Increase in State Pension Age

Just to let you know the petition is being handed in on Tuesday 24 March at 1pm. Details here:
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/events/petition-hand-in-reverse-the-state-pension-law
Please join us and support us if you can.

I have now discovered that the single tier pension is another 'con'. I recently contacted the Pension Service for my personal forecast and could not understand why I would not be receiving the full single tier pension as I have full NI contributions. The full rate of the new State Pension is currently estimated to be at £148.40. The reason is because I have a very small occupational pension and "we made a deduction because you have been contracted out of the additional State Pension at some time". It is explained more fully in this article:
www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-2634215/Why-millions-WONT-155-new-state-pension-theyre-expecting.html

Perhaps you might want to make others aware of this 'con'.

Please continue to circulate the petition amongst family and friends:
you.38degrees.org.uk/p/statepensionlaw

I slipped under the wire and got my pension at 60. DH is younger and still working so we've been able to save most of it. Nice nest egg to supplement finances when he does retire.

Nonnie, it's true that many people are fit and well at 66, but many of us aren't. I won't be the only person on gransnet who retired earlier than I'd planned, due to significant health problems. I've been fortunate and paid into a good pension fund for over 30 years, as well as the state pension. I feel for people forced to manage on a state pension alone. Also for the women who retired from work because of health problems, in their late 50's with the belief they would get their state pension at 60. They're now without an income and still unfit for work. Signing on at 63 isn't what they'd expected.
I'm not an economist but I do wonder about all those unemployed young people and whether we'd be better to allow everyone to retire in their early sixties (if they want to) and make room for the younger folk in the workplace.

Women born from 1953 and men born from 1951 are liable for the flat rate pension which will leave huge numbers with NIL STATE PENSION FOR LIFE
after 7 years lost state pension payout for a couple (6 years for women and 1 year for husband).
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/state-pension-at-60-now

Half of over 50s / over 60s are within the working poor and cannot save a penny from low wages so low as cannot afford to heat and eat.

The majority reason this age group not in work is due to being disabled / chronic sick and these benefits being lost more and more, and may end altogether with the Autumn Budget telling us that state spending will return to the levels back in the 1930s, before the 1945 welfare state.

A Labour former deputy prime minister has found that the £30 billion that is our state pension money in the National Insurance Fund is being called a surplus and denied payout to many women and men who need the money to buy food, with disability / chronic sick benefits being lost more and more and jobs on too low wages to barely be on the bread line.

The full and ring fenced National Insurance Fund, has not needed a top up from tax for decades.

Whilst people are denied state pension payout, payable even if remain in work, women MPs have kept their works pension payout at 60 (and men MPs at 65) and all MPs, again on the taxpayer, gain an 11 per cent pay rise for about the same amount as the denied state pension payout to women at 60 from 2013.

Whilst vital money is not paid to the poor, from our state pension money, paid at 12 per cent compulsory deductions from our wages all our working lives (plus the equally compulsory contributions from our boss) or earned from disability / chronic sick benefits / child or elder care credits.
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/state-pension-at-60-now

I don't understand the argument about those who will be poor in retirement as surely working for longer will give them the opportunity to save for retirement or, at the very least, they will be better off in work for longer?

Where are the jobs though?

Why would 'not many women' qualify for the 35 years NI contributions? I've already clocked up 43 years and I'm only 63 - that's with taking a couple of years off when the children were babies.

Bearing in mind that a great many women of our generation had careers and also qualified for NI credits when they were looking after children, I'd say it was relatively easy for them to have made 35 years' contributions.

Not all, of course, but certainly more than 'not many'.

I do think you are more likely to remain fit and well at 66 years if you are not working or working part-time. In many jobs it is unrealistic for older people to meet today's extreme demands. Many older women are employed in jobs with no sick pay and no holiday pay often temporary contracts and no pension.

NI contributions currently stand at 35 years. It did go down to 30 years but the government put it up again. They did not inform people affected instead relying on them to be informed by the media!

Not many women qualify for the 35 years NI contributions and consequently will not get the new improved pension when they retire.

I admit that 71 is still not very old, but a vast improvement on 58!

Perhaps a slight exaggeration, FarNorth?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-15368400

Nonnie said : I think many of the people affected by this don't realise how fit and well they will be at 66. It may seem old until you get there but many of us don't feel the least bit old at that age.

The average life expectancy for men in Glasgow is 58.

I was actually thinking of all pensions durhamjen as I am sure they will want to bring the two systems into line as much as they can over time.

Of course, it could not all be done straight away but each time they raised the current pension above the triple lock they could do away with some of means tested benefits and also the universal benefits. So, for instance, a single persons pension could be increased by £3.85 per week above the triple lock and the WFA abolished. Once they had brought them into line - for instance the is no Pension Savings Credit attached to the single tier pension - they could continue to aim for a living pension.

I think many of the people affected by this don't realise how fit and well they will be at 66. It may seem old until you get there but many of us don't feel the least bit old at that age.

I don't understand the argument about those who will be poor in retirement as surely working for longer will give them the opportunity to save for retirement or, at the very least, they will be better off in work for longer?

There are some benefits to the new rules, I think they only need something like 30 years of NI to qualify whereas I needed 39 which I didn't make. I also stayed at home looking after children and didn't get credits for doing so which they do now.

