Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

OP posts:
MrThorpeHazell · 14/05/2026 15:51

TheSmallAssassin · 14/05/2026 09:10

One of the variables for setting pension age is trying to keep the proportion of life spent in retirement compared to working the same as it was for previous generations, so as we live longer, we work longer and get longer in retirement. Pegging it to a specific number of years isn't correct.

Show quote history

OK, but can you come up with a better way?

GoldMoon · 14/05/2026 15:56

BIossomtoes · 14/05/2026 11:46

So in reality the early 1960s born women are losing out the most

They didn’t. Women born in 1953/54 were the worse affected because of the short notice. You had 17 years notice after 2011, some early 1950s women barely got 17 months notice.

I disagree yes it might have been harsh for early 50s born women but I was born in the first few months of 61 and have worked since the age of 16 was under the belief for a large part of my working career that I would be retiring at 60 . Women born in the early 50s were pushed to 65 and later born to 67 . My friend born less than 2 years before retired at 66 as it was cumulative but that has now caught up and I will receive my pension ( and bus pass ) at 67 .

TheSmallAssassin · 14/05/2026 15:57

Well, I think doing what we do now, trying to keep the ratios of working time to retirement the same over generations is pretty fair, @MrThorpeHazell - just pointing out that it isn't true to say that the assumption is 15 years, it's that you spend around a third of your adult life in retirement.

Original poster
Jane379 · 14/05/2026 16:17

Sorry, I was very busy- lots of interesting replies. I'll reply to more tonight....

OP posts:
Original poster
Jane379 · 14/05/2026 16:21

ShyMaryEllen · 14/05/2026 01:00

Well, you can if you earned unequal pay, and weren’t allowed to pay into an occupational pension for most of your working life. There is still a gender pay gap now, but when 50’s born women (not all are members of WASPI) started working there was legal discrimination against women. That wasn’t swept away by the Equality Act.

Show quote history

That's true...but equal pay act came into force in 1975, surely unequal pay can't have had a huge impact on most of these women?

OP posts:
Focacciaisyum · 14/05/2026 16:23

notateenietiny · 14/05/2026 11:26

Listen darling. I worked and paid in for 50 years, six years longer than my pension age was supposed to be when I started work. I never got a thing other than my wages because I didn't have children. Now I get my state pension and my private pension and I'm not apologising to oiks like you for taking a pension from a system I contributed to for 50 years. 50 years contributions. How many have you got?

Show quote history

Mo one is suggesting you shouldn't get a person though are they? You've just made that up. People are talking about how you shouldn't be getting compensation for yhe change in pension age paid for by current workers. Which you absolutely shouldnt.
And FWIW I have 32 years contributions so far and 19 years till I can retire (unless it gets raised again) 9 months total maternity leave in that time. 2 kids.

TheignT · 14/05/2026 16:23

Nanda66 · 14/05/2026 13:38

Im a bit younger so my pension age is now 67 although it was 60 when I started work but it didn’t suddenly change from 60 to 66. That is a myth, it was announced in 1995 that it would be rising to 65 for women. It was later brought forward and a change from 65 to 66 that was accelerated and affected Waspi women. All women have known of at least an extra 5 years since the mid 90s and for many it is more than 5.

I really think Waspi women are campaigning on the wrong thing. Otherwise I and others would also be campaigning for the 7 years or more we think we’re owed.

Show quote history

That's not quite accurate. I was born in 53, the 95 announcement meant I'd get my pension at 63,in 2011 that changed to 65. So some women were due to get their pension at 65 but some at 61, 62 and so on.

I think the bit I hated was if I'd been born 8 hours earlier if have got my pension three months earlier. Cliff edges are annoying.

I think a campaign for the short notice some had with the 2011 change would have made more sense but it's history now.

Charlotte120221 · 14/05/2026 16:24

no time for this - this is a small group of women who somehow missed the very public information that state pension age was changing.

we all have to work these extra years before claiming state pension.

yawn.

