Is Ann Widdecombe right about females age of reirement?

Benefit systems change all the time - SP cannot be immune from that. Surely the issue is not the changes but the implementation process - especially when it was speeded up and a cliff edge occurred for some women.

That was 'the deal' when my pension would be paid. That was my expectation, and millions of women like me were left high and dry late in their lives, without funds to support themselves. I returned to work to make ends meet, having to plead with my GP to declare I was fit to work, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to pay bills and would have relied on hand-outs from family. It was desperate. In our case, lack of notification was to blame - which was unfair and unjust.

The ptb will have realised they cannot spring shocks like that any longer. Pensioners of the future will be given the appropriate warning notice of later payments.

I'd like my children to inherit all I have worked for, if only to give them a slight cushion in old age - should they get there. I pity our children having to work until they are 70. It will be the case before long I imagine.

I think things have to change as we are all living longer but it’s totally unfair to change things that had been promised.

As Day6 says if you were promised a pension at 60 you should in all good conscience expect and have what was promised to you.

Changes have to be fair and this should have been brought in without breaking promises.

Anne widdi has basically sat on her arse as an MP for years in a pretty stress free cosseted world.,she doesn’t know what grafting is. In my view it’s crazy to expect people with real jobs like teachers or police officers to work past 60.

Day6 you did not sign a contract and NI doesn’t work that way.

Not LITERALLY Maryeliza. <eye roll>

The retirement age has to change. But the whole policy could have been implemented more fairly!!

Day6 you did not sign a contract and NI doesn’t work that way. The only proper pension contracts are occupational ones which is why when they change their rules the changes only apply from the date of the change and previous accrued pension is credited under the old rules .

Ah. I see a swipe at the Brexit Party here and one of their candidates.

I disagree with her in part, mainly because I signed a contract when I started work, back in the 1970s, which involved me paying into the pot all my working life, in return for a state pension at 60. I didn't get it at 60. That angers me. I still don't have it - and it is not a benefit either.

However, I think she is realistic that things have to change, and they have, already. WASPI women know this to their cost and hardship.

What must change is the vision for elderly people in the future and the agreement they make regarding a pension when they are older. People are living longer and that is not the Government's fault. We can 'blame' progress in medicine, the treating of diseases, knowledge and a better standard of living" for a population which might get more than it's 'three score years and ten.'

The goal posts have to be moved or the sums re-done to ensure those who live to be ninety in the future do have enough to live on. I imagine pensionable age will keep increasing. In the years to come we will see the effect that has on the elderly. Will stress related disease become even more of a killer?

All I know is, I would not have survived these last few years with any sort of decent lifestyle if I hadn't paid into an occupational pension from the day I started work in the 1970s. My state pension didn't materialise when I expected it.

Occupational pensions will come to the fore, but all I know is, not all investments are good ones. There has to be a state guarantee and payment plan of some sort for pensioners of the future. We do have to think about funding.

It does seem to me that the elderly have all of a sudden become the cause of all ills in society. It's OK to bash the old, it would seem. Most of us are still paying taxes.

Ageism is rife when other 'isms' are taboo. It has to stop.

Totally agree with MaryEliza, I never had any intention of retiring at 60, so for me it hasn’t been an issue, but I really think the whole process should have been staggered, my retirement age is now higher than my husbands!

In some respects she is correct.
There will be some instances where there will be some in retirement longer than employment. The issue is that although on the whole we are living quite a few years longer there has not been any recognition of the probable changes to employment to acknowledge that although we have longevity, our bodies and minds do deteriorate. There are few lighter working opportunities for those of greater age, we cannot expect men in heavy industry to continue at the same level into their 70s etc.
For a number of years governments have tried to make workers more responsible for their own pension provision recognising that there will at some stage be a pensions deficit. Unfortunately for the young, preparing for old age is something that is rarely considered. When I was young I thought 40 was old and I wouldn't have minded dying at that age. Obviously as I attained 40 I realised I was still young, fit and active so am still here though not so young fit and active.
Unless personal pensions become obligatory the only other thing would be to increase taxes for those in employment which would put a greater burden on a reducing sector.
MarthaBeck
How would you resolve this connundrum?

Well, as long as she finds a way to pay for all the unpaid caring for the elderly, childminding, volunteering work that all these so called retired women do, thus saving the state a fortune.

I think she’s missing the point and I don’t like her language. I know as a non WASPI woman it’s easy for me to say but it was unfair and untenable to keep the female SPA at 60. It was right to move towards equalisation but it should have been properly notified to everyone with plenty of time to plan, continued as it started moving on a month by month basis and stopped at 65 for both men and women. The execution of the policy has been so crass and unfair that some recompense should be paid.