Women's state pension age - what do you think?

A lot of us did not know about it, I didn't.

Its funny really, because if you look at the case studies it seems that counting opted outs and missing NI, most women ( and probably more than a few men) will actually end up with pretty much what is the state pension under the current rules ( around £113/£115) and if I retired tomorrow, made no more contributions, I too, with my poor record would end up around £107)

So one giant rip off all round. Get used to it. Even men are ripped off as they now have single persons pensions and their wives will get whatever they get in their own right, rather than the old system of married mans pension rights.

I say this because a good friend of mine passed away last Friday. I miss him very much. I was discussing pensions and retirement with him just before he departed because my job is precarious, my husband retired and at 60, I am feeling my age and may not continue much longer. I said to him I was wondering if |i could afford to "retire" and give up the pension under the new rules ...... he said to me " At the end of the day money becomes secondary to being happy. Just do what you want for once"

I am thinking about it. I may not make retirement age after all. We arent all living longer and the years with hubby might be worth it.

Well, the debate was a fat lot of good really.

I am of a more practical persuasion. I have a numeber of years missing NI contributions because I was not working.

I was not opted out / contracted out , whatever. This was a straight missing contributions for years in the 1980's.

I couldnt find much on this but playing with the figures I worked out that you lose roughly £5 for every year of missing contributions ( if for example you were not working or earning too little to pay NI and you were not paying into some private or employers pension under an opt out).

I can therefore work out that I will likely get around £120 when I retire at 66 - assuming I continue to be employed.

if I give up work tomorrow ( husband is already retired under current scheme and gets a full state pension + a bit of SERPS and his works pension), we should manage to get by fortunately.

Rather than fighting lost battles I want to know now what I am likely to get so I can at least be prepared for it - I cant change it and I wont earn enough to make any alternative plans.

Thought others might like that rough guide to working out what they could get ( Pension forecasts are rather hit and miss in this area in my recent experience)

Just a small point that no one else has mentioned - I was surprised when I asked for a pension forecast to find that I did not have the requisite number of years contributions. On querying this I discovered that they DO NOT COUNT CONTRIBUTIONS PAID FROM AGE 15 TO 18. This combined with an 'at home' break when I had my DDs (although I did a little paid work at home) before NI was credited to at home Mums, meant that I did not qualify for a full pension.

As this was a common pattern for working women, there will surely be 100,000s similarly disadvantaged. As most men, do not having career breaks, their NI record is usually unbroken from 18 to 65. Please do not include these 3 years 15-18 in your calculations

Debate on now on BBC Parliament

Professor Pat Thane wrote in March 2006 about ‘the scandal of women’s pensions in Britain: how did it come about?’ Sadly ten years on and it seems that British women are still part of the same pensions scandal, as nothing much has changed so isn’t time we, the 1950’s born women, made the government realize that as a group-of-soon-to- be-retirees, we will not be ignored any longer.

Could all government documents that include a persons National Insurance number also include that person’s anticipated state pension retirement age?

By directly linking this Ni information each piece of correspondence received by an individual (throughout their life) would highlight the importance of this anticipated state pension age date, well in advance.

I’d like to ask the Minister if it is fair that one generation should be asked carry the burden of these SPA changes when the lack of desire by previous governments has led to this situation and to validate why this is a fair expectation to target one group rather than spread the burden across several generations.

It is time that Government policy makers take Women’s Pension rights seriously & do not make one generation responsible to achieve a nil rate cost for the impact of these new state age pension change requirements.

If these SPA changes go ahead unaltered- I hope a generation of women, around 2 million in number, will not forget how they’ve been mis-treated.

