# Womens pensions



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

Please sign this petition

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/110776


----------



## ChrisandJohn (Feb 3, 2008)

Signed


Chris


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

Come on the rest of you, email your friends this is important.


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

With all due respect why. All you will do is at the most get the dates changed, so that another year of petitions for those women.It has to start somewhere.

Not having checked that equality has meant that this affects men as well.
The above statement can be retracted if there is no equality. As this would be wrong. 
Also I firmly believe that the pay grade should be the same for male or female if they do the same job.

cabby


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

I won't be signing as I don't agree with the petition or the sentiment of it despite my wife being one of those affected.


----------



## Nick5912 (Aug 30, 2014)

Signed!!!!!


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

This might be a time to think of others.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Kev_n_Liz said:


> This might be a time to think of others.


I do - the younger generation who are going to be burdened with paying for the astronomical and unaffordable pension liability that this country has incurred.


----------



## paulmold (Apr 2, 2009)

By the time the 'younger generation' get to pension age (whatever that may be by then), there will be no state pension. They will be expected to have taken out private pensions but so many are not interested in what happens in the future, they are too busy making sure they have the latest smartphone, or TV or games console to have any money left over to plan for the future.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

peribro said:


> I do - the younger generation who are going to be burdened with paying for the astronomical and unaffordable pension liability that this country has incurred.


The younger generation can take care of themselves Peter, they have time to adjust, I'm thinking of those who have set their stall out to retire at a certain age, have worked all their lives with that same goal, and now it's being moved, it's okay for those who have managed their money well but millions have not, are knackered working in harsh environments and need to enjoy a well earned retirement.


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

peribro said:


> I do - the younger generation who are going to be burdened with paying for the astronomical and unaffordable pension liability that this country has incurred.


Here we go, excuses, excuses just for once show some compassion.:crying:


----------



## Geriatricbackpacker (Aug 21, 2012)

It's a double edged sword, keep women working until later in life and pay young people unemployment benefits or let men retire early to provide equality and pay them a state pension. 

I'm guessing the tax they raise from established workers will be greater than that hived from those starting off at the bottom of the ladder. 

Is it better to have young people in employment at an early stage to avoid them becoming reliant on benefits or keep older women in work to provide equality? 

I don't know the answer but I am guessing that it's all about the £££'s and no concern for the long term social issues. If the matter gets raised at least there should be a debate on the subject which should shed some light upon what Parliament think the answer is.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

I was just thinking, this is all arse about face, for the majority of women, their working day does not end when they clock off, they have to pick up the kids, shop, cook, clean, all the time trying to look their best for the Pratt who comes home, puts his feet up and the TV on and does sod all to help, yes there will be modern men who do help, but traditionally this has been a woman's lot, so maybe we at the very least owe them a moment to sign this partition in recognition of how long they have been doing this for us men, they have earned it, so instead of whinging about why this or that, just do it, they deserve it at the very least, historically and still today women get the crappy end of the stick, time it all changed.

Kev.


----------



## greygit (Apr 15, 2007)

Kev_n_Liz said:


> I was just thinking, this is all arse about face, for the majority of women, their working day does not end when they clock off, they have to pick up the kids, shop, cook, clean, all the time trying to look their best for the Pratt who comes home, puts his feet up and the TV on and does sod all to help, yes there will be modern men who do help, but traditionally this has been a woman's lot, so maybe we at the very least owe them a moment to sign this partition in recognition of how long they have been doing this for us men, they have earned it, so instead of whinging about why this or that, just do it, they deserve it at the very least, historically and still today women get the crappy end of the stick, time it all changed.
> 
> Kev.


 I totally agree as I was a single parent and until a lot of men have experienced the numerous things that need to be done in day they have no idea, especially when in full time employment.


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

Bleeding hearts on here again. If Women want equality, they still harp on about it, it is only fair as well,then the retirement age should be the same and the pension should be equal as well.

What is paid into the coffers from earnings is not the amount that is spent anyway, all income from taxes goes into a very large pot and then designated to where it is needed. Yeah right.

cabby


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

No-one seems to be mentioning life expectancies which increased between the original timetable in 1995 and the amended timetable announced 15 years later. During that period life expectancy for a middle aged woman increased by just over 2 years.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

peribro said:


> No-one seems to be mentioning life expectancies which increased between the original timetable in 1995 and the amended timetable announced 15 years later. During that period life expectancy for a middle aged woman increased by just over 2 years.


I'm not sure that makes any difference Peter, surely mens has increased by the same amount.

