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.

I am late sixties and there has always been an expectation that I would work and help provide for my family and myself. I was in the NCT, forty years ago, and I remember that day time social events becoming increasingly rare as women went back to work after maternity leave.
I totally understand why many young people rail against the injustice of many social benefits being directed at the wealthiest group in society. In my opinion there has to be more support for struggling families. In the end, society has to promote and support future generations rather than giving non means tested fuel allowances and free bus passes to older people.

fafoutis

It was the OP I asked, but anyway, that link shows the wealthiest as being the 55-64 age group.

Pensions aren't means tested because when benefits targeted at OAPs are then people in that group don't claim it due to what they saw in their childhoods.

People seem unaware of the history of the benefits system where if you had for example more chairs than adults in your house you were expected to sell them before going to the state for help.

It's actually better and cheaper for the government to claw back the money through taxation.

@LittleAndOften I think you are mistaken. I was teaching in the 1970s and no one had to resign their posts. Your mum's confused or you are .
Maybe she chose to leave teaching but it's a nonsense to say she was forced to in the 70s. I was at school in the 60s and early 70s with friends whose mums taught in the same school!

They weren't suddenly told. They had decades.

As I understand it that's not true. There's a cohort who slipped between the cracks and were literally told at the last minute by which time some of them were no longer in work in readiness for their retirement. These are the "waspi's".

My oldest sister was able to retire at 60 (fortunately - as she died at 64). My other sister, now 64, has had to keep working. I'm in my 50s and have indeed known for decades although it's frustrating that it keeps creeping up. I've never had a career break and thankfully I've been paying into a private pension for years and now have a work pension as well so retirement at 60 is still on the cards for me but it's no thanks to the Government.

Completely agree with you @JinglingHellsBells . Thank you for making your points so eloquently.

The equal pay act of 1970 was a great start.

Here we are in 2019 www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/technology/2019/jan/18/oracle-women-workers-lawsuit-salaries-pay

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

I employ women in their late 50s and early 60s and think what you've said is unkind, unintelligent and unworkable.

@JinglingHellsBells 😂😂 yes that's right, I made it all up, and so did my mum. WTF!

I don’t think many of us working today can imagine the multiple-disadvantages that the WASPI generation faced, especially if working class, disabled or Black.

I have an aunt who is affected by this, there are major gaps in her education as she came from the poorest of backgrounds and was expected to skip school to help with her younger siblings. She married young and had her girls, the division of household labour was of course nil, no access to a car, household appliances were not what they are now etc etc.

Her husband was a violent arsehole but she was completely dependent on him for a time. When the girls were in school she persuaded him to let her have a little job outside of the home, for her own sanity more than anything. She did little bits of retail here and there but attitudes about married women of child bearing age were still pretty questionable in the 80s, she finally got a ‘proper’ long term contract working in a factory but there was certainly no work place pension, pre-minimum wage, pre-child tax credits etc. She loved that job and stayed there for years until the company went into administration she’s now in a similar role still doing shift work in a factory but naturally she is knackered, not like me coming home from my office job knackered, I mean her joints are going, her respiratory system is fucked, she can barely function on her days off (but try telling that to my cousins who insist on pumping her for free child care). I laugh when privileged people on here talk about 60 being middle aged, not in my community it isn’t, my aunties tale is FAR from unusual.

There have been a few junctures in her life where we have hoped she might leave her husband (she even tried once or twice), the next likely juncture will be when she retires, but truthfully I can’t see her having the energy or the means at this rate.

What are we, the 7th or the 5th richest nation on earth or something? I’m sure there has to be a fair way of making an exception for this group of women, who lets face it forged a pathway in the workplace that us lot on here have benefitted from.

@Gothamgirl1970 You DO have transferable skills you just haven't acknowledged them. I have changed careers 3 times (am coming up to 65) once at 50 then at 55 (I run two roles alongside each other.) I had a friend with a PhD who left one role and became a counsellor in her late 60s.
It's not too late and my advice is you see a career coach to explore where you can go next.

And I know that is an American lawsuit but I was a U.K. employee affected by it!

When my mum had me and my DB in the 70s, she had to resign from her teaching job, as did most women

I was teaching in the 70s and women were not made to leave their jobs.

Great post vulcan

Some people have no clue what they are talking about. I usually hate this phrase but it fits this thread perfectly.

Check your privilege.

Now it's a top-up to the richest part of society.
WTAF?

@myself2020 every European country sets their retirement age somewhere in the 60s - a few even have women retire before 60 where I guess life expectancy may be lower. And quite a few have it set at 60.

@LittleAndOften How old is your mum? I'm sorry to disagree but I joined the teaching profession in 1976. I can tell you 100% that women did NOT have to leave their job if they had a baby. I am not sure where you got this idea. It did happen in the 1940s when married women had to leave teaching but certainly not when you say so I don't know where you are getting it from. Please tell me where.

@JinglingHellsBells I have seen a career counsellor. I am trying all different sectors in roles related to my education. I have a very specific scientific skill set but I appreciate your vote of confidence.

(Trying not to lose my house, sadly no dear children and no H for support just me and looking after a mum 80+)

@StCharlotte they were told but unfortunately if you don't read the financial sections of papers or listen to the full news daily then you wouldn't have known.

I was only made aware that I should keep an eye out on the financial sections of papers/listen to financial news because I had a friend working in the pension industry.

Lots of people in their 40s are only aware their pension age is 68 (or later) even though the legislation hasn't gone through parliament because people keep mentioning it.

My ladies were told by their union. Unions very useful in cases like this.

@JinglingHellsBells it doesn't bother me what you believe, but it's pretty insulting to be called a liar. My mum trained in the 1960s and had been teaching for years before you started. In 1974 she had to resign to have my brother, she had no choice, and so did many of her friends. Sorry if that doesn't fit your narrative.

I remember women having to leave work because they had babies, definitely.

I am a man born in 1957, which makes me 61. My state pension age is 66, raised from an original expectation of 65. A woman born on the same day has a state pension age of 66, although raised from an original expectation of 60.

As things stand, I have no concrete plans to retire and unless my health goes expect that I will probably work until about 70 (as did my father) as I still have dependent children and a mortgage.

While some women of my generation may have sacrificed their careers to children, I know many who have done very nicely thank you; probably better than I have.

I have yet to hear a good reason why a woman born on the same day as me should get her state pension any earlier than I do.

I started teaching in the seventies as well and worked alongside many women who took maternity leave and returned to work.
There is so often this annoying assumption that women of my age were discouraged in some way from working. So not true. I think post war women were the first generation of working class women who chose not to work. Equal pay was introduced in the early 1970s and there was the employment protection act in 1975 which gave women a right to return to work after maternity leave. There had been maternity leave beforehand but this was enshrined in law.
I was taught by teachers who had returned to work after having babies.

Those waspis who say they knew nothing of this- please, where have you been for the last 22 years since it was in the news in 1995? You only have yourselves to blame if you hadn't heard about it because it has been on women's radars for 22 years. It's hit the headlines time after time so you must be living under a rock.