TheignT · 14/05/2026 16:27

GoldMoon · 14/05/2026 15:56

I disagree yes it might have been harsh for early 50s born women but I was born in the first few months of 61 and have worked since the age of 16 was under the belief for a large part of my working career that I would be retiring at 60 . Women born in the early 50s were pushed to 65 and later born to 67 . My friend born less than 2 years before retired at 66 as it was cumulative but that has now caught up and I will receive my pension ( and bus pass ) at 67 .

Show quote history

You did have plenty of time to make plans early 50s women had much shorter time to prepare for the 2011 changes. I just carried on working but some probably struggled with that.

BernardButlersBra · 14/05/2026 16:28

YouHaveAnArse · 14/05/2026 14:19

It's cute that people think anyone under 40 will be able to retire at 67. They'll still be paying off their mortgages, if they're lucky enough to be able to get a mortgage at all. Many will have to work out how to cover private rents indefinitely. Some will be lucky enough to inherit, but the generational divide between those whose parents own property/assets and those who don't is widening, and care costs will vastly limit the extent of any family helping hand.

To them, this argument must read a bit like complaining that you were promised a horse for your birthday but only got a pony.

Exactly. I’m under 50 and have very little chance of retiring at 67 which l worked out years ago. So l chuckle when my mum moans at retiring “late” at 62. After years of part time work as well. By the time l retire then l will probably have worked about 25% more hours over my working life than her

The horse / pony analogy is spot on

Wasabiorchilli · 14/05/2026 16:29

Charlotte120221 · 14/05/2026 16:24

no time for this - this is a small group of women who somehow missed the very public information that state pension age was changing.

we all have to work these extra years before claiming state pension.

yawn.

Agree…this is a small group of women who say they missed the information…I belong to this age group and it was widely discussed with friends and colleagues. Of course it was . It was a significant change and everyone was aware of it.

Original poster
Jane379 · 14/05/2026 16:30

DaisyDooley · 14/05/2026 08:44

@odddsoxs
Nobody “stole” anything from you.
There wasn’t a pot with your name on which a civil servant dutifully put your contribution into.
Your generation have had advantages that young people today will never have - free university, affordable housing, plentiful social housing, the ability to bring up a family on one salary, the best years of the NHS - to name a few.
The change in pension age was hugely advertised and surely as responsible women you (coll) should have been keeping an eye on your own future and retirement plans.
Pension is a benefit. It’s the biggest chunk of welfare payments by a country mile. UC payments -63 billion. Pensions -134 billion.
So young people are working harder for less to ensure that pensions are paid to a huge cohort of people who have a better life expectancy than the generations that come after them. Yes - you (coll) are the first generation who leave your children a shorter life expectancy .
And it’s still not enough!
Stop being so greedy! We can’t afford it!!
We need to invest in defence, not give billions of £££ to women who should have planned better.

Re lower life expectancy- this does vary around the UK and based on income. London has better than some rural areas, Scotland is worse than England etc. Gen Z have healthier habits on average so that should do some good. But definitely there are serious issues re health of people in UK generally. This effects Boomers too, they are less healthy than generation before.

OP posts:
BernardButlersBra · 14/05/2026 16:34

notateenietiny · 14/05/2026 11:26

Listen darling. I worked and paid in for 50 years, six years longer than my pension age was supposed to be when I started work. I never got a thing other than my wages because I didn't have children. Now I get my state pension and my private pension and I'm not apologising to oiks like you for taking a pension from a system I contributed to for 50 years. 50 years contributions. How many have you got?

Show quote history

🤣🤣🤣 50 years of contributions is hardly excessive or out of the ordinary though. I will probably end up doing 55 or 56 years of contributions. Before you ask (like you ask someone else) l have already done 30 years

HoppityBun · 14/05/2026 16:36

GoldMoon · 14/05/2026 15:56

I disagree yes it might have been harsh for early 50s born women but I was born in the first few months of 61 and have worked since the age of 16 was under the belief for a large part of my working career that I would be retiring at 60 . Women born in the early 50s were pushed to 65 and later born to 67 . My friend born less than 2 years before retired at 66 as it was cumulative but that has now caught up and I will receive my pension ( and bus pass ) at 67 .

