Can you help me understand what the exact problem is. Here’s what I do understand:

– The pension age was changed to provide equality with men
– A group of women born within a certain time frame were not given notice of this change
– They have now arrived at what they previously thought would be retirement age only to find that they don’t have enough saved for retirement (because no one told them they were changing the reitrement age)

It’s obvious that there is a real problem and that there is a group of women who are experiencing very real financial hardship as a result.

Here’s what I don’t understand:

– Is the problem simply solved by working longer or is there another part of the problem I haven’t understood that means that doesn’t actually solve the problem?

For example, if the gap is say three years, i.e. you arrive at 62 expecting to have enough money at 62 only to find that a key part of your retirement provision isn’t available until 65 (but is enough at 65) then isn’t the problem solved simply by working until you’re 65?

Or to put it another way, would simply working until 65 still result in you having less money than you originally anticipated having even at 62?

The problem seems to me to be that they demanded equality and got the wrong sort of equality.

It’s failure to meet expectations. moving of goal posts.

I would not be bothered but I have grown up not expecting the retirement age not to move. If I had grown up with it always being the same then all of a sudden it changes I would probably feel different.

Theses are all just feelings though. In practical terms there is no issue.

“isn’t the problem solved simply by working until you’re 65?”

Work isn’t simple. It’s a pain in the arse that takes up loads of time.

So that’s the problem.

The problem seems to me to be that they demanded equality and got the wrong sort of equality.

well that went downhill quick.

OP – I think the issue is that they’d planned to retire at 60, done all the maths, left work and only then found that they weren’t getting a state pension. No one told them, individually, that they would be affected by the legislation and, because of their age, they’ve been caught in the gradual introduction of the new retirement age when they believed it was a big bang in 2020.

I fully expect there to be no state pension in 15 or 16 years time when I hit my mid sixties (or for the age to just constantly rise and be forever ahead of me).

the situation for *all* pensioners is going to get worse as time goes on. No more final salary schemes, people finding that all of their income goes on their mortgage or rent for the majority of their working lives. these women might be considered the vanguard of those who will feel they’ve paid into a system their whole lives which, by the time they want to benefit from it doesn’t deliver what they were led to believe it would.

I work with a lot of guys who are approaching their 60’s, they’re all looking for an exit plan, a redundancy or something to give them that wee extra bit on top of their already massive final salary pensions.

They have a huge sense of entitlement, mainly due to seeing others who retired 20 years ago, in the good times, who have had a great lifestyle ever since – one I work with’s dad has now been retired for longer than he actually worked, and he found out recently that the old fella still has his 6 figure lump sum untouched (he’s 87 now mind, and the nursing home will be taking care of that)

I’d imagine these women will be casting similar envious glances at their slightly older contemporaries…

I’m in my forties and my expectation of a state pension is that it’s like the horizon; the closer you get to it, the futher away it will appear.

You have to make your own arrangements; relying on the state is not a recipe for a comfy old age.

The problem seems to me to be that they demanded equality and got the wrong sort of equality.

They are not necessarily the same people.

However it’s one of planning and expectations.

Theses are all just feelings though. In practical terms there is no issue.

Well lots of issues … it’s not really as simple as just working longer.. many will have a private pension as well and have also planned their end-of-career based on this.

They may have turned down or accepted different positions for many reasons because they had planned for a date. i.e. They may have been offered a job elsewhere or a promotion but turned it down because they were only planning X years of work after and it may have meant moving or their partner also taking a different path in their job.

What was the average life expectancy when the 65 pension sage was conceived?

Wasn’t that long ago people were dying on average at 68 so retied for 3 years. In that case people would be working until 75 shouldn’t they? Sounds grim but having a pension for 20 years is a lot different to having one for 3 years.

What was the average life expectancy when the 65 pension sage was conceived?

BBC this morning said that women took pensions for 15 years when 60 was introduced, not it’s 20.

