Women's state pension age: Parliament debate - add your views?

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello all

Parliament's Petitions Committee has been in touch - having seen our webchat with Mhairi Black about women's state pension ages - to ask whether MNers would like to have some input into a Westminster Hall debate about the issue.

This debate is as a result of a petition calling for the government to 'Make fair transitional state pension arrangements for 1950s women' getting the required number of signatures for a Parliament debate.

The Committee is after MNers' thoughts on the following questions; you can see links to the first Commons debate here (video) and here (transcript).

What were the most important points in the first debate for you? What do you think should have been covered that was not?

What points do you think a second debate should focus on?

What questions would you ask the Minister following their response to the debate?

Your thoughts will be fed back to MPs taking part in the Westminster Hall debate.

Thanks
MNHQ

Although not in the same position as a number of posters above, I am 50 but I also feel utterly shafted. I have also worked from the day I left school at 16, have paid full NI contributions/taxes etc and carried on working (although it was part time) when my children were young.
I always had the expectation of retiring at 60 like my mother/mil etc but that milestone is being pulled further and further away.
Now, whilst I have time to plan for this (although exactly how I don't know - I guess to keep working) my fear is that the age of retirement will keep being shoved up and up.

Yes, it is unutterably unfair on those who were born in the 1950s, but I think it is unfair on all of those who are just beyond any cut off point as it is so arbitrary. At present my retirement age is 66 or 67 I think but this will undoubtedly increase.
I just have no idea how people are expected to carry on working until this age in an environment where there are massive cuts etc (particularly in the public sector) and nothing but low paid jobs in the private sector (unless you have a profession) which a lot of people born in the 1950/1960s do not.
I feel like I am going to spend the next 20 years literally clinging on to my job whilst young people have little hope of getting a job and housing.

Pistachiocray
I totally agree that it is a ponzi scheme but we have an increasing population and are going to have to continue to increase the population so the situation gets worse and worse as more people retire.
What I don't understand, however, is where the money is going to. Those in work nowadays pay a much higher rate of NI (although I know this is not really kept separate from general taxes) than my parents/pils did but we can expect to work longer and longer and receive less and less.
I work in registration and see many, many death certificates and, although anecdotal, I just don't see that people are living longer and longer.
I read a few years ago that the statistic that people are claiming their pensions for longer is statistically flawed and that the figures are manipulated and that we believe it because medicine is far more advanced etc.
But on a day to day basis, I would say at least half of the deaths registered in the office I work are below the age of retirement (66).
So where is the money going?

Good question need.

If teachers and nurses will need to work until their late 60s, who will be footing the bill for all the sick leave? I don't know what the maximum time I could be off sick on full pay is because luckily I've never needed to take more than a week, but surely there will be huge costs involved.

I'm younger but when starting work I was under the impression I would be getting my pension at 60 and now that date has changed twice. I had my 30 years of NI contributions but now it's 35.

I was contracted out of SERPS and there is naff all I can do about that now . Having spoken to the pensions helpline people I have been assured I was contracted out at a time when it was 'better' plus I do receive updates from my contracted out people.

Must admit I have never trusted the Government regardless of if they are blue or red so whilst peeved I'm not surprised.

I decided to carry on working when I had my DC much to the horror of my sisters but now looks like it was a good choice. I cannot even begin to tell you how I was judged by them for not being a SAHM, told I was selfish directly to my face by one of them.

I have no idea need. Maybe its going some way to paying towards all the single worker couples that retired many years ago on a good pensions at 50-55 and spent 30 years retired.

I feel for women that this affects, but in the grand scheme I still think they are the very fortunate people in this country. Compared with youngsters today having to pay a fortune for uni, house prices out of control and for most the prospect of ever retiring is a pipe dream.

^^
Absolutely, it sounds terribly me me me doesn't it. I have teenage children and actually lose sleep worrying about how they will manage in the future re jobs, housing etc (I think I said that at the end of my post).

My point was that the ponzi scheme is getting bigger and bigger but there is less and less money for the 'payout'. I can't really see, anecdotally - and I live in the South East, that the age of dying is increasing rapidly.

I'm not sure I understand why being given more notice in advance of increases in the age of retirement helps as there is little, in reality, that most of us can do to prepare - it's not like we're going to find a huge pot of money at the end of the garden that we can invest. The reality is that most of us have to resign ourselves to working for longer and having a much shorter period of retirement. That's if we can manage to hold on to our jobs.

Another poster mentioned those of us that opted out - I am one of those people and was assured that it would be beneficial to do so. So again, by the time I reach the current retirement age and if I am 'lucky' enough to still be in employment I will have contributed for over 50 years (still not enough I'm sure) but can look to receive pretty much zilch.

I don't want to sound grabby - I believe wholeheartedly in paying taxes and the concept that it benefits society as a whole and that there are many, many people who are a lot worse off than me.

