50s women

I don't know how everyone missed the information back in 1995. I was self-employed then but was employed for several years after that and was frequently reminded. I think it was unfair to add the extra bit in 2011, a double blow with relatively short notice.

I don't have a problem with the philosophy behind equalising pension ages, but I have a huge problem with the huge leap in qualification age. I will be 66 for mine, and feel that a more gradual incremental rise to equal ages would have been fairer. Those of you who were contracted out receive less because you paid in less; NIC deductions were less because of company or public service pension schemes so it is not as unfair as some claim. I also think it is a bit unfair to blame other women, ie Mothers on benefits for the sorry state of the pensions, it is not their fault the pension age has been raised.

I have every sympathy with those of you penalised in this way. Those of us who worked part time in order to look after our children were penalised by not being allowed to join occupational pension schemes and so never built up enough for a decent occupational pension. Not the same as being denied your state pension after contributing to its cost for decades, but another example of how poorly women have been treated.

I left school in 1969 ...I have never claimed any benefit apart from child benefit and still work part time and pay NI .Thats 50 years + of NI .
I will recieve my first Pension payment in my account at the end of this month .It makes me really angry .
Like the poster above I have no problem with the age being equalised ,it was just done very unfairly with no notification to many of us .I will be retiring either end of this year or sometime next ,I'm almost 66 .Sadly many wont reach 66 in this part of the world where people die much younger than in the south.As it is there are many who will have to struggle for years because f this and work far longer than they expected to

Wasn't there a scheme where it was possible to buy added years? I'm not sure. The whole thing was very badly handled.
They could have staggered the pension age, making it 61 in the first year, 62 in the second and so on. I don't get a full pension because of the years caring for children till they went to school. There was little childcare provision in those days.

I don't have a problem with the pension age being equalised but I was not informed it was going to happen. It's not like I was gadding about from residence to residence either.
The one thing does does stick in my craw is this is the only equality with men I'm being afforded because it saves the government money.
I really believed that the Equal Pay Act would be enforced. We all know that women don't get equal pay. Women are almost always the ones that look after sick relatives, take time off work to have children, you know, the stuff of life that allows men to carry on building up their pension pots. We save the government billions...plus when Boris was campaigning for re-election as an MP he said he'd sort this if he ever became PM.
He's very quiet about that now, of course.

Well he would be quiet about it at the moment wouldn’t he? He’s in the middle of the Brexit goings on isn’t he?
Maybe if Brexit ever gets sorted, one way or the other, there may be time to do something about the WASPI ladies, though I’ve no idea what could be done at this stage. The whole debacle hasn’t been well managed by any government.

The pension age was staggered when it was first applied as I was able to get it at 62.

I also knew this was going to be happening quite a few years before the changes kicked in. I don't recall how I knew but I certainly did, as did those I worked alongside. It was something we talked about.

My idea of equalisation would have meant women working till 62 so having to do 2 more years and men having their pension age reduced to 62. I think this would have been fair as men ,in general, don't live as long as women. I am not in as bad a position as some but what does irritate me is that politicians want everything their way. For example I read an article by some Tory, can't remember his name, in which he said that more people should care for elderly or infirm relatives. Well that's just fine isn't it? Somehow women have to build up a pension pot, care for children and grandchildren ( often ) and relatives and look after their own home and all this while often having illness themselves. I wondered what planet he is on?

FWIW , I have always worked in local government , my kids went to nursery as I worked full time . I did a very stressful job which also involved being on call . Both of my children have health issues and eventually I realised that I couldn't work any longer. Something would give and that would be me, so I retired early . As I had contributed to the pension scheme I could access my pension but I know people ,mainly women, who only worked part time or didn't join. I know they will be far worse off than those who worked full time.
As I say I think none of it was thought out. The people who make these changes have never been in the position of doing a rubbish job . They live in gilded cages and are quite happy with that .

And additionally Loislovesstewie, they have extremely generous pension provision through their HoC pension scheme.

I agree with you that it would have been preferable to equalise the state pension in the way you suggest, but Chancellors of either party would never do that, they want to save money! And they’re saving it by not paying pensions till later. Unfortunately keeping older people working longer means there are fewer jobs available for younger people, but it’s cheaper to pay Job Seekers Allowance than it is to pay pensions.

I think in general this generation have missed out. Children meant most had to stop working because of a lack of childcare. Wages were often less than men and it was incredibly hard to get into certain jobs. Few would have been able to obtain higher education. Over their working lives many women would have not had the opportunity to build a comparable pension to males born in the same year. To top it all the changes in 2011 were poorly communicated.

