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.

They might be doing the protesting out of concern for the principle.
well they need to re-asses their principles as there are far far more needy causes which would benefit from their concern.

@Echt Have a star for being patronising, We are never going to agree so I'm going to do something more useful with my weekend now.

@echt- You can try as hard as you want but insults are just showing up the weakness of your argument

Nah. Just look at the OP. Seriously underthought. If at all.

I blame the teachers,

@Echt Have a star for being patronising, We are never going to agree so I'm going to do something more useful with my weekend now

Excellent. :o

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

And let them eat cake, Marie!

It's been proved without doubt that working is better for physical and emotional health.

It really isn't as clear cut as that, extracts from two recent papers below:

Using a standard linear probability model and controlling for a range of socio-economic variables as well as previous labour market experiences, perceived life expectancy, pre-retirement income and health, our estimations show that those continuing to work after 65 on average display a 6.8% higher probability of reporting better health during retirement than those leaving at the age of 65. However, we find that this positive correlation between the extension of working life and health is only transitory. After 6 years of retirement, the health advantage of working after the normal retirement age disappears. Furthermore, we did not find any evidence that working after the age of 65 is positively correlated with physical fitness, self-reported depressive symptoms or well-being.

And

This paper investigates the mechanisms behind the health effects of retirement. Using a Regression Discontinuity Design to exploit financial incentives in the German pension system for identification, I find that retirement improves subjective health status and mental health, while also reducing outpatient care utilization. I explore a wide range of health behaviors, time use, and effect heterogeneity as potential mechanisms. Relief from work-related stress and strain, increased sleep duration as well as more frequent physical exercise seem to be key mechanisms through which retirement affects health

DH and I have both recently retired early. We are fitter, weigh less and and are immeasurably happier than when we were working. Loving every minute!

Relief from work-related stress and strain, increased sleep duration as well as more frequent physical exercise seem to be key mechanisms through which retirement affects health

This study assumes that people feel
1 Work is stressful
2 They sleep badly if they work
3 They are unable to find the time to exercise if they work

None of those apply to everyone. Some people love work, sleep well and find time to exercise too.

I know many people who are working at 70+ and love it, and say they would never want to stop work.

I just want to point out as well that my mil was a single parent after splitting from fil when my husband was 7. They had a council house so no financial settlement when they divorced. She was a SAHM until my husband was 9 with zero qualifications. She did vocational jobs for those whole 23 years, staying in her last job for 13 years.

If she managed, why could no one else? She has the opinion that they were informed as she was and she wasn't even in the workplace at the time it was announced in 1995.

Disability doesn't have any bearing on the state pension. If you are 60 and unable to work due to disability, you have the same options to claim disability benefits as any other working age person. The state pension isn't intended for disability, it is intended for old age and 60 is not old.

If a single SAHM can get herself informed and prepare for 23 years, why can't these other women? What was going in their lives that they were under a rock and totally unable to put 5% of what they earned aside to make sure they could retire at 60 if they felt that was fair? Or what is stopping them now from working or claiming benefits? I just don't get it.

Retiring at 60 is a luxury, one you need to prepare for. Not one that means the current working population need to go without in future years to cater to you.

If they weren't so entitled, maybe women of all generations would support them but they don't care about us or our future, only for themselves so they don't have my backing. They aren't looking at the bigger picture of how us in our 20's, 30's and 40's will be working until we're 80! Their own children! I find it quite ironic that a couple of women on here that have no children have commented to say that they have managed to get past this 'dis-service' and they are looking at the bigger picture of how it's not sustainable so they will carry on working to 66 without moaning. It just shows you how many different opinions there is.

These women CAN work until 66 or they can claim benefits. They just want what they were told 40+ years a go but times change. 60 is not old and we shouldn't suffer due to their lack of preparation. And as I said, they fought for equality against men but still want to sit at home at 60 while their partners go on until 66.... ok!

Of course the study doesn't assume those things It is saying that the research showed retired people have less work related stress (that's absolutely obvious of course), retired people sleep better and exercise more when compared to working people. You might know people who enjoy working at 70 plus, but that doesnt mean that study, or the other one quoted is wrong. It absolutely hasnt been proven without doubt that working is better for your health.

AMAM you would need to put far far more than 5% aside to be able to retire at 60, you have to pay an awful lot into a private pension to get the same amount as the state pension that's why people have to wait to state pension age to be able to afford to retire.

why on earth would working be better for your health? If you volunteer if you need purpose and stay social, then what possible benefit can working add.

@RaymondStopThatOf course the study doesn't assume those things confused It is saying that the research showed retired people have less work related stress (that's absolutely obvious of course), retired people sleep better and exercise more when compared to working people

It sounds very simplistic.
Please link to the paper so we can see numbers and questions asked. Often the questions asked are created to ensure a positive response to the researcher's theory.

