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.

People are talking about getting a second career or switching to another job as if it’s some terrible infliction.

Personally I can’t wait. I’m a teacher, I’ve worked full time for decades and while there’s a lot I love about the role I’m damn sure there are easier ways to earn a living than managing and teaching upwards of 300 different teenagers a week, ensuring they make expected progress and attainment.

I won’t get my state pension until 67. No good whining that if things hadn’t changed I’d be getting it at 60.

And for heaven’s sake let’s stop talking about people in their 60s as if they’re over the hill. This isn’t the 1900’s. Many 60 and 70 year olds are capable independent people who can offer a lot, particularly with their wealth of experience. And if you do suffer some serious sickness or disability which renders you unable then frankly this could happen earlier anyway, and you’ll be entitled to other benefits than the state pension.

@Ilovemypantry The point is you came along here saying you were bitter not to get MORE than your work pension at present. AND you fail to understand that what you paid into your pension pot after only working p/t and for 20 years is not paying your pension- it's taxes from people older than you (still working) that are propping it up!

I'd love to see the actual figures of what you earned, your pension pot and your annual pension because you have completely lost the plot (or never had it!) You fail to understand how generous your pension is.

Agreed @Acciocats

I don’t plan to still be doing what I’m doing now, when I am 60. Even aged 48 the constant ‘we need these numbers NOW NOW NOW when will you have the answer we need to manage expectations blah blah’ is becoming tiresome, and compared to a teacher or a medic I have it easy.

However, I will still be working. I don’t know as what, but I’ll need to carry on earning, I like the intellectual challenge of work and I like being around colleagues. Maybe I’ll work in a call centre, who knows.

What I won’t be doing is crying about the fact that I won’t get my state pension or preserved civil service pension until I’m at least 68.

@iamthewombat, nor should you cry because you’ve had more than 20 years notice to plan accordingly.

The anger of Waspi women is because the goalposts were moved on us and only us twice, the second time just before our planned retirement dates. The impact of the changes has fallen disproportionately on us and the transition arrangements are spectacularly unfair.

You were told in 2011, @alsohuman. You could have carried on working, like everybody else has to.

I know that the pro-back to 60 campaigners maintain that they weren’t told, and I can see why a disaffected group would cling to that story, because it shifts the blame to somebody else, but the information was there (the court found >500 references to it) and it was your responsibility to check, irrespective of the odd glitch on a government website.

Seriously, how can the people who claim they never heard a thing about the 2011 changes be the same people who managed to smoke out a couple of obsolete web pages on gov.co.uk still saying that women’s state pension age was 60? How does that work, then? Selective blindness? If you can look at one website and magically find an out of date page giving you the answer you want, you can look at others even if they don’t fit your narrative.

I’ve worked in government. The websites are, by and large, a crock. Even when I worked in the civil service I used other data sources. That’s because I had the nous to know that in order to answer an important question you need to gather a range of evidence. The crapness of the DWP website isn’t an excuse (one letter I received from Civil Service Pensions, years ago, told me that I’d receive £200k a year when I retired. GREAT! Shall I take them to court when they don’t cough up because that is what I was promised?)

@Alsohuman How come that I knew? And the reality is that working for 3 more years even if you didn't know, it should not be such a big issue especially when men are working till 65. If you have your health, you can work at 60, 63 and 66. This hang up on retirement and feeling too old is shocking really. And yes, if a job is too hard, find something else to do.

I've been along to some WIBN (women in business networking) meetings and the number of women there who are 55+ and starting something new, is incredible. I've been shocked and saddened by a lot of posts here from older women who seem to lack imagination over what else they could do if they need to earn money and don't like their current job. This includes professional women who don't seem to realise they can set up freelance, as a small company, or offer their skills in a different way.

I have to say I agree iamthewombat. And the 2011 changes only speeded up what was already going to happen; the major change to equalise pension ages was 24 years ago. Changes in 2011 meant some women having to wait another year or 18 months for their state pension- but if you needed this to survive why on earth wouldn’t you continue working, which would provide you with a higher income than the pension anyway? If anyone felt in a strong enough financial position to stop working before being able to claim their pension then it’s a bit much to complain...

Re: the website, I have to agree it makes sense to double and triple check everything, certainly before making major decisions about stopping work! I wouldn’t go on the gov. U.K. website, do a forecast on one of the calculators and hand in my notice on the basis of some prediction!

And actually same with my occupational pension, I have a TPA account and can use calculators to predict a general ballpark figure if I were to retire from teaching at say, 57 or 60 - but no way would I hand in my notice on the basis of that. I’ll organise a proper statement and a face to face meeting before making such decisions.

So @Ilovemypantry, despite being told numerous times now that: you haven't funded your full pension; other people are going to have to do it if you want it early; and said other people might not be very impressed about that given that you've retired at least 10 years earlier than they will...

You're sticking to your narrative that you've paid for your full pension, that nobody else is required to provide any funding for you, and we're all just ~jealous~ of your existence.

Was this how you behaved when the changes were announced? It'd explain how you missed the memo...

You were told in 2011, @alsohuman. You could have carried on working, like everybody else has to.

Yes, I was told in 2011 - three years before my planned for state pension age. And I did carry on working. By the time I finished I had 45 years of NI contributions - ten years more than required to qualify for a state pension.

