Difference in State Pension age between men and women?

The patriarchy kittylester -

Perhaps in the early 20th century when it was decided, women were considered the ‘weaker’ sex 🤣

Also tanith, when women were expected to be supported by their fathers until a husband was found to take over. Women had no income and weren’t expected to work
Although in the north west, women worked in the mills. Often their children worked with them

Maybe it was because it was recognised that those women with a paid job actually did two jobs, the other being to run the home and take care of the head of the household, and that they perhaps deserved/needed to be able to reduce that workload by the time they were 60.
Somehow doubt it though!

The 'equalisation' happened as a result of a court case brought by a woman. Following the judges' ruling that the pension age should be equal the government chose to equalise them - surprise, surprise - at 65 rather than at 60 or 62.5 thus saving 5 years of women's pension payments. It was a feminist move which backfired and led on to the Waspie scandal.

1925 - age 65
In 1925 a new kind of pension was introduced based on contributions paid at work by employer and employee. It was paid from age 65 without a means-test. A married couple's rate of pension was paid if both spouses were aged 65 or more. That meant many men had to wait for some time after they reached 65 to get the higher rate for their wives.

1940 - men age 65, women age 60
In 1940 pension age for women was cut to 60 to try to ensure for most couples that the married rate would be paid as soon as the husband reached 65.
www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_history.htm

Yes, exactly that. It all boiled down to a decision that men tended to marry women around five years younger than themselves.

When more women started to work and contribute to their own pensions, the age to pay the state pension for women was set at 60 so as not to differentiate between those women who worked outside the household and paid full NIC and those who did not, who received a pension from their husband's contributions.

It was an EEC directive in 1978/79 that triggered equalisation.

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 79/EEC of 19 December 1978

on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security

www.equalrightstrust.org/sites/default/files/ertdocs//%284.3%29_Council_directive_78.pdf

That progression took the UK government another 17 years to legislate for in the Pensions Act 1995.

TinSoldier

Yes, exactly that. It all boiled down to a decision that men tended to marry women around five years younger than themselves.

When more women started to work and contribute to their own pensions, the age to pay the state pension for women was set at 60 so as not to differentiate between those women who worked outside the household and paid full NIC and those who did not, who received a pension from their husband's contributions.

It was an EEC directive in 1978/79 that triggered equalisation.

COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 79/EEC of 19 December 1978

on the progressive implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of social security

www.equalrightstrust.org/sites/default/files/ertdocs//%284.3%29_Council_directive_78.pdf

That progression took the UK government another 17 years to legislate for in the Pensions Act 1995.

It was an EEC directive in 1978/79 that triggered equalisation.
COUNCIL DIRECTIVE 79/EEC of 19 December 1978

Thanks TinSoldier. These two sentences explain something that I have wondered about for years.
I first started work in the 78/79 tax year, when I was 17, and I clearly remember my female office boss mentioning to me and another girl of the same age that some change or other meant that we would not get our State Pension until we were 65.
To be honest, both 60 and 65 seemed equally far off to me at that point, so I wasn't bothered by it, but as the years rolled by and women were still retiring at 60, I did wonder what had led to her saying that and if it was even correct, but now I know. 😁

A 46 year mystery solved!

It’s interesting that Article 7 of the EEC directive says:

1. this Directive shall be without prejudice to the right of Member States to exclude from its scope:

(a) the determination of pensionable age for the purposes of granting old-age and retirement pensions and the possible consequences thereof for other benefits;

(b) advantages in respect of old-age pension schemes granted to persons who have brought up children; the acquisition of benefit entitlements following periods of interruption of employment due to the bringing up of children;

(c) the granting of old-age or invalidity benefit entitlements by virtue of the derived entitlements of a wife;

(d) the granting of increases of long-term invalidity, old-age, accidents at work and occupational disease benefits for a dependent wife;

In other words, the directive gave scope to both equalise the pension age but also to leave it alone and to protect the rights of mothers and wives who derive pensions from their husbands’ contributions.

Yes, the EU Directive did not compel the UK government to equalise pension ages - that followed the judges' ruling in the case I mentioned above.

Could you provide a link to that please?

All I can find is the Lloyds Bank case and the argument over Guarantee Minimum Pensions.

workaffinity.co.uk/pensions-victory-the-making-of-history/

1990 – in the *Barber case (17 May 1990), the European Court ruled that ^occupational pensions were deferred pay and, as such, schemes were required to treat men and women equally. As a result, schemes “equalised” their retirement ages, often at age 65, and adjusted their benefits accordingly.^

^However, as GMPs were designed to integrate with the then state pension, and the rules governing them are set out under legislation, there was some doubt as to whether Barber applied.^

This wasn’t taken up by then pensions minister Angela Eagle until 2010. It wasn’t until 2018 that the High Court ruled that GMPs must be equalised.