But I just don't understand why large groups of people are able to 'limit' their tax liabilities and why large corporations are enabled to offshore profits when they benefit from the stable infrastructure (governance, roads, it, education etc) that this country provides them to be able to operate in.

I think, somehow, that we are all being conned.

I think it is a shame that women have lost out. But in the long run it was only fair that the state pension age for women should be brought into line with the retirement age for men. Especially as women live longer. It should have stayed at 65 and have been brought in more gradually. And if women are on a small pension they can apply for pension credit.

I'm 50. Since I started work I have seen my pension age rise from 60 to 65 and now 66. I firmly believe it will continue to rise.
Like others I am happy to accept that men and women should have the same pension age. However, the way this has been implemented and the fact that it means that a lot of us believe that the age will continue to rise must surely be problematic.
I do not plan for retirement because I simply do not believe I will ever be retired. And that worries me. Should it worry the government?
I think I will die in harness so I don't really put much money away in savings. I go on those holidays now rather than putting it off till we retire. My parents retired in their mid fifties and have had a lovely time. DH and I came to the realisation a few years ago that their lives will not be our lives and we will not have the health, youth or pot of money to have that type of retirement.

I would like to ask MPs the following:

What are you going to do for female Carers who work over 100 hours a week caring for severly disabled and sick family members, saving the NHS a fortune and who do not have any options of planning for their pension other than placing their loved ones in an institution. Whether the pension age is 60, 66 or 76 we are trapped with little chance to earn a living let alone a pension. My son has been in hospital every month of the last 6 months, no employer will put up with that. Recent legislation recognises that the state pension will not be sufficient to live on so employers have had to set up occupational schemes. Why can't the Government set up a Carers additional pension scheme to offset the lack of an occupational pension.

You know what I would do? Well I would say if that someone had helped the NHS by being a Carer for 20 plus years they should have the right to retire earlier say at 55, they are worn out , their own health has suffered, they will find it hard to re enter the workforce .

Let's just for once have a Government that says a big thank you to hardworking Carers and please do something positive for us rather than throw us a few crumbs from the plate.

"Retire earlier" ....as a Carer cannot "retire" because the caring duties still have to be done what I mean is that I think Carers who have done in excess of 20 years of caring should have the option of taking the state pension early rather than stay on the paltry sum that is Carers Allowance.

I'm 59 and won't be able to retire until I'm 66. My health is not holding up and there is no way that I can continue until then, I have always worked in minimum wage, physical jobs. I have been able to stop work recently as my DH is a few years older and able to apply for Pension Credit to support us both. Ironically the amount that we get is almost the same as we were getting when I was working, allowing for a reduction in commuting costs and getting full council tax support.

I've heard that we've been quite lucky to get it at all as when Universal Credit comes in, both members of a couple will need to be at state pension age. DH is 63, so isn't even at male state pension age, but he gets it because he's at the current female state pension age - that's not going to be an option for men in the future. It will be awful when people in their 60s will have to sign on for JSA because they aren't yet old enough for Pension Credit. As if employers will give any of them a chance at that age, older people are completely overlooked in the workplace.

I feel angry that the changes have been made without notifying women individually, and that leaves me feeling a complete lack of guilt in giving up work when I could. I see it as an opportunity for both of us to take early retirement, lots of well paid people have the chance to do that so why not us.

A few years ago I was listening to a discussion on raising the retirement age on BBC radio4. This civil servant blatantly admitted that it would take around 1 million people out of the pension pot due to early death as a consequence of strain and stress.

i'm so sorry for all the women on the thread effected by this. it seems so shocking that they can dump this on people so close to the expected finishing line.

financially speaking i cannot believe it makes any sense. in reality very many people will end up on unemployment benefits (like the many who have been made redundant and face little chance of finding work in this climate at their age) or on sickness benefits. if someone is forced to leave their job through not having the health or fitness to fulfil the duties they will end up on full benefits eg. sickness benefits, housing benefit, council tax benefit etc likely at a higher level than their state pension would have been. those who have savings will have to spend those first obviously but unless they have massive safety nets, and few people do, that won't take long. then you have people on full benefits costing more than pensions up to retirement age and then being the kind of pensioners who have no savings at all and are therefore still entitled to housing benefit etc.

i can't see how it makes financial sense unless really it's abotu getting those few who can afford to support themselves for many years on their savings to do so but without offending their core 'we did the right thing why should we be punished' sentiments by announcing something like the end of universal state pensions.

and bear in mind the generations coming up behind them will likely have no savings, low home ownership rates and may even still be paying off student bloody debts in their sixties.

we'll end up with a huge proportion of older people living on benefits because they can't get work or are too ill to continue working. their children, unlike the generation represented on this thread, will be unlikely to take them in and support them as they will have no money or space or time to do so.

this has led me to check my own state pension age and to discover it's already set as 67 - i'm 40 so by the time i get there i'm sure they'll have added another 5 years at least to that figure. joy. so basically now that they've started doing this none of us can have any confidence on this issue as we know they can change it with impunity at any stage

I was always planning to work until 75, so doesn't make any difference to me.
My dad is 73 & will work as long as he physically can, but he does work maybe 3 wks/7 type of schedule.
I am lucky I can get by financially working 4 days/week, too.