Show quote history

You were 34 when the first changes came in. So you’d been working 18 years. If you still thought after that that you’d be retiring at 60, you must be been amazingly isolated.

You are already entitled to free prescriptions and a Senior Rail card.

MikeRafone · 14/05/2026 16:40

Everyone gets affected by changes in government policy. It’s annoying but the consequence of having a ridiculously large population for the size of country we have

To have changes in policy is part isn't the actual problem, it was the way that this has been completed which put some woman at a disadvantage without the ability to make those changes as time had passed.

If you were born in 1954 you would start work on average in 1968, without the ability to have a work pension, without maternity pay and the prospect of being sacked/let go when you got married or pregnant and not being paid the same wage as a male counterpart. All those factors in a job would affect the ability to pay into a pension and make provision. If you returned to work in 1994 at 40 years old you would then have equal pay and the right to have a workplace pension - but by now you'd have to pay much more into a pension at 40 years old to have the same affect as paying into a pension at 20 years old.

To say everyone gets affected by government policy, can you name another policy int he last 100 years that has changed and had so many factors that were affecting a group of people?

DaisyDooley · 14/05/2026 16:40

Jane379 · 14/05/2026 16:30

Re lower life expectancy- this does vary around the UK and based on income. London has better than some rural areas, Scotland is worse than England etc. Gen Z have healthier habits on average so that should do some good. But definitely there are serious issues re health of people in UK generally. This effects Boomers too, they are less healthy than generation before.

Show quote history

The life expectancy of the ‘baby boomer generation’ is 79-83.
The life expectancy of the silent generation (1925-1945) is 74-80.
So, as I said, the baby boomer post ww2 generation are the first generation to leave their offspring with shorter life expectancy and poorer.

MikeRafone · 14/05/2026 16:42

HoppityBun · 14/05/2026 16:36

You were 34 when the first changes came in. So you’d been working 18 years. If you still thought after that that you’d be retiring at 60, you must be been amazingly isolated.

You are already entitled to free prescriptions and a Senior Rail card.

Show quote history

The changes were announced in 1995 - if you were born in 1961 you would have been 44 at the time not 35

HoppityBun · 14/05/2026 16:47

MikeRafone · 14/05/2026 16:42

The changes were announced in 1995 - if you were born in 1961 you would have been 44 at the time not 35

Show quote history

Really? You’re going to have to count that out for me because I can’t see it. Every time I take 1961 from 1995 it comes out at 34!

JuliettaCaeser · 14/05/2026 16:48

Yes so weirdly aggressive! Why am I an oik? How rude. FWIW I’ve paid in for about 32 years. High earner for most of it so possibly a net contributor. Dh and I often say how we had it easy compared to this generation. Minimal student loans. Graduated into a booming economy (early 2000s). Lots of graduate jobs. We have nothing to moan about.

MikeRafone · 14/05/2026 16:48

HoppityBun · 14/05/2026 16:47

Really? You’re going to have to count that out for me because I can’t see it. Every time I take 1961 from 1995 it comes out at 34!

Show quote history

im acting dumb this afternoon - sorry

BananaPeels · 14/05/2026 16:53

MikeRafone · 14/05/2026 16:40

Everyone gets affected by changes in government policy. It’s annoying but the consequence of having a ridiculously large population for the size of country we have

To have changes in policy is part isn't the actual problem, it was the way that this has been completed which put some woman at a disadvantage without the ability to make those changes as time had passed.

If you were born in 1954 you would start work on average in 1968, without the ability to have a work pension, without maternity pay and the prospect of being sacked/let go when you got married or pregnant and not being paid the same wage as a male counterpart. All those factors in a job would affect the ability to pay into a pension and make provision. If you returned to work in 1994 at 40 years old you would then have equal pay and the right to have a workplace pension - but by now you'd have to pay much more into a pension at 40 years old to have the same affect as paying into a pension at 20 years old.

