Gransnet forums

Legal & money

pension changes for 56/57year olds

(23 Posts)
hollie57 Sun 22-May-11 19:11:12

hello, are you 56/57 and aware of the proposals this goverment have come up with to make us wait from 12months to 2years extra to get our state pension money which means for myself I will now not get my pension until 66 instead of the promised 60 when I left school if you are like me and have enough contributions to retire at 60 I am absolutely furious what does this goverment expect us to live on.please go onto ageuk web site where they have a petition for us all to sign and are fighting these new changes for us.please !please help stop these changes.thanks.

Magsie Mon 23-May-11 07:56:46

Thanks for posting this. I am 56 & have already had my pension age increased from 60 to 64. Now it looks like increasing to 66!! I can't believe it- will it just keep slipping away from me?

Soupy Wed 01-Jun-11 22:46:01

I fall into the group that's had it changed twice.

First it was increased so I had to work until 63 - and now David Cameron has added another 6 months on to that :-((

Blowed if I'll work that long though!

janthea Fri 17-Jun-11 10:35:37

I'm 65 and still working as I requested to stay on for a couple of years. The retirement age in my company was always 65 so I don't have a problem with retirement age rising. We are all living longer and continue in good health for longer. I don't want to retire yet. I enjoy my job. The public sector workers are complaining that they will have to work longer and pay an increase in their pensions. My pension contributions have increased by 9% so I don't think that their 3% or so rise is very bad. They are lucky that they still have a job in the present climate. Public sector workers always seem to be better off than those in the private secotr - better pensions, earlier retirement. Now they have to join the real world. The world is in economic crisis. They are asking for more money from the Government, but from where does the Government get that money? From us - the tax payers. I'm sure a lot of you won't agree with me - but I've said it!

susiecb Fri 17-Jun-11 11:07:05

Yes I'm 58 and mine was changed to 63. I was also in the NHS for thirty years and expected a full pension when I retired at 57. as I had had a break in service to work for a Christain Charity (as recommended by NHS careeers advisors as a good experience) my pension was reduced to 85%. Public pensions are not great for everyone but its better than working for the NHS!

janthea Fri 17-Jun-11 11:15:10

I should add that I've read that the proposed pension reforms will not affect any benefits earned prior to the changes.

Magsie Fri 17-Jun-11 21:10:57

janthea I'm not sure that we are talking about the same thing. I paid full National Insurance contributions for over 30 years and expected to get my state (old age) pension at 60 as women have done for many years. A few years ago the state pension age for women was raised to 65 but those who were fairly near to retirement age had it adjusted slightly downwards. For example susiecb had her state pension age adjusted to 63 and mine was adjusted to 64. Under the new proposals my state pension age will go up again to 66. So I will lose 6 years of the state pension which I might reasonably have expected. This isn't a handout from the government/tax payer because I have worked all my life and have paid those contributions in. All we ladies of 56/57 are asking is not to have our state pension age changed for a second time when we are so close to retirement.

nanafrancis Sat 18-Jun-11 07:28:37

I can understand the frustration of anyone who has almost reached pension age only to find they have to wait another few years. Especially as you have to keep paying out tax and NI. I'm sure people would find it slightly more acceptable if these tailed off from 60+, when they have already made sufficient contributions.

Can I add to this thread that those of us already in receipt of their state pension will not receive the increased pension (£145 per week?) when it is brought in. Supposedly the scheme whereby anyone who has only got a single state pension to 'live' on (£95 per week) can presently apply for an additional, means tested additional payment to bring them up to £145 per week. That scheme is going to stay in place until the last pensioner elegible to claim it has died. Then it will be discontinued. It is supposed to be the removal of this scheme and its workforce that is to pay for the increased pension to be made to those who retire at 65+. It seems to me a matter of logic that to end the scheme immediately and pay EVERY pensioner the flat rate increased pension must be more cost effective in the long run.

crimson Sat 18-Jun-11 11:40:14

I can't believe all this is happening, and I just feel all the time that the nearer I get to having a pension it will just be moved again. I don't actually want to stop working completely [I do a job where I can do less and less work part time] but it's the thought that I can't that upsets me, and the fact that we were'nt expecting this so couldn't plan for it.

Magsie Sun 19-Jun-11 17:01:48

crimson I heard a politician on the television saying that the plan is to increase the pension age to 70 eventually. What's the betting that this will happen just as we are due to retire?

crimson Sun 19-Jun-11 17:15:34

Well, if William Hills would take a bet on it [at a decent pirice!]I'd take all the money out of my pension fund and put it on now. 10/1 on I'd say!

Grumpyoldwoman Sun 19-Jun-11 17:20:58

I really feel for you ladies who are going to have to work later.
I took early retirement at 55 and probably haven't got the pension I would have had if I had carried on teaching until 60....but the thought of working until 65/66 ????
What happens if you have to care for a husband or relative between 60 and 66 .I have to look after my husband constantly and would really struggle financially without both my work and state pension.