A harsh but not unexpected decision. It is unwise to rely upon the state for anything, I am afraid.

I see this as a breach of a fundamental term of the contract. National Insurance contributions were meant to buy a pension at age 60 when I entered into the contract and I think it is outrageous that it has been changed in such an arrogant and peremptory manner. I doubt whether a private pension company would be allowed to behave like this - the Ombudsman would be down on them like a ton of bricks!

Yes, me!
I am one of those affected.
I was made redundant a couple of years ago and even though you no longer have to divulge your age on your CV, by the look on the face of some those doing the interviews when I walk in the door, my age seems to make it difficult for me to get another job. I think they are thinking I'll only be there for a couple of years, if that so don't think it's worth employing me (was actually told that after one interview)

Grossly unfair and I have to wait several more years

I'm affected by this. Fortunately DH and i were both able to retire at 60 four years ago as we both have a couple of final salary pensions. But we are subsiding ourselves with savings as, like many others, I expected to have my pension at 60. I think men and women's pensions needed to be brought to the same age, but it should have been done much more gradually so that a couple of months different in dob shouldn't have made the difference between receiving it at 60 or 66. Very unfairly done.

I don’t remember anyone telling me about the changes, I would have saved more or thought about another pension had we known what was coming. They’ve taken our money and moved the goal post. It cannot be right nobody else would get away with it. Those of our age That have had the pension date move should be offered something even if it was a choice of a slightly lower pension now!

Well of course I am sympathetic but didn't people work and take out their own work pensions? I am 75 and have a state pension and a work pension having worked all my life full time until 55 and then part time until 73 (oh and brought up 3 children and looked after grandchildren). The reason for me was that my husband stated (when I married at 20) that he could support himself but not me. After initial surprise at this attitude I am now grateful to him, it made me financially independent.

I have read all the above posts, and have every sympathy with those of you who are having to work six years longer until you get your state pension.
However one thing really puzzles me- how is it so many women were not aware of the pension changes until shortly before they reached 60?
Dont get angry with me- but the ten ladies I worked with in 1998 were told then about the forthcoming changes. We talked about it at work. I think our H.R. manager probably told us. We were also encouraged to ask for a pension forecast every three years-which we did. So we all knew exactly when we would receive our pension years before we got it. So why all the hue and cry about not knowing anything about the changes?
I was working in a well known supermarket, at the time. Also there were adverts in magazines and newspapers for a long time telling us about the changes in pension age. So if we knew about all the forthcoming changes why didnt the rest of you.

Disappointing but not surprised by the decision at all. I'm one of the lucky ones in that I have a husband whose pension is enough for us to live on (just enough to get by). I'm on the count down now as I will get my state pension next July (a month before my 66th birthday). I've been given 3 dates over the years when I will receive my pension - 60 yrs, 64 years and 66 yrs. I reckon I've been robbed of approximately £40k. Doesn't bare thinking about.

My USS pension was increased to 66 when the changes were made to the state pension in 2011. I am penalised through actuarial reduction if I take it early. The whole thing is unfair.

chipski the DWP said the money...billions saved by keeping our pensions ...has gone towards paying the national debt.Except it obviously hasn't as the debt has trebled and still rissing towards TWO TRILLION from the 800 million they inherited.I'd like to know WHAT has happened to all that money ?

A bit more notice would have been helpful, and better publicity at an earlier stage. But overall I am happy with the move on the grounds of equalising men and women. It always seemed wrong to me that men had to wait longer, especially as they don't usually live as long, and also are more likely to have hard manual work.

I was lucky in that I only had to wait until I became 61 to receive my state pension. However, around 20 years ago a poster went up at my place of work telling us what was going to happen for women to make it fair for the men. It was very specific and told us exactly how long we would have to wait to receive the state pension. I find it hard to believe that other places of work did not display the same poster ?

I am 60 and was told this week by pension forecast dept I need to make 46 years of NI contributions. The website does say 35 years for full pension the advisor apologized for the confusion and told me this only applies to people starting work after 2016.

I haven't been informed that my pension date has moved either except by the press and GN. I can't think of any other scheme you would pay into for years and then get told you cannot have the money until 7 years later. I accept women have to be made equal to men in this regard but when the majority of my working contributions have been paid, I think that it is criminal. I do think that people like me who no longer have the capacity to work because of long standing conditions should be able to claim their pensions at the age they expected it because or stop being subjected to continual reassessments when they are on ESA. It is undignified and being made to feel like a scrounger is obscene.