So there has been an increase but not a huge one.

Men, however, now live far longer past retirement than they used to.

You can’t really live on the State Pension.

I was speaking with a recently retired civil servant, who has worked for them since he was 16 and he was complaining that due to the size of his pension pot. he had to pay additional tax. Something like £1.5 million after he had taken his lump sum.

Not a really senior position but middle management for the majority of his career, earning the equivalent of about £50k in todays money.

Completely unsupportable hence lots of changes have been made.

earning the equivalent of about £50k in todays money

So paying say £5k in to a scheme (which for the sake of argument we’ll assume isn’t final salary) with employer matching it.

So £10k a year for 45 years is £450k plus interest/dividends over those 40 years – I can see you could end up with a £1.5m pot relatively easily at that level of contribution.

The thing with public sector and large companies is that they force a contribution that will actually provide a decent retirement income.

I’ve always worked for small companies/myself and stopped contributing for periods of time for various reasons. My pension ‘pot’ is correspondingly pitiful.

So there has been an increase but not a huge one.

15 to 20 years is a pretty significant increase in retirement, particularly if you are funding that gap.

I’ve got a good job but missed out on the golden handcuffs final salary scheme. I expect that in 20ish years time, pension and retirement will be lost concepts. I’m banking on being qualified enough to do a couple of days a week of site supervisory/ safety document work and still physically/mentally able to do it. People might be living longer but does that mean they’re healthier longer?

15 to 20 years is a pretty significant increase in retirement, particularly if you are funding that gap.

V

a pension for 20 years is a lot different to having one for 3 years.

It’s 25% more, not 700% so yes significant, but not huge.

I intend to do equity release on my property if my pension provisions are insufficient. (If i live that long) So I’ll spend all my working life paying it off and I’ll spend all my retirement spending it. 😀
What the hey, who cares.

So paying say £5k in to a scheme (which for the sake of argument we’ll assume isn’t final salary) with employer matching it.

So £10k a year for 45 years is £450k plus interest/dividends over those 40 years – I can see you could end up with a £1.5m pot relatively easily at that level of contribution.

You underestimate how generous the civil service pension used to be. When I joined in 2000 I caught the tail end of it. From memory, 1% contributions, pension based on 60ths of final salary(lots of late career ‘promotions’ happened). 3yrs lump sum.

So your example there would have paid in £500 a year, Not £5000, £22500 over 45yrs and got back over £100,000 as a lump sum on retirement and over 30k a year pension.

Civil service pensions have changed massively but they don’t get referred to as gold plated for no reason.

Pension age should be set at life expectancy – X years. When the state pension was introduced it was mostly men who went out to work and they tended to be doing hard physical jobs and they were basically spent when they got to retirement age.

We are now seeing the benefits of improved public health, better living conditions and a shift from manual, often high risk, labour to safer work positions.

As with @wwaswas I’ve pretty poor pension pot as I’ve always worked for small companies or myself and not a lot has been thrown in there. I also “took time out” to go climbing a lot so don’t have complete state contributions either.

I theory I should retire in eight years, in practice I’ll probably be working a few years after that. Complain? Well I chose what I wanted to do at the time and I enjoyed myself, I wouldn’t be who I am today if I hadn’t done it, so no, no complaints. Things are likely to be financially difficult in the future but they were my choices. I’m certainly not going to have a lifestyle approaching my current one. I don’t have expensive tastes or slavishly follow fashion but equally I don’t have any debts and could relatively easily finance my expected fixed living costs (Council tax, utilities, etc.)

You can’t really live on the State Pension.

That can be debated, you certainly can’t live well.

Hence many women will have taken the opportunity to have a private pension but this would then be linked to their retirement…. their contributions and even the risk profile linked…. as well as how they planned their last decade of work.

In short wise people will have made many decisions in both work and personal life based on a retirement age… even if they had never planned to stop working it will have been used in their planning…

Completely unsupportable hence lots of changes have been made.