This isn’t about me. It’s about the principle of 300,000 women being shat on from a great height.

But you have not been defecated on from a great height. Everybody else has to work longer to get a state pension. Why shouldn’t you?

If this case makes it as far as the Supreme Court, I look forward to reading Brenda Hale’s judgment (which will be ‘elegant short shrift’).

By the time I finished I had 45 years of NI contributions - ten years more than required to qualify for a state pension.

You will GET a state pension but not as soon as you thought, years ago.

How can you think that these things remain static as an elderly population increases?

The state pension is at most around £8K pa. Most women will be far better off working as long as they can. This is the part of the argument I don't get.

I would guess that for the majority of these women who are protesting, the SP is never going to be their sole income. They will have partners or occup pensions too, because living on £160 a week is no fun.

That is why their protests appear disingenuous. It's not that they need the money, it's that they want other people to pay for them to do nothing, when they could still work.

Well 60 is too young with today's life expectancy. But, it can be very hard to find a job over 55- my mum was made redundant in her late 50s- she still had some mortgage left and it was a real source of stress finding a new role.
I'm 33 and expect never to get a state pension (!) so DH and I are diligently saving into pensions and trying to be financially sensible in general.

As a self employed person, I am given the opportunity to pay my NI contributions when I do my tax return. Once I’ve paid my 35 years that’s it although I’ll still have three more years to wait until I get my pension.

I’m just glad I don’t work for someone else, and get stopped my NI contributions before I receive my salary.

If people can’t be arsed to plan for their old age, that’s their look out. I’m not helping to bail them out.

Can people not see how depressing this second change woyld be for someone already out of work with little hope of finding work.
It all very well to say well just kerp on working but not so easy when you are unemployed and surviving on a pittance.

Also @Alsohuman What is your view on men's pension age? If women had won this case, would men have not under the equality act, been forced to appeal for their pensions? And also, would they not even now have a case for having their retirement age increased to 66 or 67?

Have they not been shat on too?

I really cannot understand why anyone would want to stop work and have less money (as a pension) than carry on working, unless they hate their job which is not a reason to live off the state.

Once more for the hard of reading. I’ll try to use words of no more than one syllable.

• Equalising pension ages was the right and fair thing to do
• The 1995 changes were fair, well publicised and allowed those affected to plan
• The 2011 changes were not well publicised, did not allow enough time for many women to plan and were a double hit on the same cohort
• The transition arrangements are a joke and are grossly unfair, with some women being disadvantaged far more than others, based on their date of birth
• It’s not about me.

@Northernsoulgirl45 That is a very silly argument. You can't say people can have their pension early just because they are unemployed- where would you draw the line? 50? 55? 60? The question you need to ask is why people are unemployed- usually it's because they don't want to work for the minimum wage and prefer to live on benefits.

The 2011 changes were not well publicised, did not allow enough time for many women to plan and were a double hit on the same cohort

and in words of one syllable back to you- they were.

and in a few more words, what 'planning' was required other than turning up for work each day?

and taking the other angle..... it's now 8 years since 2011. How long do you think people need ? What sort of changes are you talking about? Women talk about 'planning' but in pension terms, 8 years is the blink of an eye . Anyone with any nous should have realised you cannot rely on the SP and it can change at any time - its value and date.

I am a woman and resent being taken for a fool by these other women's weak arguments.

I don’t get @Northernsoulgirl45’s argument either. If you are unemployed and genuinely cannot find a job then you stay on JSA until you start to receive your state pension. You simply exchange one benefit for another. Why would an unemployed person regard reaching state pension age as the sunlit uplands? Your life would scarcely change. You wouldn’t be minted on £160 (max) a week.

I’m also a bit confused by @Frannyhy’s aversion to having NI deducted from her salary if she were employed rather than self-employed. What difference does it make in the long run whether your NI is deducted at source or you pay it over to HMRC separately? It all counts towards your NI record. What am I missing?

Alsohuman- I have ‘fully paid up’ for my state pension. I continue to pay hundreds every month but won’t get any more state pension than if I jacked my job in tomorrow! Tons of us are in the same position. And then you’ve got the likes of Ilovemypantry who paid a fraction of NI because she worked part time for decades but will still get the benefit of a state pension.

See, @Alsohuman, when posters losing a debate resort to describing people holding an opposing view as ‘hard of reading’, ‘lacking comprehension’ etc., it doesn’t add gravitas to your argument. It just makes you sound petulant and ungracious.

Scarely change. 77 to 160 is a pretty major change I would say.
My point was to say that it is impossible to plan or safe for the subsequent change when you are already barely surviving.
Believe me this person was desperate to work but couldn't get work.
She did and still does do about 25 hours volunteering but cannot get paid work.

@JinglingHellsBells, do you not plan your life? Most people do. They make decisions some time ahead for major life changes, based on currently available information.

I notice you’re ignoring the points about the short notice, double impact on the same cohort and the blatant injustice of the transition arrangements.

As for publicity - fewer than 600 articles spread over national and local press is pathetic. There was no campaign whatsoever which is unforgivable in the age of social media.

When you address the points raised in a post, I won’t use the term “hard of reading”.