State Pension Age Case

[Deleted member 21258]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49907727

Saw this on the bbc website today.

Should be interesting to see what the ruling is and if we/state have to pay out?

 

[Jensen]

Hopefully they win

 

[Imurg]

They've just lost....

 

[Deleted member 18645]

Equality eh? ;-)

 

[Lord Tyrion]

The premis for bringing the cse seemed odd but presumably there was a legal case for going down that route. I understand the unfairness of the rules changing part way through your working life but using the equalities act when the change was to equalise the system didn't seem to make sense. Totally accept the legal beagles saw something, although clearly not enough.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

It's not good. How the government can change something so significant for the future well-being at relatively short notice of so many women I really don't know. We are fortunate having good pensions and so this will not affect significantly - we just have to budget and pull-down from existing pension pots and savings differently - knowing Mrs Hogies state pension won't appear until she is 66.

But many people do not have any for of workplace pension and would be depending upon the state pension. For that to be moved for women from 60 to 66 and later is awful. It is also short-sighted as I suspect that many women in the 60-66 age bracket will be grannies and would provide important childcare resource for their grandchildren. If these women have to continuing working until 66 who provides the childcare?

 

[larmen]

It's not good. How the government can change something so significant for the future well-being at relatively short notice of so many

Will it be the last change?

I am working on the assumption that I am now paying into a state pension pot as well as a private one because I am never going to see a penny from the state one.
So far every generation paid the pension of the previous one, we pay that and our own. Will someone paybours to top it up in 20-40 years time?
In my opinion this goes a lot deeper than just equality.

 

[SocketRocket]

Will it be the last change?

I am working on the assumption that I am now paying into a state pension pot as well as a private one because I am never going to see a penny from the state one.
So far every generation paid the pension of the previous one, we pay that and our own. Will someone paybours to top it up in 20-40 years time?
In my opinion this goes a lot deeper than just equality.

The 'Young Uns' think they will be extinct soon so no chance of them paying for your pension

 

[clubchamp98]

It's not good. How the government can change something so significant for the future well-being at relatively short notice of so many women I really don't know. We are fortunate having good pensions and so this will not affect significantly - we just have to budget and pull-down from existing pension pots and savings differently - knowing Mrs Hogies state pension won't appear until she is 66.

But many people do not have any for of workplace pension and would be depending upon the state pension. For that to be moved for women from 60 to 66 and later is awful. It is also short-sighted as I suspect that many women in the 60-66 age bracket will be grannies and would provide important childcare resource for their grandchildren. If these women have to continuing working until 66 who provides the childcare?

It’s a unintended consequence of equality.
Women in good jobs have done ok from the equality act .
But I would say most have lost out.

Be careful what you wish for.
They were never going to find for women as under the act all men would want it!
But pensions are a contract with the government but they have moved the goalposts for all of us.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

It's not good. How the government can change something so significant for the future well-being at relatively short notice of so many women I really don't know. We are fortunate having good pensions and so this will not affect significantly - we just have to budget and pull-down from existing pension pots and savings differently - knowing Mrs Hogies state pension won't appear until she is 66.

But many people do not have any for of workplace pension and would be depending upon the state pension. For that to be moved for women from 60 to 66 and later is awful. It is also short-sighted as I suspect that many women in the 60-66 age bracket will be grannies and would provide important childcare resource for their grandchildren. If these women have to continuing working until 66 who provides the childcare?

Someone like yourself who seems to pride himself on keeping abreast of the news would surely have been aware of these changes that originated I 1995 and were accelerated in 2010. There was plenty of publicity throughout that period.

However, as seems to be the case these days, the women in question do not appear to feel that they should be responsible for their own awareness.

The change was inevitable since the State could not afford to keep paying pensions to one half of the community for, on average, more than eight years longer than the other half.

Expectation of life for us all has massively increased since the introduction of the universal State Pension.

As for the childcare argument perhaps the parents of those children should themselves accept responsibility for that.

 

[jim8flog]

I am with Metal Mickie on this.

What annoys me about this was that the law changing the state pension ages came in during 1995. There was, IMO, lots of info about the changes at the time. Yet here we are over 20 years later and there are a load of women who say that they were unaware of the change.