Well agree… but that’s not to say that people who are affected are just moaning about nothing.

Pensions and NHS have been unsupportable for decades…

Personally this is actually positive for me on the face of it but I suspect as it is still unsupportable it will be like Womens car insurance and end up that I don’t actually gain but many lose out…. My insurance went down for 1 yr…. then back up … and now I’m paying more for my partner as well.

But it’s also a position of trust. People paid in under a set of conditions and those conditions are arbitrarily changed.

That said it is similar to changing tax…. people accept a promotion then 3 months later find out they are no better off financially but have more work and responsibility..

You can’t really live on the State Pension.

The main impact of this (other than having to work longer) is on people who sacrificed earlier realising you can’t live well on the State Pension and planned to have a more active retirement.

My Mum is one of the affected women. And the comments above are right – the problem is about planning and the amount of notice that was given for the change. My Mum always planned to work well into her 60s – she cant face doing nothing – but with the financial planning of the state pension support she was expecting and going down to maybe 3 days a week. That is no longer possible, and though she is fine and getting on with it – she would have liked a bit more warning as she would have liked to have enjoyed some time whilst her health continues to be ok (long term it probably won’t stay that way) having worked most of her life (except for a few years when my brother and I were young) from 16!

Difficult one as I started work at 16 and my retirement age is 67 so 51 years in the workplace in theory- compared to eldest son who left uni at 22 and has a current retirement age of 70 which is 48 years in the workplace.

All depends how you look at it.

Difficult one as I started work at 16 and my retirement age is 67 so 51 years in the workplace in theory- compared to eldest son who left uni at 22 and has a current retirement age of 70 which is 48 years in the workplace.

But if you’d gone to uni, you’d have worked for 45 years. If your son had started work at 16, he’d have 54 years in the workplace.

All depends how you look at it.

It does seem to boil down to communication rather than anything else. I did hear part of an interview on the Today programme this morning where the woman talking admitted that she knew about the changes when they were being made in the 90s but just assumed that they wouldn’t impact her rather than checking it out for herself.

she was expecting and going down to maybe 3 days a week. That is no longer possible, and though she is fine and getting on with it – she would have liked a bit more warning as she would have liked to have enjoyed some time whilst her health continues to be ok

and

It does seem to boil down to communication rather than anything else.

It does seem to be about a failure of expectation. But that is absolutely not the story that those affected are telling.

The story that is being reported is one of financial harship and the demands that are being made are that these women should get extra financial help to cover the shortfall.

If the changes made that they did fail to communicate have resulted in a situaiton where simply working doesn’t cover the shortfall then I think compensation is justified.

If the failure to communicate changes nothing but the expectation, i.e. that finding out now you have to work three more years is the same material position as finding out back then that it was going to happen, well, then best get your CV polished.

I don’t know the detail of these cases but I have always asked why the pension age for men and women is different in this day and age. With equality in the workplace, equal pay etc, surely retirement ages should be the same too?

I don’t know the detail of these cases but I have always asked why the pension age for men and women is different in this day and age.

The ages are in the process of being aligned.

With equality in the workplace, equal pay etc, surely retirement ages should be the same too?

Part of the issue with the changes is that the women affected worked during the time they were not paid equally. Another issue is that we still don’t have workplace equality.

15 to 20 years is a pretty significant increase in retirement, particularly if you are funding that gap.

V

a pension for 20 years is a lot different to having one for 3 years.

It’s 25% more, not 700% so yes significant, but not huge.

I think you’ll find it’s 33 1/3% more:)

I recently retired at 60.

Worked all my life and payed into company pensions and also made additional voluntary contributions, long term plan to retire early.
Fortunate in that I have a final salary pension for an employer who I worked for 25 years, good luck on my part, everyone needs a little luck in life.

