1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Joan Bakewell and pensions for women of a certain age?

Discussion in 'Personal' started by felltogroundinberkeleysquare, Nov 24, 2015.

  1. felltogroundinberkeleysquare

    felltogroundinberkeleysquare Established commenter

    I listened to a BBC debate about women in their 50's/60's being shocked and horrified by the fact that the pension age for women has increased from 60 to 67 plus. According to her, many women should demand compensation for being mis led over the promise of retirement at 60. This seems little mentioned in the news, unlike the plight of OAP's who have been drawing pensions at 60 or 65, even if they have not contributed enough NI payments for decades called social security ( the names are interchangeable virtually).

    Men were always due to retire at 65, so there is not much difference for them, but working women who have both worked and raised their children were given respect for the effect of that under the old rules. Personally, I have a fully paid up NI working stamp, which would have entitled me to retire at 60 had the Govt not moved the goal post, so in fact, I am being robbed by the state. Equally, the Government has introduced back dated legislation for companies and people who work by contract.

    It seems to me that rather than supporting the working population, the government legislates for back dating laws in order to "pay peter from paul", You cannot back track legislation whether you call it " anti avoidance" or "robbing women in their 50s/60s" of their pension rights, because if it was legal at the time, then it is legal both ways.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nsated-lack-warning-delays-state-payouts.html
    grumpydogwoman likes this.
  2. Dunteachin

    Dunteachin Star commenter

    Yes. I should have started drawing my state pension in July. I'll have to wait another SIX years. Am not happy. Not at all.
    grumpydogwoman likes this.
  3. InkyP

    InkyP Star commenter

    Same here. Friends only a little older than me can draw their state pension.
    grumpydogwoman likes this.
  4. VanEyssen

    VanEyssen Established commenter

    This is what happens when its no longer 1948.
  5. Lascarina

    Lascarina Star commenter

    It was no longer 1948 10 years ago and it didn't happen like this then. Why not say what you really mean?
  6. anotherauntsally

    anotherauntsally Lead commenter

    I'm sure we've known about this for twenty years or so - about the age for women starting to draw their pension being increased to make men and women equal (thought it would be to 65 at that time). I remember a colleague of mine was just young enough to lose out. We felt sorry for her. It has to be fair that men and women are now equal, though, I would have thought? But raising start age to 67 so soon seems really hard.
  7. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    Yup, was 60 in August.

    A whole tranche of colleagues retired a coupla years ago at 60. They're not doing too badly.

    It certainly was a huge change. I'm OK but I hear accounts on the radio of some women in real trouble. Mind you, my daughters aren't doing too well either.
  8. grumpydogwoman

    grumpydogwoman Star commenter

    I'm sure the rules changed more recently than that, sally.
  9. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Welcome to Conservative Government. You get what you vote for and New Labour was but little different.
  10. Morninglover

    Morninglover Star commenter

    Government was better when the Liberal were keeping hold of the Conservatives - shouldn't have destroyed them in May
  11. anotherauntsally

    anotherauntsally Lead commenter

    Yes, I think it started a few years ago but my colleague knew she would be affected a long time before that. A few years ago, my cousin had to wait until she was 61 to retire because that was when she would be able to get her pension. Has the age threshold not been creeping up gradually over the last few years?
  12. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Another fiddle on pensions is to take some of the husbands contributions and give them to your wife. This is what they did with me and I was very happy to do that to lift my wife's pension up because she had stayed at home looking after our children and me as well. The fiddle comes when/if the wife passes away first (like my dear Wife) those contributions are then lost.
  13. VanEyssen

    VanEyssen Established commenter

    Retirement ages were set for the pension scheme of 1948. Men was set at 65 when life expectancy at birth was 66. Women was set at 60 as the average wife was 5 years younger than her husband enabling them to retire together. Life expediencies and gender equality have changed which need to be reflected in pension arrangements..
  14. Duke of York

    Duke of York Star commenter

    So only one year's anticipated retirement in 1948. How many years on average does the government imagine people will be claiming their pension these days?
  15. VanEyssen

    VanEyssen Established commenter

    Life expectancy at 65 is 18 years male/21 female. Expectancy at birth is 78/82
    Before 1948 retirement age for men and women was 70.
  16. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    Maleficent will continue to parasitise me for several more years.
  17. felltogroundinberkeleysquare

    felltogroundinberkeleysquare Established commenter

    I think the point Bakewell was making is that women in this cohort subscribed to a pension promise of retirement at 60, and are now denied it. Apparently, many are not even aware of the changes, and it comes as a surprise when they get made redundant/want to retire, and find there is no pension, and despite the promise of us all living until we are 99, this isn't statistically proven.

    I actually thought women could retire earlier not because their husbands were older, but mostly they had the brunt of the child rearing, and if they combined it with work, they were probably knackered by 60. Equality is not always about treating everyone the "same" is it? No, a feminist would argue, this is just robbing one less vocal and under-represented sector of society, to increase the Whitehall coffers.

    Against all this is the inverted imposition on contractors/businesses of tax laws applied retrospectively, just as this is with women. You conformed with the law, you did so to make the best of your efforts, but suddenly, the law is changed retrospectively. You have to ask who are the real criminals here? I suggest it is those who have the power to legislate.
    InkyP and HelenREMfan like this.
  18. Weald56

    Weald56 Established commenter

    The age at which teachers could retire on a full teachers' pension also changed long after I started teaching...and not for the better (for me!)
  19. felltogroundinberkeleysquare

    felltogroundinberkeleysquare Established commenter

    Yes, it is no longer a private sector/public sector debate. There are a few lucky ones who have been born on the right dates, but mostly, we " are not all in it together", and I particularly dislike state pensions being paid to those who have not worked at all, or enough to come up to a contributory level, who cluck on about their "rights" to it, even if paid at a lower rate. I am a bit hard on this, since I think if you have had a lifetime to sort yourself out, and paid in, that's fine, and disability allowances although reduced do support those who have been unable to do so. Still there is this mass of women now in their 70's or 80's whose husbands have left them very comfortable, but still get state pension, about to go up by 2.9% and they haven't contributed a thing!
  20. Weald56

    Weald56 Established commenter

    Until her death earlier this year my mother would have fallen into this category - but she did spend a long time bringing up children (27 years with at least one at home, finishing when she was over 60) - would you have taken her pension away? (And all those others who were homemakers?)

Share This Page