A simple factually correct formula to work from
Born 1950's
Girls had achieve higher score than boys to pass for Grammar School (coz too many girls passed otherwise), so impacted on Opps to Achieve Income, aspirations were squashed too as boys were considered much more important
Started work age 16 on wards and earlier for some
Equal Pay legislation 1975/6, main objection was 'unaffordable', Gender Pay Gap=19+% (2014) still (Note: legislative theory and Reality differs) and Pay Gap widens for over 60's
Expectation in 1970's women leave job after having children and lose income and turned away from occ pensions and promotions
Marriage gives financial ownership to man - divorce, e.g.not until 2000 were women awarded fair share of pension pots
2004-7 A 1995 State Pension Act is changed and/or planned to be changed more, most women not informed but some start to discover, all these changes seriously disadvantage them and then 2011 more changes occur, changes are radical and uneven and do not reflect the Pay Gap or that Women have less Occ Pensions and where do have them have less in them due to less pay and less promotion (a massive difference in published data)
As approaching pension age (well which one??) women find out they are not getting what was promised them for majority of working life and so raise the issue, only to discover more changes are taking place in Spring 2016 AFTER they have been made redundant or retired (often associated with ill health and/or caring for others, as in their earlier years when they had children)
Taking action under these circumstances is not bad, mad or wrong! To have even more taken off you late in life after a lifetime of the same is immoral, all based on biological sex - no wonder women were not informed in a timely fashion, we are re-doing the Suffragette movement. Main objection and reason for these changes are unaffordable (sound familiar?)

need to consider 1950's born sociological history and pattern of legislate changes

Why are the SPA changes referred to as equitable? Instead what has occurred is simply making the ages that men & women receive state pension the same - amounts to ADDED inequity for 1950's born women.

Why have the lifetime of financial obstructions to this cohort of women not been considered whilst making these changes?

Why has the pattern of legislative changes and their impact not been considered whilst undertaking SPA changes? e.g. Equal Pay legislation 1975/6 yet GenderPayGap still 19%+ (2014) and widens for over 60's AND e.g. Pension Sharing upon Divorce, not truly achieved until 2000 (so totally out of synchrony with the SPA changes)

Why/how has Ros Altmann calculated that women will receive 10% more SP than men under the New Pension Scheme due to longevity when in fact about two-thirds of women will receive much less?

Can the PM explain how equality is achieved in all this for women?? (he has said it but not explained it!)

Can the current government focus on correcting an added wrong on top of a multiple of wrongs against these women instead of blaming others?

Can the government consider articulating and accounting for all the free unpaid work this cohort of women have undertaken, and still undertake, and put this into the equation here; that is considering transitional arrangements.

Can the government consider paying compensation for a lifetime of inequality if they cannot find the conscience to rectify this added inequity so late in life?

Can the government in considering the lifetime of inequity also take on board that some women in this cohort have been seriously disadvantaged through 'no fault' divorce schemes and inadequate pension sharing upon divorce legislation, hence having years of their lifetime investment removed from them by way of poor policy making on the part of government, and that this needs calculating in any lifetime compensation?

Kayte - I hope you are right - my fırst postıng refers and concerns the half million frozen pensioners who never get an ıncrease to their State Retirement Pension simply because of their address and they have been campaigning and protestıng for the last for at least twenty-five years - some even say since the polıcy was ıntroduced ın 1956! We battle on!

Yes, RobtheFox, (though sympathy is not something I was seeking) as you say I am just an individual case and I am aware that the bigger picture is what is considered by governments. However, there will be many women in a similar position and I believe that individuals speaking up can and do effect change.

Kayte - obviously one has sympathy for you in your particular circumstances; I'm afraid governments do not pay too much notice of the affects on an individual but tend to look at the overall implications for all pensioners.
As regards the widow's pension, this was discontinued in 2001 and replaced by the bereavement allowance which, as you say lasts for one year only. I believe that that and also the bereavement payment to help with funeral costs is under review.
What has hit many couples since 2010 is that if an allowance for a spouse based on NI contributions is claimed it will not be allowed and, it seems, that those who are actually already in receıpt (having claimed and been eligible before 2010) will cese to be paid after April 2020...about a 35% reductıon in the couples total weekly pension. It is now called "An Adult Dependency Increase" by the DWP - presumably to confuse people even further!