To say everyone gets affected by government policy, can you name another policy int he last 100 years that has changed and had so many factors that were affecting a group of people?

But private pensions are not the problem surely?

the issue is people had planned their finances to retire at 60 and were taken aback that they had to work 5 more years.

Some people missed the info and so were pushed to retire at 65 say and had not realised the change and were completely shocked when they got to 59 that no state pension was available at the time. There was one woman I read about who literally ‘retired’ at 60 and went to claim her pension and was gobsmacked she didn’t have an income and wouldn’t be getting anything for many years. She felt it was unfair as she was (somehow) completely in the dark that she couldn’t retire at 60.

there are other women who know about the change but just felt it was unfair they had to work longer. You could argue working longer gave them 5 years more to invest in a private pension anyway so helped them plan more for retirement. I can see how you would be upset if you were a month off the change and had to work 2 more years as a result. Someone is always going to be the cut off. Bit like tuition fees. Someone was born on the last date they were zero and then the next day someone was born and they were liable to pay. I’d be annoyed if I was on the cut off so I totally get it but ultimately people complaining that they had to work to 65 when they were told at 35 doesn’t get much sympathy.

GoldMoon · 14/05/2026 16:55

HoppityBun · 14/05/2026 16:36

You were 34 when the first changes came in. So you’d been working 18 years. If you still thought after that that you’d be retiring at 60, you must be been amazingly isolated.

You are already entitled to free prescriptions and a Senior Rail card.

Show quote history

Prescriptions yes , but a rail card , yes at a cost but as I live in a fairly remote place , a rail card is not something I would really need for day to day living and my nearest station is 30 miles away .

Chocolatebunny61 · 14/05/2026 16:57

It’s a difficult one and I can see both sides. Like many others on here I expected to retire at 60 when I started work. Then the pension age was raised so both men and women retired at 65. That is ok as why should we retire before men can. But then it started changing again - some can retire at 66 but as I’m 65 in August I have to wait until my 67th birthday to be eligible. That’s fine if you are fit and well but if you are unlucky enough to get cancer or be disabled and in pain then it can be very difficult to keep working. Both of those happened to me since I became 60 and I’m lucky in that I am able to get PIP but I really like to see some sort of scheme where once you get to say 63 or even 65 you can claim your state pension on medical grounds if a doctor is willing to certify that you genuinely can’t work.

DaisyDooley · 14/05/2026 17:01

GoldMoon · 14/05/2026 16:55

Prescriptions yes , but a rail card , yes at a cost but as I live in a fairly remote place , a rail card is not something I would really need for day to day living and my nearest station is 30 miles away .

Show quote history

Do you want a refund because you don’t live close enough to a station to get full use of a senior railcard??

MikeRafone · 14/05/2026 17:06

BananaPeels · 14/05/2026 16:53

But private pensions are not the problem surely?

the issue is people had planned their finances to retire at 60 and were taken aback that they had to work 5 more years.

Some people missed the info and so were pushed to retire at 65 say and had not realised the change and were completely shocked when they got to 59 that no state pension was available at the time. There was one woman I read about who literally ‘retired’ at 60 and went to claim her pension and was gobsmacked she didn’t have an income and wouldn’t be getting anything for many years. She felt it was unfair as she was (somehow) completely in the dark that she couldn’t retire at 60.

there are other women who know about the change but just felt it was unfair they had to work longer. You could argue working longer gave them 5 years more to invest in a private pension anyway so helped them plan more for retirement. I can see how you would be upset if you were a month off the change and had to work 2 more years as a result. Someone is always going to be the cut off. Bit like tuition fees. Someone was born on the last date they were zero and then the next day someone was born and they were liable to pay. I’d be annoyed if I was on the cut off so I totally get it but ultimately people complaining that they had to work to 65 when they were told at 35 doesn’t get much sympathy.

Show quote history

Im really being dumb this afternoon - where have I mentioned private pensions? not being funny im struggling and have re read it but can't see it?