GrandmaMiney Tue 28-Jun-11 08:18:57

Why all this complaining? (Pace, those who have dull jobs and no financial security except work or pension).
For over 100 years women have fought long and hard to have an education, to be able to work, to have independent lives, to get closer to having the same rights as men--so why now complain about having to work until 63,65 or 66--or 68? Most jobs have paid holidays attached--and days off during the week--what's the problem?! Why do women always, always seem to have to find something to whinge about, we're just never satisfied.
We have the benefit of living in a society where we know how to take care of ourselves and our health so we have a good chance of living well into our 80s or longer. But are we never happy? Maybe I'm just lucky, but I had to develop a career after having my 3 children--and a divorce which meant I had to earn my own living,
I worked hard, and studied hard--but overall it was worth every bit of midnight oil I burned.
I have just retired from the NHS 6 months after my 70th birthday--(although I was asked to stay on). I loved my work, and my work seemed to like me. I consider it a privilege to have been fit and bright enough to hold a responsible job for this long.
The only reason I retired was because I still have so many things I want to do, and I need to get on and do them! (and my grandmothering skills and time are needed.)
I reckon that work actually helped keep me feeling --and looking-much younger than my chronological age--but the latter gave me the experience to value and appreciate my real age.
And just in case you are thinking "It's ok for her, she's obviously got a really good pension". This is not true--I was not working for 15 years, when bringing up my children before divorcing, and it took me a while to be in pensionable employment. I also had to take time out to care for my mother after a stroke. But I learned to be careful, and choose how to spend any money I had--I think it's called 'taking responsibility for oneself'.
Sorry, this all sounds incredibly smug--it's really not meant to be, I just get sick and tired of people thinking 'someone else' owes them a living. As a taxpayer for 40 years I realise taxpayers can't support everyone all the time--there is no pot of gold for any government to use--their only pot, has only what we taxpayers put into it.

Annobel Tue 28-Jun-11 09:01:29

Who is this person they call 'the taxpayer'? I'm one, all of us probably are, so are all public servants. I object to politicians and the Taxpayers' Alliance claiming to speak for me. Heaven help me, I still believe in the Welfare State because the alternative is unthinkable. And that involves paying taxes, though it also involves getting value for money which is, allegedly the job of our government. If we all had a tick list to tell politicians what we want our taxes spent on, would we put Trident on the top of that list? I would bet that the majority of us would give health and education a great deal more importance. Wouldn't hypothecated taxation be one in the eye for Dave and his pals! No wonder it will never happen...

janthea Tue 28-Jun-11 09:53:36

GrandmaMiney I totally agree with you. I'm 65 and have asked to stay on in my job for another couple of years so. I love my job. It also means that I have at least another couple of years of full salary and pay into my pension for longer.

I can't see why women complain about having to work until they are 65. After all didn't we all want equality!!

grannyactivist Tue 28-Jun-11 12:19:17

GrandmaMiney I'm happy that you were able to stay on in your NHS job long after the retirement age. A young friend of mine has just completed her nurses training and is unable to secure employment simply because there are no available jobs. If people don't retire and create vacancies then the young will sometimes wait a very long time before getting a foot on the employment ladder in their chosen career. (Not always the case I know, but it does happen.)

A 2009 study by the NIESR assumes that by increasing the retirement age by one year, tax revenues would be sufficiently increased, and retirement spending, sufficiently reduced, so as to decrease the government deficit by 1% of GDP. However, it would increase unemployment among those starting out in their careers by 200,000. (This high number will eventually decrease, but if you're one of those who's attempting to start on a career path and laden with student debt it must be demoralising beyond belief.)

Hilary Tue 28-Jun-11 17:16:02

Who else out there was born at the worst possible time for these changes, ie 6th March - 5th April 1954? I was born on 3rd April 1954 ...

There are supposed to be 30,000 of us - where are you all? Let's find a voice!

fallon8 Wed 29-Jun-11 23:02:35

Im lucky that i get everthying Im entitled too,altho' i disagree with the piddling amount of state pension I get due to staying at home and looking after my own children etc,,but this is the price of equality. Why dont the men get their pension at 60? In reality,who can do a hard, manual job at 60 plus? Male or female? Who wants to?

Magsie Thu 30-Jun-11 10:24:55

janthea & GrandmaMiney Forgive me if I've got the wrong end of the stick here but, given your ages, were you not entitled to the state pension at 60? If you've deferred claiming it, won't you get an enhanced state pension when you do claim it?
This thread refers to the 30,000 ladies who have already had their state pension age increased and are about to have it increased again, even though they are relatively close to retirement. I will lose 6 years of expected state pension, whether I carry on working or not. Age UK is campaigning against the further change in pension age for this particular group and I think that gives some validity to our case.
Our retirement age was originally increased on a sliding scale because we were considered too close to retirement to increase it by the full amount. They now propose to increase it to the full amount when we are even closer to retirement and we don't think that is fair.

janthea Fri 01-Jul-11 10:53:55

magsie yes I am deferring my pension, but as I believe someone else said, I don't think I will get the enhanced pension of £145 per week as I have already reached pension age.

nanafrancis I agree with you that it would be easier if every pensioner just received the extra pension suggested. Surely that would cut out a lot admin, paperwork, etc and save money in the long run.

pgtips53 Wed 20-Jul-11 02:08:29

i was born on 2nd april 1953 does that mean i wont get my penion until i am 66 that is very bad or my buspast.

crimson Wed 20-Jul-11 09:34:15

I'm very concerned about my memory at the moment so I googled a guideline about it and all of the problems I seem to have just came up as 'age related; nothing to worry about'. Now, I'm 59 but I can't imagine what my memory will be like in 10 years time and how I would do my job if I was a doctor or a teacher. If I was a teacher the kids would make mincemeat of me. There's a big difference between wanting to carry on working [and knowing one is capable of doing the job as well as a younger person] and doing so because one has to. A lot of jobs are physically impossible for an older person to do.

di54 Fri 23-Mar-12 14:15:39

I agree that men and women should be able to retire at the same age, but I feel that the age increase for women should have been more graduated. I was given a retirement age of 64 (my date of birth is 10/02/1954) this should stand.I was annoyed to have to wait an extra 4 years to receive a pension that I have paid into since I was 18 yrs old, but was devistated to have to wait even longer. When this was first announced the government said that we could receive compensation what has happened to that? We have been robbed of thousands of pounds. BASICALLY IT IS LEGALISED ROBBERY!!!