*The Barber case was about a man.

Barber was an employee of Guardian Royal Exchange and a member of its pension scheme. The scheme was non-contributory, with a normal pensionable age of 62 years for men and 57 years for women. If an employee was made redundant s/he would be entitled to an immediate pension income at the age of 55 years if a man and 50 years if a woman.

Barber was made redundant at the age of 52 years, and did not receive his pension. If he had been a woman he would clearly have been entitled to an immediate pension. He took a claim that the pension rules were sex discrimination and a breach of article 119 of the Treaty of Rome, relating to equal pay for equal work. This was referred to the European Court of Justice.

Maybe all the men who were forced to work an extra 5 years to get their pension should seek compensation.

Jackiest

Maybe all the men who were forced to work an extra 5 years to get their pension should seek compensation.

Bravo! Only yesterday my brother and I were saying this will be the next thing, another massive debt for the country to absorb.

No - men shouldn’t be compensated. They earned so much more before equal pay

And how many men give up years of their lives to caring responsibilities - unpaid and no stamp
Foster carers could devote 30 years to caring for in some cases hundreds of children. No stamp no pension

Iam64

No - men shouldn’t be compensated. They earned so much more before equal pay

I thought the whole idea of the state pension was that it was not means tested and everyone got it. I earned the same as my husband so why did he have to work 5 years longer than me.

He didn’t. You were able to work five years fewer than he did due to legislation introduced in 1940.

The contributory pension was introduced almost a 100 years ago in 1925 when the pension age was set at 65. Prior to that, it was a means-tested flat rate paid at 70.

Pension age 60 for women was a long-standing anomaly introduced in 1940 on the basis that the majority of married women didn’t work outside the home and depended on men for financial support. It was based on men tending to marry women younger than themselves. Between 1925 and 1940, men retiring at 65 with younger wives had to wait until she reached 65 before he could claim any pension to support her.

This was extended in 1948. If a man’s wife was still under 60 when he reached 65 and retired he could claim a dependant's addition for her.

When more women started to work outside the home and started to contribute to their own state pensions, the pension age was left at 60 else there would have been discrimination between working and non-working women. Men needed 44 years NIC for a full pension, women 39.

The WASPI argument was never about equalisation with men to 65 (then 66) but the way the implementation was maladminstered by the DWP.

The WASPI argument was never about equalisation with men to 65 (then 66) but the way the implementation was maladminstered by the DWP.

Exactly. It’s concerning that so many people, including a former Pensions Minister (David Gauke) can’t seem to grasp this fact.

The Ombudsman, appointed to investigate complaints against public bodies when the usual routes have been exhausted, has found clear maladministration and said that compensation is due. It doesn’t matter a jot whether we as individuals agree or disagree with the findings, or think our poor husbands have been badly done to (perhaps they should start their own campaign?).

The fact is that if the powers that be get away with ignoring the findings of the Ombudsman we’ll be on a very slippery slope to allowing public bodies to do just as they please.

Grantanow
This was not brought by a woman .it was bought by a milkman who thought the retirement age unfair to men.it went to the European court who agreed .gordon brown ,at the time chancellor for Labour,agreed with the eu decision and changed it .in 2011 george Osborne added a further year making it 66 for most of us waspi women .

Women are not as smart as men. Not paid as much for same jobs etc. so it was easy to give them their pensions 5 years earlier.

In the US our social security (pension ) is always structured on the highest level of pay you earned in your working life.

The big debate is - always has been and will continue to be till it is fixed - the INEQUALITY OF PAY for women and men for doing the same type work.

As long as we have a predominately older male Congress, that will always be the rule. (Patriarchy, misogyny, raising minimum pay still rules) We need to vote those old farts out of office. We’re working on it…

Fortunately there are companies and organizations that believe in equal pay. God bless them!
I don’t know what the answer is in the UK.

Equal pay is covered by the Equality Act of 2010 here, Gundy

In fact:

The Equal Pay Act 1970 was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that prohibited any less favourable treatment between men and women in terms of pay and conditions of employment. The act was proposed by the then Labour government, and was based on the Equal Pay Act of 1963 of the United States.

It didn't always work in practice.

Despite the Equal Pay Act women are still paid less on average because lower paid jobs are often primarily filled by women. Jobs which have been traditionally seen as 'women's work' are lower paid.