FabSwingers.com mobile

Join us FREE, we're FREE to use

Web's largest swingers site since 2006.

Already registered?
Login here

Back to forum list
Back to The Lounge

Pension Age for Women

Jump to newest
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago

Ok, now i am most definitely not sexist, but I'm sure I will be accused of this following this post.

A lady I know (no, not in THAT way, just as a friend) has forwarded me a link to a well known petition site asking me to sign up to a request to bring the pension age for women back down again to 60, on the basis they will lose £36,000 due to the delay and asking "where is all that money going instead?".

I am all for early retirement for anyone that wants it and can afford it but the site doesn't allow me to comment unless I sign up to the petition.

MY answer (if I could have posted) would have been:

The £36,000 'saved' up front is now delivered through pension payments over the expected longer living age so it is effectively received later on. I'm not a fan of the Government but I recognise they still have to balance their books and the longer living age of both Males and Females has caused a crisis for Pension fund holders across the board.

I would also argue (and here is where it gets controversial), on average, and I emphasis AVERAGE, Men contribute Income Tax and NI for the whole of their working lives, whereas Women tend to take break for reasons of childcare etc. Men, up until recently, have had a later retirement age than women so, overall, the financial contribution from men is greater.

Men have a shorter life expectancy so will receive less in pension overall than women.

So, who's getting the raw deal here?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Dunno why you're bothered. The retirement age is only going up and will never come back down.

Tbh, what with job shortages and all that technology we have to produce more stuff in a quicker and easier way, we should be looking at ways to reduce all peoples work. They've been saying since the 1970s, possibly longer, that people would be working less hours way before now, so why hasn't that happened especially as it's possible?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Dunno why you're bothered. The retirement age is only going up and will never come back down.

Tbh, what with job shortages and all that technology we have to produce more stuff in a quicker and easier way, we should be looking at ways to reduce all peoples work. They've been saying since the 1970s, possibly longer, that people would be working less hours way before now, so why hasn't that happened especially as it's possible?"

We just do more with our time now than we used to. Yes, we produce 'more stuff in a quicker and easier way' but that just makes us available to do more, because we still want the money. We could all work lees hours (that would improve unemployment) but we all still want more in terms of financial reward and material gain. We are our own worst enemies, but it's always easier to blame soneone else (i.e. 'Government')

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"Dunno why you're bothered. The retirement age is only going up and will never come back down.

Tbh, what with job shortages and all that technology we have to produce more stuff in a quicker and easier way, we should be looking at ways to reduce all peoples work. They've been saying since the 1970s, possibly longer, that people would be working less hours way before now, so why hasn't that happened especially as it's possible?

We just do more with our time now than we used to. Yes, we produce 'more stuff in a quicker and easier way' but that just makes us available to do more, because we still want the money. We could all work lees hours (that would improve unemployment) but we all still want more in terms of financial reward and material gain. We are our own worst enemies, but it's always easier to blame soneone else (i.e. 'Government')"

I didn't blame anyone. Just saying that we should be living in a more advanced age than we are now.

But now i think about it the people running things should have advanced us further along than we are, yes.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think when things happen in this country people shouldn't complain about it, at the end of the day you people vote the politicians into power then complain at what they do, then you vote them back in.

I say you people becuase I don't vote, I don't like to feel responsible for the twats that rule the country, maybe you could try a different approach next time the vote comes round and vote SNP into power instead of labour or the torries, the one thing I can say about Nicola sturgeon & Alex salmond and alot of other SNP members is they actually care about the people & not lining their own pockets with money, and not just of scotland they care about everyone's well being.

But that would never happen becuase God forbid the Scots were in power.

Sorry for that last rant there but it's true

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Try getting your head round this took me a while traditionally women used to retire before men.Hubby is 57 and will retire in 2024 age 65 because he was born before the new retirement cut off point.I his wife am 52 i'm born after the cut off point that means i now will retire in 2031 aged 67 seven years after he retires.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aneandpaulCouple
over a year ago

cleveleys

We are getting fucked

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *umpkinMan
over a year ago

near the sounds of the wimborne quarter jack!


"Try getting your head round this took me a while traditionally women used to retire before men.Hubby is 57 and will retire in 2024 age 65 because he was born before the new retirement cut off point.I his wife am 52 i'm born after the cut off point that means i now will retire in 2031 aged 67 seven years after he retires. "

How do you work this out then? I`m 59 and have already been told I retire at 66 - two years older than your hubby! I`m a bloke BTW in case you missed my profile!

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"Try getting your head round this took me a while traditionally women used to retire before men.Hubby is 57 and will retire in 2024 age 65 because he was born before the new retirement cut off point.I his wife am 52 i'm born after the cut off point that means i now will retire in 2031 aged 67 seven years after he retires.

How do you work this out then? I`m 59 and have already been told I retire at 66 - two years older than your hubby! I`m a bloke BTW in case you missed my profile!"

its "my job" so i can give you to the last question....

its because anyone born between 4/10/54 and 5/4/60 will retire at 66..... and anyone born after 6/4/61 will retire at 67.....

for those between 6/4/60 and 5/4/61... there will be a "month for month" rise in the state pension age from 66 to 67...

so people born 6/4/60 to 5/5/60 will now be 66 and 1 month....

people born 6/5/60 to 5/6/60 will now be 66 and 2 months....

and so on........