Like many others of my generation I too, feel robbed. Born in Aug 1953, no notice of pension changes, no time to adjust finances. I worked full time before I had my children and for the past 25 years since they grew up, but had to retire 4 years ago to look after my husband who was in very poor health.
We managed on his state pension, his works pension and my (small) works pension until he sadly died last year. I am distressed and grieving for 40 years of happy marriage and can well do without the injustice of the situation in which my generation of women has been landed.
In another blow, not widely advertised by the government, the widow's benefit no longer lasts until you get to your pension age, but stops after one year. (There is worse news for new widows as I believe the payment disappears altogether after this year - also not widely advertised by the government).
Currently I am not as badly off as some women of my generation as I manage on my small works pension and a small part of my husband's works pension until I am 64 and 3 months. Meanwhile, no bus pass either as I don't live in London, Scotland or N Ireland - more inequality.
And (further blow) when I requested a pensions projection Last month I was told that despite 37 years NI contributions I will receive only £119.30 weekly of the new so called 'flat pension' rate of more than £150. This is because I paid into a works pension and 'opted out' - while, of course, still paying a significant part of the NI contribution.

I do absolutely agree that men and women should get the pension at the same age; it is the injustice of the speed with which it was done that is so unfair. A disgrace. I have signed the petition and urge others to do so.
Sorry. Rant over!

Just to add a word to the comment by Pukka Gen. Mention is made of Annie Carr and her frozen pension of just £6.95 and I would point out that she is now 104 years of age and this amount was her full entitlement when she retired and, in over forty years, has never been increased (it would be £119.30 come April) yet she met all the same NI contribution conditions during her working life.
This is where there is a bıg difference between the frozen pensioner and the women born in the 1950. The treatment afforded to Annie and all the other 560,000 frozen pensioners is discrimination but while that given to the women is disproportionate but not discrimination as they are all being treated equally within the parameters governed by their date of birth. Sadly, although it is seen as a "contract" the age of sixty, although once commonly accepted, was never a concrete part of it.
The speed of transition is disturbing but then, when for the frozen pensioner the move to universal index linking for all has been waitıng over sixty years.......

I am not working and have a very small pension.
Two months ago I suffered cardiac arrest. I am not working cannot claim jobseekers or any extra benefits because of my small pension. I am not married or in a relationship so life is pretty hard. My savings have now gone. I never earnt enough to put anything by for retirement. I was born in 1955 so if I live long enough in six years time I will get my pension. I feel so cheated.

I was born in 1954. My husband and I always planned to retire at 60, when we could receive our private pensions. Having worked for almost 40 years, his pension is quite decent, whilst mine is a pittance in comparison. Like most of my generation, I stayed at home to look after our 3 children and returning to work was not an option. When I did return, I worked part-time for several years, paying no contributions to the pension scheme. No problem, we thought, I would get a state pension at 60! We always knew my husband would have to wait until 65, so he also made additional contributions. I would have done likewise had these changes been brought in earlier. Ours is not a generation that had equality of opportunity, so equality should not now be used as an excuse for raising our pension ages.

We are seen as an easy target.

George Osborne said: “The Government is committed to striking a balance between value for money for taxpayers and fair pay for public sector workers.” When? That was five years ago and reports since the Tories were elected have been evasive at best.

It seems that it isn't in the government's interest to tackle either the fat cats in the public sector who've got it all nicely stitched up for themselves or the financial mismanagement that sees NHS money haemorrhaging into private locum agencies.

I consider myself one of the lucky ones in the cohort of women born in the 1950s as I was born in 1952 so I started to receive my State Pension (SP) in March 2015. However, I retired when I was 60 years of age as I had a physically demanding job which I could no longer do due to Osteoarthiritis in my knees and shoulders. I used my lump sum to support me until I got my State Pension, that is all gone now so I have no savings.