The ldoomsday predictions for the next generation are precisely why this issue isn't being properly discussed. The media will gave you believe people in their 50s. And 60s all brought homes.for pennies, went to uni for free and all the men at least have large private pension pots.

I think people should start threads in aibu and chat to get this more widely discussed.

I'm really angry about it! And also about the widespread bad-mouthing of greedy pensioners, some of which is on this thread.

I'm in the hardest-hit group, born March 1955. Like many others, I drew down cash from my very small occupational pension to help offset the problems of having my retirement expectations drastically altered in short order, having been made redundant and developed a chronic illness. The illness would be much less of a problem if my pension had started on my 60th birthday - as it is, I'm currently embarking on the inevitable legal battle with the government that says I should be looking for a job

My occupational pension is tiny because it was embezzled. Twice.

The 'Ponzi' aspect of National Insurance shouldn't matter. Governments don't work the same as businesses, which is why government bonds are supposed to be the safest and most boring investments. The fact that it appears to matter now is evidence of gross mismanagement (and/or dishonesty). As a PP said, where is all the money going? We're borrowing like never before, yet still "can't afford" to honour our civil commitments to one another? Pull the other one.

Before any generational whiners pile in: I requested a lifetime statement after being made redundant; I have paid over a third of a million on taxes & NI. I haven't "had that back" and never will if I live to 100, which I won't. There has been, and should still be, ample funding for all the retirement, health & social needs of this country. It would be jolly interesting to find out where it is now.

The disappearance of my private investments (pensions & insurances) through what amounted to malicious incompetence may have made me less tolerant of my money being fucked around by my government. WASPI has done well-balanced calculations of what each sector of cheated women have lost. I want mine back.

I was born in 1954. Original retirement age was 60. It was then moved to 64 in 1995, then moved to 65 1/2 in 2011 after I'd already taken early retirement. On top of that I find that I was contracted out so not only have I to wait for my pension I will not get the 'universal flat rate'. When I retire in 2019 I will only get £119 per week - with 42 years contributions! That cannot be fair can it?

Eliza I receive paperwork a couple of times a year from my contracted out provider. Have you had any paperwork at all? Because though it is linked and variable the last time I received anything it was saying I should be getting about 1,200 per year from them which goes some way to make up the shortfall plus we did pay less NI contributions for years. So though not ideal and I wish my 21 year old self had understood it fully I'm not sure if it's quite as bad as it seems.

What points do you think a second debate should focus on?

Fair redress, which WASPI is well able to frame. Previous posters have referenced preferential transitional schemes for judges and MPs. I should think those would make a good basis for our compensation.

I would like the Ministers to keep in mind that we vote and are not taking this quietly.

No, Eliza, of course it isn't fair. We're just old women, you can always put one over on us

Totally agree carers get the shitty end of every stick - and a lot of carers are women who're also being stuffed by this pension trick. It's another thread, and part of this one too.

I was due to get my state pension next year. I now have to wait six more years. I will be joining any legal class action on this issue. As a Carer there is absolutely no way I could have found work even with adequate notice of these changes. I agree on the equalisation of pension ages but this addition of six years to the state pension age has come too fast. It is unfair and will put many women into poverty at a time of their lives when the job market is effectively closed to them.

There was talk recently about how the pension age may go up, but there was also talk (cant find a link) about maybe a two tier pension with people who started work earlier maybe being allowed to claim their pensions earlier.

That would be a much fairer way age its self is really irrelevant some like me 61 years old this year may have only worked and paid on for 30 years, but I have worked and paid in for 45 (51 when I get mine at 66).

So if there was a scheme where I could be offered the chance to retire now at say a proportion of my pension with the full pension at 66 based on my contributions to date, I would certainly think about it.

The pros would be that my job could be freed up for a younger person.

The cons would be that I would be contributing less to the country as the Government would lose 5 years of nics from me, also 5 years of tax if my private pension falls under my tax allowance (which it would as will be under 11k a year)

Also there maybe a problem with actual means tested benefits, would anyone be allowed to make the decision to reduce their income and still be allowed to claim benefits like HB

Manipulating income in order to claim means-tested benefits is already illegal, Oldsu. I suppose some manage to get away with it but, when 'normal' people have a lottery win or an inheritance, they have to justify any expenditure that brings them below the income threshholds - it often goes to court.