Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sheila99]

It was part of the equality legislation I'm afraid so it had to happen, and if you're male you'd think it unfair that you have to work longer and expect to die sooner. If they're going to discriminate I think they should do it by type of work. Fine to work in an office at 67 but I wouldn't like to be a roofer or anything involving hard physical labour at that age, I'd struggle to do it now. My retirement age has increased by 7 years but I can't argue I didn't know about it.
  I suspect the legislation that did away with the compulsory retirement age has damaged the prospects of older people getting jobs. It's hard anyone over 50 to find new employment. And why employ an old brit when you can have a young European?? (tongue in cheek here) 

[ariadne]

I , like thousands of others, didn't get any notification about either of the 2 changes to my state pension age. I have followed WASPI advice and written all the letters of complaint they have recommended. I even asked DWP to send me copies of the letters they say were sent out to everyone but they replied that they "had no need to keep them"

It's not the equality part  that's unfair. Its pulling the rug twice from under the feet of women just a few years from their expected state pension age.  Anyone affected by the first change should not have also been included in the second  in my opinion.

And how is it "equality"  now that many of those women affected are having to rely on their husbands for money after paying in far more than the required 35 years NI contributions.

Ariadne xx

[Sparrow]

I agree completely ariadne.

Sorry to see Stellajane leave as well.  Always knowledgeable and polite. 

[ariadne]

Stellajane has left?  Oh no,why?  Hope it wasn't my post.

Arianna xx

[Cazikins]

Don't worry ariadne. Stellajane left last night. It's a shame.

[Sparrow]

Judges to rule today on Womens pension age.

Fingers crossed girls. 

[Sparrow]

Case lost

Well that's the end of that then. 

[Perinowpost]

 

[sheila99]

I heard the case was for women born in the 50s who would retire at 65 or 66. As the case has been lost it makes no difference but just wondered why those born early 60s (me!) who will retire at 67 were excluded. Does anyone know?

[Sparrow]

It's because the women born in the 1950s were the closest to retiring at 60, so had less warning and less time to make financial adjustments and arrangements.  For us the goal post was moved too far and too fast.

[ElkWarning]

There is money, by the way, but they took it out of the pot to pay down the national debt.  Your (our) national insurance contributions (NICs) are put into the National Insurance Fund.  This fund has a surplus - something like £50 billion in 2010.  The government decided to 'invest' the surplus in paying down the national debt.  It was the Pension Act of 1995 that changed the rules, but the coalition of 2010 which accelerated the timetable so that people actually feel the pinch.

[Katejo]

I heard the case was for women born in the 50s who would retire at 65 or 66. As the case has been lost it makes no difference but just wondered why those born early 60s (me!) who will retire at 67 were excluded. Does anyone know?

Just recently the Tories said that they intend to move the goalposts further. At the moment I could get the state pension at 67 but, if they make the changes proposed, anyone born between March 6th 1961 and April 1977 will have to wait until 70!
I  was born in 1963  but should be ok because my university superannuation (SAUL) allows me access to part of mine at 60 (the final salary part which finished about 10 years ago).

[Sparrow]

Exactly.  The loss of six years pension adds up around £50,000.  Not to be sneezed at.

[Lanzalover]

I'm sorry to read this but not completely surprised.

Women still tend to be the main carers having to help with grandchildren and look after elderly parents which can be very stressful when you are expected to work until 66, as a previous poster has said 65 was bad enough but then it was suddenly increased to 66 which was a double whammy.

I work in a very fast paced environment so I'm hoping to do another couple years and then retire although I'll still have to wait another couple of years for my state pittance.

Lanzalover x

[Pennyfarthing]

Labour have now said they will spend £58 BILLION on paying women for the pensions they missed out on.  This wasn't in their manifesto and has not been costed but mentioned today because they think it will bring them more votes.  If they really cared they would have put it in ages ago. 

I missed out on my pension by just a couple of months so I would LOVE it to be true but I'm afraid I don't believe them and they won't be buying my vote.

I remember too well the last time they were in government and the note they left saying “there's no money left”.  It has taken years and years of strict “housekeeping” to get us out of that mess.  Ladies affected need to stop and think about this because if they start throwing money about again there will be NO money left anyway so they can forget their pension payback.