Injustice of Women’s pension age increasing by 6 years

But it was never without notice was it? I was aware this was happening many years ago although I was lucky to just miss it but I was fully aware. I’m not saying it’s fair at all but it was not without notice, I hope that youyou are successful in your endeavour.

I was born in 1962 . My pension for sat is 68+ Mudgery meaning I will have worked for 52 years to get my pension. I only ever took a couple of months away from work when I had my children too.

My DH and I have a 10 year age gap and we had planned that we would retire together when he is 70 and I was 60. There’s no way he could work in his current capacity until he is 78 or more. Very unfair.

Tanith I was unaware until I was 58 1/2 I finished work due to health reasons having discussed with my husband that if we downsized (no mortgage) we would manage until I was 60 - what a shock!!! We moved to a new town, no contacts, no network - no work for me. So now my husband is working 13 out of 14 days to keep our heads above water.
I received no notification whatsoever. The first I knew was when I mentioned getting my bus pass to a sewing group I joined. Out of the seven of us there only two of them knew about it for sure, one was unsure four of us knew nothing.

By the way - I am 1956 born - worked full time from 15, time off with babies only. Worked graveyard shifts so my husband had them at bed times. Full time working single parent from age 38 to 2014 (re married 12 years my junior)
Ex husbands pension was not part of settlement so I have nothing. Having always been independent I am now dependent on my current husband

Gillybob - all so very unfair and unreasonable.

I've had no notification from DWP ...even yet.I found out through social media .I'll have lost 6 years pension and paid six extra years of NI .With private pensions underperforming its totally mess up our retirement plans .

www.facebook.com/BackTo60/photos/a.536997089967842.1073741827.536991099968441/572877863046431/?type=3

I was notified when it went up to 66 but had heard nothing before that.

I never had any notification that my pension would not be paid until I was almost 66 rather than 60. Luckily we are in a position for it not to be a disaster but it must be for many. Still very cross about the way it has been handled.

My heart goes out to all those who have been clobbered by this. Thankfully I missed all this, having been born in 1948, so took my state pension at 60. I cannot bear to watch what is happening to so many others.

I can just see all these burnt-out female teachers, surgeons etc. staggering through to the last second; or possibly costing the country a fortune in sick pay.

I see the logic of it, as people are living longer; but that does not necessarily mean that they are always fitter.

I do feel sorry for those affected by this problem and government communication was diabolical, but for over a century men had to work five years longer than women to get a pension and equality works both ways, we have to give up privileges like having an earlier retirement age than men.

... we have to give up privileges like having an earlier retirement age than men.

Spoken as someone who is already receiving her Government pension? Monica

The 'privileges' were offset by many women losing contributory years by child-rearing, part-time work, parent care; plus lower salaries.

No solidarity then, from our already-a-pensioner sisters!

I have no issues with being treated equally with men ...I would like to have been informed about it though .That way I/we could have changed plans and made new arrangements to suit.Cheers though to all who got THEIR pensions on time....good to see such fervent support of us....NOT !

Yes M0nica but we're saying that this age group hadn't much warning from DWP to prepare and a jump of 6 years was hardly fair. I too didn't get any notice.
I feel mostly for nurses and shop and factory workers who are on their feet all day, it's tough enough as a younger woman.

BTW Mudgery, my ex-husband's pension was taken into account with my divorce settlement, I hope you didn't miss out there.

I don't have any issue with getting my pension at the same age as a man.

What I take HUGE umbrage with is that when I joined the workforce at the age of 16 , I had an expectation at what age I would receive my pension ( I think it was 55) . Somewhere about the age of 40 I was told it would now be received aged 60. Time to change my plans.

It was not until I was about 2 years off that age that suddenly and seemingly overnight it jumped to 66. It gave me no time to address the gap of 6 years - by that's stage I had to take early retirement due to ill health. I dread to think what might have happened if I were not married to man completely happy to support me .