Women have always retired earlier, I agree in the spirit of fairness we should be the same, but it should be phased in not like it is being done.

In 2013 Liz expected to retire this year, but she can't now, I think at least 5 years notice should be given of any changes, not just in parliament, but in the national press, it's now 2 years away.

On the other side of the coin, I was made redundant in 2009, not a hope in hell of getting a job, so DWP told me to take pension credit when I reached 60, I only passed 65 this year, it's done to bring men equality with womens retirement age, not sure how that will affect men in the future.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Kev_n_Liz said:


> I'm not sure that makes any difference Peter, surely mens has increased by the same amount.
> 
> Women have always retired earlier, I agree in the spirit of fairness we should be the same, but it should be phased in not like it is being done.
> 
> ...


You are right Kev - men's life expectancy has improved as well and in fact the gap with women is narrowing. My point was twofold I suppose. First it's not all bad news for women and whilst many will have to wait an extra one year before drawing the state pension (with some waiting 18 months and a few 2 years' extra) they will also now be living longer so will not be having a shorter retirement. Secondly with men and women living longer than had been anticipated when the original proposal were announced in 1995, the question is who funds the extra 2 years or whatever it turns out to be? It's either those who are going to benefit from it or future generations - one way or the other someone has to pay.

As for the changes being announced, there was a lot of coverage back in and around 1995 and then quite a lot of controversy in the national press in 2011 when the revised timetable was announced e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/mar/02/plan-to-raise-womens-retirement-age-condemned

My understanding though is that the 2011 changes only affects women who under the 1995 Pensions Act were due to retire after April 2016. If Liz was due to retire in 2015 then the 2011 Act should not have impacted her and the changes that would have impacted here were those introduced in 1995.

You may find the attached table of interest as it shows the retirement ages before and after the 2011 Act.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

peribro said:


> You are right Kev - men's life expectancy has improved as well and in fact the gap with women is narrowing. My point was twofold I suppose. First it's not all bad news for women and whilst many will have to wait an extra one year before drawing the state pension (with some waiting 18 months and a few 2 years' extra) they will also now be living longer so will not be having a shorter retirement. Secondly with men and women living longer than had been anticipated when the original proposal were announced in 1995, the question is who funds the extra 2 years or whatever it turns out to be? It's either those who are going to benefit from it or future generations - one way or the other someone has to pay.
> 
> As for the changes being announced, there was a lot of coverage back in and around 1995 and then quite a lot of controversy in the national press in 2011 when the revised timetable was announced e.g. http://www.theguardian.com/money/2011/mar/02/plan-to-raise-womens-retirement-age-condemned
> 
> ...


Table attached ??


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Sorry!

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310231/spa-timetable.pdf


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

peribro said:


> Sorry!
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310231/spa-timetable.pdf


Cheers Peter, born April 55, so no joy either way.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

Mrs Plodd is one of those affected, born in October 1955 so has just turned 60 at which point (up until a few years ago) she WOULD have qualified for her state pension. As it is she/we must wait another SIX years before she gets it (along with her bus pass etc) 

At that point, because she was "contracted out" for a couple of years she will NOT get the full pension even though she has paid full NI contributions all her working life. (I am in the same situation) 

Others, who have done two tenths of three fifths of ****** all for all of their lives WILL get the full state pension, along with a shed load of other "benefits" all of which I will still be paying for out of the workplace pension I prudently signed up for many years ago instead of sponging off "the Government" (I sometimes wonder where the spongers of this country think the money actually comes from)

There was that chap in the paper last week who gets 27K a year in benefits for 11 children, and has never done a days work in his entire sponging life.

What it needs is some paper to work out how much someone on the "average" wage pays in income tax in a year and then publish just how many people are flogging their guts out to finance that idle tossers life style.

Rant? who said I was ranting?????? I am most definitely NOT ranting, I am simply complaining in a continuous manner.

Anyway, back to the matter in hand, I have also signed the petition (from all 4 of my email addresses) but it is not going to make any difference at all (but it makes me feel a little bit better) 

I feel the need for a lie down in a darkened room now!!!!!

Andy


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Prior to 1995 a woman born in April 1955 had a retirement age of 60 i.e. April 2015. The Pensions Act 1995 increased the retirement age for all women born after 5 December 1953 to 65 years of age so that same woman would now be retiring in April 2020.

The Pensions Act 2011 then made further changes so that a woman born in April 1955 would now not reach State Pension Age until her 66th birthday i.e. in April 2021.