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

p.s..... as for whom to blame.... blame the MAN who original brought the case of different state pension ages and argued discrimination...

he "won"...... thinking men's ages would be brought down to 60.... the govt just thought of it the other way.....

one of those things where people always said "be careful of what you wished for"

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

Women dont necessarilly take more breaks for childcare but yes we have babies men physically arent able to. Why should we be penalised for that? I dont necessarilly think theage should be different though.

The age wont come down anyway

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead

oh and OP.... that petition... is it is the WASPI petition.... it actually isn't to bring down women's pension ages back down to 60..... it is to go back to the original timetable for State pension age conversion

it was originally going to be done over 25 years......

then the timetable was changed in 2012

what happened is that woman of a certain age... those born between 6/4/53 and 5/10/54 where unfortunate to get caught out by the same piece of legislation... twice!!!!

women were then sped up to 65 over 15 rather than 25 years...then the age 66 legislation for both men and women brought for 10 years so that would start in 2018.....

WASPI's complaint is they have changed the goalpost not giving people time to make plans for the changes in the long term future.....there were only giving 10 years in effect notice.... where the government originally said they would give people 17 years to make financial provision changes.....

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site) OP   
over a year ago


"Women dont necessarilly take more breaks for childcare but yes we have babies men physically arent able to. Why should we be penalised for that? I dont necessarilly think theage should be different though.

The age wont come down anyway"

I wasn't suggesting women should be penalised, it was a simple statement of economics. By the sme token it could be argued why should men be expected to contribute more financially than women, to recevie the same benefit, just because they 'Can't' have children?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irtyGirlWoman
over a year ago

Edinburgh

I can't be bothered getting into it but I've never taken a career break, I've worked full time since I was 17 and I've never claimed any benefits.

Sweeping generalisations are rarely cool.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *S RachaelTV/TS
over a year ago

Lowestoft


"I can't be bothered getting into it but I've never taken a career break, I've worked full time since I was 17 and I've never claimed any benefits.

Sweeping generalisations are rarely cool. "

Absolutely no reason for different ages. Women want equality but only when it benefits them.....and what job shortage? We have historically very low unemployment

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ikeC81Man
over a year ago

harrow

But you will be claiming your pension next year oldie

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aneandpaulCouple
over a year ago

cleveleys

That,s a strange thing to say

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

and of course taking time out for having kids isnt really time out - is it?

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *irtyGirlWoman
over a year ago

Edinburgh


"I can't be bothered getting into it but I've never taken a career break, I've worked full time since I was 17 and I've never claimed any benefits.

Sweeping generalisations are rarely cool.

Absolutely no reason for different ages. Women want equality but only when it benefits them.....and what job shortage? We have historically very low unemployment"

I'm perfectly happy to be equal right down the line.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *aneandpaulCouple
over a year ago

cleveleys


"I can't be bothered getting into it but I've never taken a career break, I've worked full time since I was 17 and I've never claimed any benefits.

Sweeping generalisations are rarely cool.

Absolutely no reason for different ages. Women want equality but only when it benefits them.....and what job shortage? We have historically very low unemployment

I'm perfectly happy to be equal right down the line. "
That,s fine at your age but it was sprung on me at 58 its a lot different at your age D G

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *abioMan
over a year ago

Newcastle and Gateshead


"

I wasn't suggesting women should be penalised, it was a simple statement of economics. By the sme token it could be argued why should men be expected to contribute more financially than women, to recevie the same benefit, just because they 'Can't' have children?"

have some bad news for you (again because its my job to know) under the rules as they are now....... the state pension is split into 2 sections, and that means people who are working are in effect getting more pension than those who don't (or are looking after children in your example)...

the rules for state pension in effect as of next month.... where those who stay at home looking after children will be treated the same as those who work (and those who are self employed).... However because most people will also have some sort of 2nd "work" pension to supplement this..... people who work will always be better off........

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago

I think it's completely appropriate to equalise the ages going forward. The world has changed, it's no longer the days when women would give up workwhen they get married or stay at home raising children, or even have children at all. I'm an equal contributor in my relationship, our pension ages should be the same.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 

By *ranny-CrumpetWoman
over a year ago

The Town by The Cross

The pension problem hasn't arisen due to people living longer. It has arisen due to the government spending it and not investing it to give people a good return.

They spend OUR money.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
 
 

By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago


"oh and OP.... that petition... is it is the WASPI petition.... it actually isn't to bring down women's pension ages back down to 60..... it is to go back to the original timetable for State pension age conversion

it was originally going to be done over 25 years......

then the timetable was changed in 2012

what happened is that woman of a certain age... those born between 6/4/53 and 5/10/54 where unfortunate to get caught out by the same piece of legislation... twice!!!!

women were then sped up to 65 over 15 rather than 25 years...then the age 66 legislation for both men and women brought for 10 years so that would start in 2018.....

WASPI's complaint is they have changed the goalpost not giving people time to make plans for the changes in the long term future.....there were only giving 10 years in effect notice.... where the government originally said they would give people 17 years to make financial provision changes....."

This is what I thought was the issue. No issue with it being equal otherwise, but these particular women don't have sufficient time to plan ahead.

Reply privatelyReply in forumReply +quote
Post new Message to Thread
back to top