I just feel when you join the scheme you should get a end date and that should NOT change. If you join the scheme a year later and they want to give you a different end date then that's fair and you can plan to that.

My major gripe is no thought appears to have been given on how individuals could change their financial planning to meet the changes.

This will hit those hardest who will have to rely on their State Pension and don’t have much of a Work Pension. Not sure what the answer is.

I was born in '54 and also received no notification - I'm still working but that will finish at Christmas - my state pension comes in next May, I have paid all my NI and more. My friend who is 2 years older has had her pension from 60. There are those of us affected by this who gave up their jobs to become carers expecting to have an income at 60 only to find they are now in dire financial straits or who took early retirement on that expectation. Whilst I agree women want equal rights to men so should expect their pension age to rise alongside those of us with no warnings have had little or no time to prepare for it.

I was also born in 1954, received no notification about the changes the first time around, but I knew about it because I took an interest in politics, this sort of thing should be a lesson to us all to take more notice of what goes on in politics, because changes like this can affect us so much.

The reason that women had a lower retirement age than men was not to do us women any favours, it was because men usually marry a woman a few years younger than themselves and it was thought that when a man retired at 65 he would need a woman at home to look after him.

Yes, what has happened is very wrong - there needed to be some changes to bring about equality as the system was unfair to men before but it has been badly organised and handled.

The 'privileges' were offset by many women losing contributory years by child-rearing, part-time work, parent care; plus lower salaries.
Women who were 'child-rearing' should have had their stamp paid from, I think, 1977 under the Home Responsibilities rule.
Lower salaries shouldn't have made a difference to the number of NI contributions made towards a pension - even when working part-time I was still paying a 'full stamp'.

There is, of course, the inequality suffered by many women who were persuaded years ago to pay the lower 'Married Women's Contribution' on the grounds that their pension would be paid from their husbands' contributions - that was untrue as they would not receive a state pension in their own right.
Another mis-selling scandal.

You can send for a forecast, which I did as I was worried because I had missed out on several years' worth of contributions due to paying the 'Married Women's Stamp', having been 'told' to do so by my then employer.

gillybob I know I have said this before, but it's worth repeating: if you haven't done it already, you really need to query DWP about your pension forecast. All the onfo I can find online says that the pension age will not start to rise to 68 until 2044. I even used the official pension age checker, putting in the details for someone born at the end of 1962, and it gave 67, not 68.
With a bit of luck, you might discover that they have made a mistake, and you will 'gain' a year's retirement. Small consolation, I know, but as someone whose circumstances are similar to your own, I understand how much every extra year ( in fact, just the thought of it) impacts on your life. Good luck.

No lack of solidarity, from someone who had a truncated career and lost years of contributions through not working when my children are young, I am returned to work in January 1979 so only got one year credited to my pension for domestic responsibilities. However, I do think there should be some balance in the discussion. Not every man got a full pension for all kinds of reasons.

Everyone, male or female, has had a different life pattern and made differential contributions to their pension and I do believe that those born in the 1950s have been badly treated, but I think we should remember why.

I do not think the married women's contribution was quite the way you say it Jalima, In the 1950s, one of my aunts made a clear decision not to pay the married women's stamp so many women were aware of the choice and thought about it and I can remember in the 1960s the discussions that used to go on at work every time someone got married, whether to continue paying full stamp or change to the cheaper married women's stamp.

I realise that we should have gone into it more thoroughly M0nica but it was presented to us in such a way that it sounded as if it made economic sense.
That was an Area Health Authority btw!
And, of course, the Civil Service used to return women's pension contributions to them when they got married as if it was a gift!

I remember the Government announcing that pension age would go up around 20 years ago. For early 50s women like me we had to work an extra couple of years. For this a little younger, the Government changed the rules only recently so my mid 50s born SIL would have retired at 63 but now 66. This last minute change is what is most unfair. I also think they should not have increased the age until all those who left school at 15 retired - some mid 50s women will work 51 years.