I can't see any evidence in your quote real scientific research into long term mental and physical health.

retired people have less work related stress (that's absolutely obvious of course), retired people sleep better and exercise more when compared to working people well, duh

then what possible benefit can working add.

Are you really seriously asking?

1 Self esteem
2 Feeling useful and valued
3 Earning and being financially independent
4 Using your mental faculties ( essential for brain health)
5 Interaction with others of the same level of education/ same goals/common purpose
6 A genuine interest and love of whatever your work is.

These are only a few....

www.nytimes.com/2017/03/03/business/retirement/working-longer-may-benefit-your-health.html

The change discriminates against women in particular, and many were given hardly any notice. My mum found her letter and it was dated about 3 years before she would have been able to draw her pension. There was no way she could have made up the shortfall. I think it’s a bit rich to ask women to make this sacrifice ‘in the name of equality’ now when their whole working lives that generation have had to put up with major inequality in the workplace.

These women CAN work until 66 or they can claim benefits. They just want what they were told 40+ years a go but times change. 60 is not old and we shouldn't suffer due to their lack of preparation. And as I said, they fought for equality against men but still want to sit at home at 60 while their partners go on until 66.... ok

Precisely.

And anyway the judgement has been made and it was ruled against. So it' s pointless them banging on.

If you hate work and are literally living for retirement at a date you thought was possible, that's your issue. Just because you don't like your job is no good reason to want to quit and be paid.

My mum found her letter and it was dated about 3 years before she would have been able to draw her pension. There was no way she could have made up the shortfall

Sorry but what exactly do you mean by making up the shortfall? Do you mean she stopped work early, and then wished she had not as her pension was not going to come at 60 or 63?

I suspect she is not living in poverty now though because of it.

Jingling She works in a very low paid admin role, earns about 17,000 per year and she has a shared ownership which she struggles to afford (mortgage until 70) not abject poverty, but she certainly struggles and often relies on credit. Widowed, lost her own home along time ago (long backstory but it was an unfortunate legal case). She would never have given up work, but she would have been much better off for those 5 years and expected to be able to drawn her pension before the age of 65. She was only given a few years notice before they put the age up, so with a mortgage to consider it has set her back. Despite the general consensus about baby boomers there are lots of women in this age group who are struggling, often divorced or widowed. Don’t forget they’ve spent their whole working lives earning less than their male colleagues. Before having children my mum worked in profession in a (then) Male dominated industry and put up with a whole heap of inequality, as many women did in those days.

The issue with many of these women seems to be that they got bad divorce deals or if they are widowed they didn't try to make provision for a rainy day. Obviously single people do get some allowances on council tax.

It sounds hard for your Mum and I sympathise but on a larger, national scale, no one can expect other people to pick up the tab for bad divorce deals or failing to look ahead and try to save or start their own pension plan.
The irony is that if these women took low paid work or were SAHM, then they relied on their husbands for financial support. Where are these men now and are these women really poor or just as the OP said 'being grabby'? The SP is not meant to be to plug the gap created by the breakdown of marriages when women are still fit and healthy and can work.

The issue with many of these women seems to be that they got bad divorce deals or if they are widowed they didn't try to make provision for a rainy day

Oh give it a rest jingling. Hopefully nothing will come along and disrupt your cosy little part time teaching job and smug married life.

I don’t think most people plan their lives around being divorced or widowed young to be honest, it would be a little depressing. Plus it was much harder 30 years ago to go back to work after having children, not impossible and I know many women who did, but harder (not to say it’s not tricky now). No flexi time, much more limited childcare options, and general attitudes in many workplaces and among many professions meant there were a lot more SAHM in that generation.

Now things are a little more equal I don’t think it’s bad to have the same state pension age, but I can’t blame the WASPI women for feeling hard done by and I certainly wouldn’t describe them as grabby.

It is properly ridiculous (and lying) to say that this was dumped on people without warning - it's been planned for over 20 years, it's been covered extensively in the press in print and on tv/radio. Anyone who claims to be surprised is being disingenuous or has had their head under a rock.

Ridiculous. There was no state funded childcare then. Young people cannot seem to grasp that things were different then.

hate to break it to you @Fatshedra but there was - every child got 15 hrs free from their 3rd birthday, same as it was till a couple of years ago. What do you think all those parents did in the interim? Didn't work? Nope, they coughed up like we all have to. A stay at home parent has always been either a luxury or because both parents were on low incomes, and once the children are at school it's a definite luxury.

The issue with many of these women seems to be that they got bad divorce deals

Legally there was no requirement for the courts to take pension rights into account in a divorce setttlement until 1996. Another inconvenient fact for you