Now, don’t flame me, but here goes.
Most of the women in my age group / generation didn’t really bother with pension stuff, they were in the main second wage earners who concentrated their wages/ salary on bigger mortgages, cars, holidays etc, believing that pensions were a waste of money.

The state pension changes from 60 to 65 or whatever it is that now affects them is what they are up in arms about. They wanted equality in the workplace, and now they have got some of the other type of equality that has caught them out.

I actually do have a little sympathy with them, in an odd sort of way.

Its easy to say just keep on working until the state pension age, but the workplace has changed. Many simply wouldn’t get another job if they were out of a current job aged 60ish, due to employers not wanting them.

Also, most people in their 60’s are actually not as sharp as they were, a few niggling health issues, lack of any real workplace ambition, having worked for decades ( life is about more than being a wage slave).

Personally, the women relied on a preferential pension arrangement, and have been caught out with equality changes. They should have had the common sense to understand that pensions were a good thing, and the state pension is nowhere near and amount to retire on, at any age.

The change in retirement age has been staggered in slowly and notified years in advance. So no I only have one more year now it is six more years supprises.

Fortunate in that I have a final salary pension for an employer who I worked for 25 years, good luck on my part, everyone needs a little luck in life….They should have had the common sense to understand that pensions were a good thing, and the state pension is nowhere near and amount to retire on, at any age.

so, good luck on your part equates to piss poor financial planning by every-one else..?

Part of the issue with the changes is that the women affected worked during the time they were not paid equally. Another issue is that we still don’t have workplace equality.

None of this is relevant because this relates to the state pension which has no relevance to what you earned.

Most of the women in my age group / generation didn’t really bother with pension stuff, they were in the main second wage earners who concentrated their wages/ salary on bigger mortgages, cars, holidays

When you say most do you mean some?

As that’s certainly not the case with the ones I know.

so, good luck on your part equates to piss poor financial planning by every-one else..?

typical baby boomer 😉

There is a group of women who have been treated poorly.

If a woman was born in 1953, she received her state pension at age 60 in 2013.

A woman born in 1955 received a letter a few years ago informing her that her state pension would be paid when she reached age 64. Then a couple of years later she got another letter saying she would not get it until age 68 in 2023.

So (as in Mrs BigJohn’s case) she had a colleague about 15 months older than her who will be receiving her pension for 10 years before Mrs BigJohn gets hers. But it’s OK because Mrs BigJohn will be paying her contributions all that time too.

So (as in Mrs BigJohn’s case) she had a colleague about 15 months older than her who will be receiving her pension for 10 years before Mrs BigJohn gets hers. But it’s OK because Mrs BigJohn will be paying her contributions all that time too.

I bet she spent all her money on holidays.

So (as in Mrs BigJohn’s case) she had a colleague about 15 months older than her who will be receiving her pension for 10 years before Mrs BigJohn gets hers. But it’s OK because Mrs BigJohn will be paying her contributions all that time too.

Ah ok that starts to make sense now. Thanks buddy – you’re the first person to actually answer the question.

So the issue is relative to her female colleagues born 15 months earlier. The men would always have had to pay more for longer.

They are/were teachers.

Life’s just one big holiday for them.

There is a group of women who have been treated poorly.

Sorry but there isn’t. There is a group of women who have been treated preferentially and women who were born after a certain date are no longer being given preferential treatment.

A woman born in 1955 will be eligible for the state pension 66.

Sorry but there isn’t.

There is if you look at the burden plaed on these women compared to other women born just a few months earlier.

You are also looking at generation of women who didn’t receive the same equality in the work place, who often were paid less than men for the same jobs, who needed to take time of work due to lack of equal paternity leave and as a result haven’t built up the same pension contributions (whether state enhanced or private). It is totally different for my generation – we have a lot more balance with men, pay gap is a lot less, you can share paternity etc. This is why a number of these women feel slight annoyed by the moving goal posts.

That and BigJohns example…