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.

@Pollywollydolly I’m a little younger but the exact same thing happened to me in July (and my whole Organization). I’ve sent between 80-100 CV a week since and had 19 interviews. Too senior for more junior roles, not a culture fit for suitable roles (too old!), “didn’t have the soul of a salesperson, “not European enough” and the list goes on.

I would love a job, any job, and I can’t find one anywhere. Like you I WANT to work but I’m scared I’ll never work again.
I’ve been in the same profession for 30 years so no transferable skills and I don’t have the money to take 2-3 years out and retrain.
I’ve always paid my taxes and NI and I don’t begrudge anyone on benefits or pension.

Scared I’ll never work again and I totally don’t get the OP.

Unless you are a woman born in the 1950's, it is hard for younger women to understand why this is such an issue for WASPI women. There weren't the work opportunities and equality that is now taken for granted in the workplace. Many jobs weren't pensionable and there were no nurseries in those days. Yes, I knew about the pension changes in 1995 as I like to keep up with financial matters, and for me that was fine, I accepted it and planned accordingly. I have been one of the 'lucky' ones, having worked in jobs where there actually were workplace pensions so all was well, so I thought. However the gamechanger was Osborne and the co-alition government thinking that 1950's women were a compliant target to be shafted by adding up to another 18 months to the timescale at very short notice. So even if you were fortunate and had workplace pensions your financial planning was still out by the eighteen months lack of state pension. Regardless of the result in the courts today, and I hope they win, the government have had a lot of hassle over this, deservedly so. If they successfully do this to one group of society, don't think they won't do something else to others. Many of these women are in dire straits - barely able to heat their homes or feed themselves. Even when you're physically fit, things can happen suddenly post 60 and some types of work would be very hard to do. However the goalposts were changed at very short notice for the extra eighteen months, and it was so unfair.

It's a tough one & I can see both sides. I feel sorry for those women but then I also feel sorry for myself as someone in their 30s who has paid NI since I was 17 but am unlikely to see a state pension. Plus my private pension is far less generous than it is to older generations as they changed the rules before I left uni. Plus I expect the NHS to not be free when I need.

I worked full time as a very busy teacher until 65. I now work part time. I took 4 years off when my children were young. Lots of my friends and family did the same. My mother worked (part time) until 70.
I think a lot of women on here feel that older women should not have to work or only work part time.
Traditionally men were oven their pensions at 65, women at 60 because it was thought women are weaker than men and not capable of working for as long, even though men statistically die earlier.
If you go back a hundred years or so, working class women worked. They had to work to make ends meet. My mother and grandmother (very working class) expected to work and to provide for themselves.
It infuriates me that so many older healthy women on MN feel that either their husbands or the state should provide for them. They cite caring for family even though most of them are empty nesters.
I am full of admiration for young parents who work hard, care for their children and cope. I don't see why older women feel they should have a free pass not to work.
Please note, I am not getting at SAHMs with young children but older women who want the freedom not to work and yet have no hesitation in thinking their husbands should work long hours to provide for them. For example, I think about the poster who was upset about her husband's retirement because she liked having the house to herself and the freedom to nap when she wanted without having her husband around.
Work is good for you. It keeps older people in touch with all aspects of the world today. It gives people of all ages the opportunity to work side by side . It breaks down ageism. It promotes understanding.
In my experience, both on MN and in real life, there is a great deal of resentment against older people, particularly baby boomers, who are seen as having it easy. Increasingly, real old age is seen as starting in late seventies and eighties rather than at 60. Life expectancy has increased since the old age pension was first introduced. Sooner or later, there had to be a realistic change in pension ages.
Perhaps, there also needs to be more means testing with regards to all state benefits for older people.

Your smugness is nauseating op!!!

Well with the medication shortages in the news including antibiotics, heart medicine and insulin we won’t all be living longer!

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

Manual roles are not "careers" - they are "jobs". They are often low-paid, with little or no chance of progression, and physically exhausting.

There aren't even enough "manual roles" to go round now. There is a HUGE job shortage, and there aren't many decently paid jobs - most for unqualified workers are minimum wage and often part-time or zero hours.

Manual work, by definition, is physically hard. It exhausts the body and often damages it; and even if someone has a full-time manual job that they can manage comfortably when they are 20 - 30 (eg builder's labourer), but the time they get to 60 they are very often physically incapable of long hours outside in all weathers doing heavy work.

So effectively the people who keep the infrastructure of our society running will be dumped to die in poverty, many of them suffering industry-related diseases at that.

@mrsmuddlepies so many truths in your post. Thank you

I think the idea that one is somehow entitled to stop working at 60 has been ridiculous for many years and anyone who was set on doing so should have taken a bit of time to check what their pension situation was. I dont agree that this change has just appeared from nowhere and I dont agree that it's unfair.

Mrsmuddle
I agree in part however I have always worked and suddenly in my forties have been struck with some health issues. I will have to work full time probably until I drop dead!!!

I agree with you completely, OP. I do not think you are smug.
I think older women who expect someone, the state, their husbands or their families, to take care of them if they are capable of working, are unfair.
I would so much rather that the money saved from raising the pension age goes towards helping young families , education provision and the NHS.

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

Yes and No.