As I have said on another thread, it is hard to decide how to cut the national cake and this seems one of the fairer ways of doing it.

I do not think they would dare bring it in at £10000. It would leave those of us who have already retired much too far behind.

I agree about the living pension. They could do away with the extra tier of pension credits that way. Many pensioners who can claim credits do not, as they do not know about them.

Sadly those statistics are not surprising Hollydaze. I have not seen any of the parties saying they are in favour of getting rid of age related, means tested additional benefits and offering a "living" pension. Even one at £10,000 would be a start but the new single tier pension seems to be coming in at about £8,000.

There is always the challenge of how you deal with those who do not have enough contributions. Personally, I think we should change the names of the State Pension and Pension Credit to Contributory Pension and None-contributory Pension to clarify the situation.

I think there is a confusion between the age at which the state pension is payable - these rules are the same for everyone, MPs magistrates, judges, factory workers and the age at which an occupational pension ( if any) is paid. This depends on the rules of the scheme and for public sector workers, these rules are set by the government and so the age is being increased

It isn't just the inequality of income in our own society but the affect of globalisation that has made it's mark Hollydaze . Many who believe that society should run in the direction capital takes it would say that if a job can be done for a dollar a day in China (or Indian or whatever country has not yet started demanding more) then that is the worth of the job.

I try desperately not to get into the thought pattern that says things used to be better when I was young but my memory is that there was more consensus about moving towards a more equal society. Perhaps I just didn't know the people who said the opposite

Your last paragraph, Gracesgran, just goes to highlight the inequality of society doesn't it. Not everyone can be academically gifted but does that mean that they deserve a life of poverty? And people think Britain is civilised. 'The True Measure of Any Society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members' – Ghandi

900,000 pensioners are in severe poverty (incomes below 50 per cent median income in2011/12)

800,000 pensioners are in material deprivation (they cannot afford things that most people regard as necessities) in 2011/12

15 per cent (900,000) of pensioners are in absolute poverty (60 per cent of median income) after housing costs when comparing the real terms income between 2010/11 and 2011/12. This is an increase of 100,000 pensioners compared to 2010/11

The numbers of pensioners living in severe absolute poverty (below 50 per cent of median income) AHC remained at 8 per cent between 2010/11 and 2011/12

1.1 million older people live on incomes just above the poverty line – that is between 60 and 69 per cent of median income. These figures have fallen from 38 per cent in 1998-99 to 23per cent in 2011-12

Above quotes from Age UK Evidence Review: Poverty in Later Life

www.futureyears.org.uk/uploads/files/Age%20UK%20on%20poverty%20in%20old%20age.pdf

I agree HollyDaze that this was the problem. We know that they knew for decades that something had to be done and if they had started years ago it could have been done very gradually. I suppose in some ways - rather ironic ways it has to be said - we should be grateful that something was finally done. Heaven knows what would have happened if they had left it any longer.

I read some research about people working on into older age in the US and, not surprisingly, it was much more possible for the better educated and/or those in better jobs to continue and to continue earning well while for those with a generally poorer education and/or poorer jobs there is great difficulty. I am not sure how you overcome this.

those within 10 years of retirement should not have had their pension age accelerated so dramatically and should have been given the same protection rights as MPs have awarded themselves – MPs pension age has not increased.

That, as most people would agree, is what has caused the problem. It allowed no time for alternative arrangements and no penison company is going to take someone within 10 years of retirement age (either that or the premiums would be so high that very few could afford to pay them). This should have been phased in over a period of time to allow for those coming up to retirement age.

Available work for the older generation might be another good idea ....

My First thought was very much like FarNorth's, that it couldn't be fair. It just goes to show how much we need all the information. Thank you janerowena .

You are quite right, Gracesgran, it is the acceleration in the State Pension age that is the problem. There is no reason why the increase could not have been introduced much more gradually giving women time to adjust. I accepted the original increase in the State Pension age without protest but now the government have targeted the same women for a further age increase it is absolutely unfair and unjust.
I am pleased, Janerowena that you can manage without your State Pension but please spare a thought for those that cannot. 40% of women in the affected age group have no private pension at all and so are totally reliant on their State Pension.
I cannot believe that a magistrate said he would be collecting his pension early in case he gets alzheimers. What about lorry drivers, chefs and careworkers are they safe to continue working with alzheimers? Why do MPs need to collect their generous tax funded pensions early?
I am glad you looked at the link, FarNorth. If you read the signatories ‘Reasons for Signing’ at the bottom of the page, you will see how people (men and women) are struggling to cope.

Those measures are in place to protect us. I attended a talk last week, in which the speaker, a magistrate, mentioned it. He said that they have to be retired to protect us in case they have alzheimers. Admittedly they could get it earlier, but it was felt that that age was the safest at which to stop.

You make some reasonable points, Gracesgran.
Having looked at the link, tho, I see that MPs, Judges and Civil Servants who are within ten years of retirement have been protected from the measures to increase retiral age.
It cannot possibly be fair for those people to be protected while everyone else is left to flounder as best they can.

Also - there are many of us who are married to younger men. So that can work either way. As I really thought, as Gracesgran has said, that the government would have taken the pensionable age up to 70, I am actually relieved that it's only 66.

I have to admit to a slight feeling of disappointment that I wouldn't bet getting my pension in a few years, but really, I know that I can manage without it so I would feel guilty for taking it.