Hope that "helps" Kev and I can fully sympathise - it must have come as a hell of a shock to only find out 2 years ago.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Mrplodd said:


> Mrs Plodd is one of those affected, born in October 1955 so has just turned 60 at which point (up until a few years ago) she WOULD have qualified for her state pension. As it is she/we must wait another SIX years before she gets it (along with her bus pass etc)


When you say "a few years ago" Andy, that is in fact 20 years ago!


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

peribro said:


> Prior to 1995 a woman born in April 1955 had a retirement age of 60 i.e. April 2015. The Pensions Act 1995 increased the retirement age for all women born after 5 December 1953 to 65 years of age so that same woman would now be retiring in April 2020.
> 
> The Pensions Act 2011 then made further changes so that a woman born in April 1955 would now not reach State Pension Age until her 66th birthday i.e. in April 2021.
> 
> Hope that "helps" Kev and I can fully sympathise - it must have come as a hell of a shock to only find out 2 years ago.


It's not a problem for us as it stands, as I claim for Liz on my Pension, no idea how it works but for us we're okay I think, she does have a small private pension, but .gov takes that off.


----------



## philoaks (Sep 2, 2008)

Myself and SWMBO both signed the petition and today received an email response from "The Government" you may wish to read it in full but, if not, it can be summarised as follows...............tough sh!t

_The Government has responded to the petition you signed - "Make fair transitional state pension arrangements for 1950's women".

Government responded:

State Pension age changes were first made in 1995. All women affected have been directly contacted following the changes. There are no plans to alter State Pension age arrangements for this group.

Firstly, to clarify, State Pension age (SPa) changes affect individuals in the following way: 
• Women born between 6th April 1950 and 5th April 1953 have an SPa set by the 1995 Pensions Act, of between 60 and 63. This group will reach SPa by March 2016, and will therefore receive a State Pension under the current system. 
• Women born between 6th April 1953 and 5th December 1953 have an SPa set by the 2011 Pensions Act, of between 63 and 65. The maximum increase in SPa that anybody will experience relative to the 1995 timetable is 16 months. This group will reach pension age after the introduction of the new State Pension. 
• Men and women born between 6th December 1953 and 5th April 1960 have an SPa set by the 2011 Act, of between 65 and 66. Of the approximately five million individuals affected by the 2011 change, two point four million are men. For women, the maximum increase in SPa relative to the previous timetable is 18 months and for men it is 12 months. This group will also reach pension age after the introduction of the new State Pension.

Both the 1995 and 2011 changes followed on from public calls for evidence. The Government has notified the women affected by the State Pension age changes. Following the 2011 changes, DWP wrote to all those directly affected to inform them of the change to their State Pension age - using the address details recorded by HMRC at the time. Mailing to these individuals, due to reach State Pension age between 2016 and 2026, was completed between January 2012 and November 2013, subject to the accuracy of their address details with HMRC. Letters to women with a State Pension age determined by the 1995 timetable (born between 6th April 1950 and 5th April 1953) were sent between April 2009 and March 2011. The DWP also has information on State Pension age changes and who they affect on gov.uk. This includes State Pension age timetables, impact assessments (including an impact assessment for the 2011 Pensions Act) and a State Pension age calculator. In addition, the State Pension age equalisation changes were built into the State Pension statement IT system; introduced in 2001. Therefore, statements produced on request using this system would have included women's new State Pension ages as determined by the 1995 Pensions Act.

The Government will not be revisiting the State Pension age arrangements for women affected by the 1995 or 2011 Acts. The Government carried out extensive analysis of the impacts of bringing forward the rise to 66 when legislating for the change (impact assessment available at Gov.uk). The decision to amend the timetable originally set out in the bill, to cap the maximum increase at 18 months rather than 2 years, was informed by this analysis.

All women affected by faster equalisation will reach State Pension age after the introduction of the new State Pension. The new State Pension will be more generous for many women who have historically done poorly under the current, two-tier system - largely as a result of lower average earnings and part-time working. Around 650,000 women reaching State Pension age in the first ten years will receive an average of £8 per week (in 2014/15 earnings terms) more due to the new State Pension valuation of their National Insurance record.

Regular consideration of State Pension age is necessary to ensure the pensions system remains sustainable as life expectancy grows. The 2014 Act provides for a 6-yearly review, to take into account up-to-date life expectancy data and the findings of an independently-led review. The first review will conclude by May 2017 and will consider, amongst a number of other factors, the impact of State Pension age change on women.