Some of the announcements were made in 1995. The cohort worst affected are those for whom the goals posts were moved very late on - suddenly an extra 4-5 yrs to plan for when women were already in their 50s.

The vast majority of this generation of women started work at 15 or 16 and worked until they were forced out for being married or pregnant. Both common place long after the 1975 descrimination act (and many of these women started work before then).

When I was job hunting in the 80s it was very common still for women to be asked about their plans for children, there was no flexible working or paid maternity leave beyond a few weeks at statutory pay. There were jobs I was advised not to apply for as a woman would not get the promotion.

Pensions schemes actually excluded women and its only relatively recently that they were forced to include part timers (mostly women).

I find it fascinating that there is so much support to equalise pension incomes but apparently so little for equalising women's and men's incomes when the incomes generate the pensions.

I don't know why they don't means test it. They did it for child benefit - isn't the pension the only thing left that is a flat rate regardless of need?

If they brought in means testing it would potentially increase how much they can offer, or how early they can offer it - by not paying all of it to everyone.

I suppose means testing is harder for retired people as we lean a lot on PAYE when in work and getting the retired to fill in tax returns with handfuls of tiny private pensions probably isn't ideal

So no link to the “pensioners are the richest group” fact?

fairness never comes into pensions when there is a cliff edge cut off.
I was 60 in 2007 so I did get the then state pension which was based on my NI contribution (I required 40 years to get a full pension but as I had only 36years (single parent) - I did not get the full pension only about £110 per week. ) Fortunately I had a small private pension which increased this but still less than the new flat rate pension is now.

When the new flat rate pension (£155 a week) was brought in 2010? it was a cut off and the rules changed to only require 30 years - so I am immediately disadvantaged as it was not backdated.
I could also say - I missed out and I should be compensated - but those are the breaks. If the waspi women want to go back to 60 - will they accept the requirement for 40 years on NI, no home responsibility NI credits, no flat rate pension. No I thought not.

I don't know why they don't means test it. They did it for child benefit - isn't the pension the only thing left that is a flat rate regardless of need?

I think that would be a good idea MrKlaw. The rich fat cats n=don't need it. But they still get it and accept it as their "right". Legally it may be their right, but morally, in the present economic situation?

Family, I already posted this:

www.ft.com/content/c69b49de-1368-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e

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

That's not quite true. DM got hers age 63 and some months. And she did know about it for quite some time before, because I remember her mentioning it.

The truth is that the state pension was costing too much and there isn't really any justification for paying it earlier to women compared to men, especially as women live longer on average. So changes have to be made.

And while women of this age group tended to be SAHP or work part time, they still got the NI credits towards a state pension if they were raising DC. DM has got about 90% of a full state pension despite being a SAHM, due to about 20 years of credits due to 5 well spaced DC, then mostly part time working and only about 10 years of full time work in nearly 50 years of being a working age adult.

Plus all the other advantages of her generation such as being able to buy a family house on one manual worker's wage, which my parents paid off decades ago.

Means testing sounds like a good idea to me too.

They didn't think we'd kick up a fuss about it. We are, though.

Ok so.
I think that women should finish working at 60. For equality so should men.
But men and women are different, you can’t change that and why should women suffer menopause systems and struggle in the work place?
Young people need jobs, it was tough for me to get a job in my early 20’s trying to leave my part time while studying job for something full time.
Let people retire and have a rest for god sake and let the younger people get jobs.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Pay_Act_1970 although as this states the equal pay act came in 1970 it was that effective - women were still underpaid compared to men & getting into equal roles particularly those of management was difficult if not downright impossible. Attitudes that today would be totally unacceptable were everyday occurrences - University education & training in fields like engineering or in fact access to training which might lead to senior roles were still predominately male preserves. Hence women of this generation had less opportunity to get better paid jobs/pensions etc. iWork place pensions or private pensions were poorer or unobtainable for many women - while some pensioners may have adequate amounts of money many women who are now widows will be struggling as their pension was based on being shared with their husband. Lets not forget that the caring role inside families is still predominantly a female role & these women would have hoped to get a pension at age 60 would have been impoverished even more than they already were. In fact the original reason for retiring at 60 was because of this role.

There is some misinformation on here, particularly about maternity. Do people not realise that the whole idea of maternity leave/pay as we know it is a very recent phenomenon? Even though it was officially introduced in 1975 it was still not open to many. When my mum had me and my DB in the 70s, she had to resign from her teaching job, as did most women. This created a big hole in the pension pot and women have had to fight to get this redressed.

It's the fact they changed the goal posts without saying anythingI think it's terrible

This was on the radar in 1995.

I am one of those women (coming up to 65.)

I am still working ( for myself and p/t) and have no intentions to stop at a given date.

I hate the whole idea that your working life stops at a certain birth date.

But, moreover, this raising of the SPA was first on our radar 22 years ago in 1995.

Women have had plenty of time to make plans whether re-training or carrying on working.

I can't get my head round how we are supposed to want equality yet men retire later and live shorter lives. How fair is that?

The country cannot afford this. My DCs in their 30s are paying taxes for these women who, quite frankly, could carry on working and stop thinking they are so entitled when they have had decades to make plans.

That FT article also contains outliers of millionaires which drives up the numbers. It’s not representative of an “average” citizen