More likely to be a case of lets not worry about my pension its too far in to the future.

PS the judges upheld the State view on this and the State won the case.

 

[Dibby]

Someone like yourself who seems to pride himself on keeping abreast of the news would surely have been aware of these changes that originated I 1995 and were accelerated in 2010. There was plenty of publicity throughout that period.

However, as seems to be the case these days, the women in question do not appear to feel that they should be responsible for their own awareness.

The change was inevitable since the State could not afford to keep paying pensions to one half of the community for, on average, more than eight years longer than the other half.

Expectation of life for us all has massively increased since the introduction of the universal State Pension.

As for the childcare argument perhaps the parents of those children should themselves accept responsibility for that.

It's actually interesting that the women's pension age was lower for so long, given that from a demographic perspective women live longer. From an actuarial point of view, there is almost an argument that the age women can claim a pension should be higher than the men to balance the amount paid out.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

It’s a throwback, pension age for women was reduced to 60 from 65 in 1940, as women tended to marry men a few years older than themselves and generally married women did not work.

If you had the scenario of a man aged 65 and a woman aged 62, the man retired and took a pension, but the wife had to wait 3 years for hers, thus causing financial hardship for that time.

Now it has all changed, women have quite rightly fought for equality and have got it. Can’t have it both ways.

I have seen my pension age rise from 65 to 67 and I have no problem with that, we are living longer and it is a necessary change.

 

[ColchesterFC]

Maybe they should base your pension age on your lifestyle choices. If you agree to smoke 20 a day and drink heavily all of your life you can take your pension at 50. If you eat healthily, exercise regularly and live a healthy lifestyle you aren't allowed your pension until you are 75. Ideally the government want you to work hard and pay your taxes all of your life and then drop dead on the first day of your retirement to save them loads of money in pension and health care costs.

 

[clubchamp98]

It’s a throwback, pension age for women was reduced to 60 from 65 in 1940, as women tended to marry men a few years older than themselves and generally married women did not work.

If you had the scenario of a man aged 65 and a woman aged 62, the man retired and took a pension, but the wife had to wait 3 years for hers, thus causing financial hardship for that time.

Now it has all changed, women have quite rightly fought for equality and have got it. Can’t have it both ways.

I have seen my pension age rise from 65 to 67 and I have no problem with that, we are living longer and it is a necessary change.

Don’t you think though that you had a contract with the government over a long period of time and after many years they have just changed the date of maturity.
No right of complaining about it .
I am in the same boat ,if it was a business doing this they would be in court.

 

[larmen]

But when we started to pay into our pension pot we never signed a contract with a date when we take it out again.
We do that in the private pension, but not in state.

 

[clubchamp98]

But when we started to pay into our pension pot we never signed a contract with a date when we take it out again.
We do that in the private pension, but not in state.

So the gov can change it whenever they want?
It was 65 when I started paying in they should honour that .
If they want to change the age it should apply to new applicants .
Unrealistic I know but this really rankles with me.

 

[PhilTheFragger]

Yes but when I started paying in (1980) the life expectancy of a male was around 73, now it is 80 and the majority more active largely due to advances in medicine.

More people living longer = bigger pension bills, something had to be done and I think making us work an extra couple of years isn’t a major issue.

There will be some who have to retire earlier due to ill heath and there needs to be adequate provision for them.

But who can afford to live on a state pension alone, especially if still renting ?

 

[Deleted member 18588]

So the gov can change it whenever they want?
It was 65 when I started paying in they should honour that .
If they want to change the age it should apply to new applicants .
Unrealistic I know but this really rankles with me.

Would you accept the State Pension being paid to you for a limited period?

Say, in line with your expectation of life at the time you commenced NI contributions.

Then both parties to the so called "contract" would be able to claim that they are keeping their side of it.

 

[clubchamp98]

Would you accept the State Pension being paid to you for a limited period?

Say, in line with your expectation of life at the time you commenced NI contributions.

Then both parties to the so called "contract" would be able to claim that they are keeping their side of it.

They were not mentioned at the time !
The retirement age was 65.
Things change I know but I don’t have to like it!