I actually feel that I was robbed by the government as in those 2.5 years post retirement, I would have received approximately £12,000 from my SP
Also, I am not entitled to the new flat rate of SP. of £155.00/week which comes into being in April!

I think we have been treated in the most appalling manner and we should be entitled to some recompense.

I wonder what the reaction would have been if men's pension age had been increased in the same manner?
Somehow I suspect there would have been utter uproar .........

I urge all GNetters to sign the petition re women's pensions which is very simple to do on this link -

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/110776

I check the petition regularly and we have 132,692 signatures so far and although there's already enough to force another parliamentary debate which is scheduled for 1st February, it would be good to show a strong response.

Please can all gransnetters sign the petition, link below, see your MP if you are affected and like the WASPI Facebook page petition.parliament.uk/petitions/110776

www.facebook.com/WASPI-Women-Against-State-Pension-Inequality-Campaign-877054125688402/?fref=ts

The only way to have any hope of getting something good come of this impossible situation is to work together.

The government simply wanted to find ways of savings money and saw our group of women as easy targets to maximise savings.

I wrote to my MP Nadine Dorries and suggested that if it went ahead then a maximum SECOND increase should be no more than about 6 to 9 months to allow us to make financial plans accordingly. I got a dismissive letter advising me that age equality was seen as so important that it had to be brought in as soon as possible. She also stated that the government had to be seen to be fair across the generations. In other words the younger generation would be paying for our pensions but surely we did just the same when we were working for the older generation.

The real problem is that that there was a baby boom after the war and successive governments have known this was coming and yet did nothing to prepare for the extra cost even though this large cohort would have been paying more N.I and tax into government coffers. So what happened to all the extra contributions and tax they got from us?

Finally Steve Webb the pensions minister at the time now works for a large insurance company as something highly paid and Ros Altmann who had been our greatest advocate has been silenced with a government job and by being made a Baroness. The whole saga is really shameful.

I was born in 1954 and planned to retire at 60 after a full working life, although working part time for 10 years to care for both my elderly parents, reducing my income but without taking benefits. I would now like to be in a position to help with my grandchildren, meanwhile my daughter is unable to return to her job full time. I cannot retire without my State Pension and don't consider I was given sufficient information to plan for this severe reduction in income. None of this makes financial sense and needs to be reviewed urgently within the wider economy.

my story is just like the ones before as in the lack of information, pension age changed from 60 to 62 and then 66.5. and a further sting in the tale for me (and many others who may not realise it yet) as I worked in the NHS for most of my working life, my contacted out employment was taken into consideration and my pension will fall way short of the widely advertised flat rate pension.
what I would like to have a solution to these issues
1.the first wrong is notice. it is widely recognised that insufficient notice was given to many women. it is also accepted that ten years notice of pension changes is reasonable. the government recognise that there was a problem with this cohort of women. so having recognised there is a problem and a grave injustice, nothing apparently can be done to change the situation. so these two major wrongs do not add to a right.
2.transitional arrangements were agreed but have not been implemented. means testing is not great either. there are probably many people like myself who have missed out and would miss out again as my husband and I have a small income

incidentally, while there's supposedly no cash to rectify these problems, there is sufficient cash to pay for adverts featuring a huge blue furry creature
while the majority of women would probably agree to the reasoning behind the changes, the speed of change and the unfair burden on this cohort is a scandal. the changes should have been much slower and a maximum waiting time imposed. for example, the maximum waiting time for a pension should be 18 month, or two years for the ten years notice period

another disgrace is the number of MP's (my own included)who either ignore the issue or toe the party line of "nothing can be done". SHAME ON THEM. this cohort did not have the advantages that women have today. things such as further education, equality in the workplace and maternity leave/nursery provision. these advantages came slowly and this cohort did not benefit from them.