The policy decision to increase women's State Pension age is designed to remove the inequality between men and women. The cost of prolonging this inequality would be several billions of pounds. Parliament extensively debated the issue and listened to all arguments both for and against the acceleration of the timetable to remove this inequality. The decision was approved by Parliament in 2011 and there is no new evidence to consider.

Department for Work and Pensions

Click this link to view the response online:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/110776?reveal_response=yes

The Petitions Committee will take a look at this petition and its response. They can press the government for action and gather evidence. If this petition reaches 100,000 signatures, the Committee will consider it for a debate.

The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee

Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament
_


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

I got the same one, not impressed.


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

Apart from the financial aspects of it all, it worries me that women in hard physical jobs like nursing, caring, factory work etc will be able to cope. 
When I retired at just over 60 I was knackered from working in a school for children with Special Needs. It was hard work and, being the generation we are, I would not drop my standards to cope with my aging body. it gave me a lot of stress trying to do things as well and as quickly as I used to when I was younger. I urged all my colleagues to think about finding less physically demanding jobs before they got into their late fifties. Of course they found it difficult to imagine that their bodies would not be as fit and well as they felt then!


This, of course, has already happened to men over the years. My dad used to tell us about the workers in the foundry at Ford's. They would retire at 65 and only live a year or two to enjoy it.


----------



## paulmold (Apr 2, 2009)

patp said:


> Apart from the financial aspects of it all, it worries me that women in hard physical jobs like nursing, caring, factory work etc will be able to cope.
> When I retired at just over 60 I was knackered from working in a school for children with Special Needs. It was hard work and, being the generation we are, I would not drop my standards to cope with my aging body. it gave me a lot of stress trying to do things as well and as quickly as I used to when I was younger. I urged all my colleagues to think about finding less physically demanding jobs before they got into their late fifties. Of course they found it difficult to imagine that their bodies would not be as fit and well as they felt then!
> 
> This, of course, has already happened to men over the years. My dad used to tell us about the workers in the foundry at Ford's. They would retire at 65 and only live a year or two to enjoy it.


This is exactly the situation for my wife, physically demanding job in a supermarket, heavy lifting etc. Although supposedly part-time for the last five years (she gets called in a lot for extra help) she is knackered when she gets home. I can't see her being able to continue for another six years so we are looking at downsizing to get some capital for her to live off. Difficult when you live in an already low-cost (by comparison) area.


----------



## patp (Apr 30, 2007)

There will have been a reason, all those years ago, that they set the retirement ages at 60 for women and 65 for men. It would, probably, have been on advice that productivity fell among the men and women over those ages.


There is also the point that those working longer are blocking jobs for the young people coming into the jobs market.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

I just think it's all deplorable, the old are having to pay for the ineptitude of a governments which cannot and dare not control the real problems, one of which must include immigration legal or otherwise, we simply have too many people in this country, disregarding whether they pay tax or not, they still need bins emptying, policing, they need health care, they too need pensions, they need all the things we need, they use up funds just the same and the pot is dwindling, defence and sending money to worse off countries depletes the pot even more, it is a downward spiral, it is becoming world wide, it needs to be controlled from the top before it is too late, otherwise where will we be.


----------



## talogon (Aug 12, 2009)

signed Kev.


----------



## paulmold (Apr 2, 2009)

patp said:


> There is also the point that those working longer are blocking jobs for the young people coming into the jobs market.


I'm sure it's cheaper to pay unemployment to the young than to pay a pension.


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

patp said:


> There will have been a reason, all those years ago, that they set the retirement ages at 60 for women and 65 for men. It would, probably, have been on advice that productivity fell among the men and women over those ages.


Women's retirement age was reduced to 60 (from 65 I Think) in 1940. The primary reason was that most wives were 3 to 4 years younger than their husbands and also had a longer life expectancy. Because the majority of women gave up work on marriage it was very difficult indeed for them to get back into the job market again if their husband was to die before them when they were still in their late 50's / early 60's, which was common at the time. Prior to the state pension age being reduced to 60, many women suffered extreme poverty. In addition unmarried women, many who might have been doing manual work, found it difficult to sustain their jobs in late middle age, again causing poverty.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear (Sep 25, 2008)

Update

Read this

https://hansard.digiminster.com/com...es/15120250000001/StatePensionAgeEqualisation

Or watch this

http://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/616c1049-330b-420b-a3f5-db25c6bffbbb?in=09:30:00&out=11:00:00 
__________________


----------

