is it!

I heard that they're thinking of raising the age to 75 in the future

@JinglingHellsBells: I don't think it was.
I have screen grabs and my own forecast from that year showing that I would receive my pension the year I turned 60.
I'm trying to find a way of posting it whilst redacting my personal information. Unfortunately there's quite a bit of personal stuff in several places on the page so not sure how practical it is, but I'm trying.

I am the same age as you and know of very very few women who have not worked outside of the home for most of their working life. Maybe that is unusual, but I don't think so. There's a lot of statistical evidence from reliable sources on line that suggest this is the case.
Most of us only left full time work to bring up children or look after aged relatives. we often worked part time outside of the home for a few years then we returned to full time, at much lower rates and status than when we'd left and far less earning power.

If you are over 60, you should recall that we were not allowed to take on an apprenticeship (I had rejection letters which actually stated the reason being that I was a woman, and one saying there was no female rate for the job). we were not allowed to do higher level jobs in industry and we were paid a woman's wage, much lower than a man's until at least the mid 1980s and then we had to fight for it.
I, along with other women of my age, was not allowed to join the company pension scheme on the grounds the "your husband will take care of all that" (I was not married at the time) My husband could not be named as a beneficiary in the private pension I did manage to afford before children even though I was the breadwinner. I paid a much higher premium than a man as well. Because it was assumed that I would retire at 60.

I am still working full time, but finding it increasingly difficult and it feels as if I am being "managed out" by those I have trained in former years - I am expensive and could be replaced with an inexperienced but qualified and keen trainee at just over half my salary - and there are a lot around here only too willing to do it. My targets are far higher than younger colleagues and generally unattainable during working time (and several unpaid hours at home), I am constantly criticised and undermined and those in authority frequently make negative comments about age. I saw this happen to every worker in the company shortly after they reached 55. Now it's my turn. Still - only 6 and a half more years until I reach my pension age (66.6) and can retire. I my mental health survives and I am alive by then. Some days are rather dark but I've got too many people depending on me, my unpaid support and my wage.

Average healthy life expectancy here is 58 years so I've been lucky so far, average life expectancy is 78, so hopefully I will have time to "enjoy" my retirement for a few years... If it's not gone up to 75 by then.

Calling someone thick on a message board, just reflects on yourself
Who called you thick? You just aren't using any intelligence.

You stated you shouldn't have to pay for something you aren't receiving yourself. I told you all the things people pay for you and don't receive themselves, so definitely compatible? comparable, maybe?

@Riv- are you in the Uk? I doubt you are.... as you wrote this...
Average healthy life expectancy here is 58 years so I've been lucky so far, average life expectancy is 78

what does that mean? Average healthy life expectancy is 58? Where is this?

I don't recognise anything you have written and maybe that is because you are not in England? I went to university, went into an equal pay profession, and then for the last good few years have been self employed.

Recent posters, you do realise that it would cost £215 billion to give these women ? You do realise that it would be young people who have to foot the cost? You do realise that these youngsters will not be able to retire until 70?
I am a Waspi, I knew I could not retire at 60. I planned for retirement. I am still working (part time now in my late sixties).
I do not want young people to foot a £215 billion pay out because some older women don't feel that they should work beyond sixty.
Can you not see how unbelievably entitled you are being?

There's plenty of money, those billions won't be being spent on the likes of us mrsmuddlepies It won't go into NHS, Education, Welfare etc.
It will go to line the pockets of the rich in the form of huge tax breaks.
So no, I don't think it's entitled.
We didn't receive half of what young people do today, should that mean they shouldn't have their benefits we didn't.

A whole year maternity and paid, childcare vouchers tax free, free funding for 3 year olds. Should they not have this because we didn't and never will.

@Figmentofmyimagination If your mum is 58 then she should have known 24 years ago (in 1995) that the SPA for women was going to increase. At that age she would have been 34 with bags of time to change her plans. If she missed that in 1995, there have been numerous announcements that the SPA was on the rise. Has she not listened to the news or read anything?

The thing is this is the STATE pension. It is not, for a lot of people, their only pension. Most professional people of my age have occupational pensions and the SP is an extra.

Furthermore, your mum was fully able to set up a private pension at any time of her life to help fund her older non-working life.

Most people of my generation know that the SP is on its last legs and the PA will continue to increase as people live longer.

Some started saving £20 a month or whatever in their own pension plans from an early age to offset any changes.

If there are changes to the SPA someone will have to be the first to be affected.

I don't think it is unreasonable to set it at 65 considering women of this age are expected to live another 20-odd years without contributing anything more to the treasury except in VAT.

We didn't receive half of what young people do today, should that mean they shouldn't have their benefits we didn't

Correct.
we received a lot more.

Free higher education, low housing costs, plenty of employment opportunities.

Are you honestly saying the young have it better?

Maybe you ought to acquaint yourself with the earnings to housing cost ratio and the cost of a degree.

It will go to line the pockets of the rich in the form of huge tax breaks
.
it's the rich who are paying for it all now.
What tax breaks are you talking about?

You do know that something like 1% of top earners pay more tax than something around 80% of all other tax payers?

^we were not allowed to do higher level jobs in industry and we were paid a woman's wage, much lower than a man's until at least the mid 1980s and then we had to fight for it.

I, along with other women of my age, was not allowed to join the company pension scheme on the grounds the "your husband will take care of all that" (I was not married at the time) My husband could not be named as a beneficiary in the private pension I did manage to afford before children even though I was the breadwinner. I paid a much higher premium than a man as well. Because it was assumed that I would retire at 60.^

I suppose your experience is different to mine because I have mainly worked in the public sector with very fixed rates of pay, the same for men and women. I worked for a local authority when I left school in 1971 and it was compulsory to join the pension scheme.

But we're talking about state pensions and none of those other things you've listed are compatible.

No, of course you would rather dismiss things like children’s education, healthcare, welfare and maternity benefits that may have benefitted you and your generation because it doesn’t suit your agenda. But while you’re bleating on about paying for our pensions you also need to acknowledge that we pensioners, and particularly those of us who are childfree, have being paying taxes that have supported the above benefits for many years, even though we haven’t used them ourselves.

Maybe you ought to acquaint yourself with the earnings to housing cost ratio and the cost of a degree

Patronising and oversimplistic

Basic rate tax used to be 25% back in the day

Student loans are just a higher tax rate on a band of earnings, half won’t pay them back

Short term mortgage rates were around 3 times higher until the 2008 crash than now. The English earnings to house cost ratio is only about 1.6 times higher since 2008, house price inflation less.

In other words the monthly interest on the same house is half what it was before the crash

@plasebeafeabite Nope sorry but you are wrong.

This is from the ONS

On average, full-time workers could expect to pay an estimated 7.8 times their annual workplace-based earnings on purchasing a home in England and Wales in 2018

In the 1970s and early 80s, the max loan for a house was 2.5 x annual income.

Where I used to live in Surrey in 1984 you could buy a 2/3 bed terraced house house for around £24K which was roughly 3 x a teachers salary plus a deposit. Now, the same house would cost around £350K. Which is 10x the top end of the basic salary tier.

There might be low interest rates but the amount of money you need to borrow to buy has increased out of all recognition. Even 2 professionals cannot afford to buy. In central London even a couple on £200K a year between them will struggle to get a 2-bed flat in Zone 1.

You are out of touch.