State pension inequality

[altohb]

Not strictly related to Greece/Crete, but affecting many of us, I imagine. The judicial review of the Women's Pension Age debacle has been lost. What a surprise (not) - I didn't think there was much chance, but a bit of hope was there. We don't count, of course, and the billions that are being wasted on Brexshit could easily have helped many of us, but no - we are the collateral damage in the plan to turn the UK into a place unfit for any but the most wealthy - and leave those of us living in the EU still missing multiple thousands of pounds.

[Carolina]

I believe there will be an appeal?

[Kilkis]

I think that depends if the High Court gives them leave to appeal. Right of appeal is not automatic.

I don't think that the idea of equalising pensionable age for men and women was wrong in itself. Typically women live longer than men and so receive pension for longer so there is no logical reason why they should receive a pension earlier than men. Also women cannot demand equality but complain when they get it.

The way the increase was dealt with, however, was completely wrong. The first act was passed in 1995 under the Major government but women were not informed. Immediately the act was made law, DWP should have written to every woman born after 1950 explaining what it would mean for them. That would have given them at least 15 years to plan how they would deal with the change Also when the Cameron government, in 2010, decided to accelerate the process they should have been contacted directly again notifying them of the changes.

There are many cases where women interacted with DWP and were still not informed. One case interviewed on Sky News yesterday was a teacher who took early retirement at 59 believing she would qualify for her State Pension at 60. She had visits to a job centre where she told them that she was looking for temporary work for one year because then she would be able to retire and they still didn't inform her. As with many things that governments do, what they are trying to achieve is not unreasonable but the way they go about achieving it is disastrous.

Another injustice was the women who opted for paying a lower NI rate because they would get a pension based on their husband's NI contribution if he died before them. This was in the era when men were still seen as the main breadwinner. If their husband died before reaching retirement age they would get a widow's pension and when they reached retirement age they would get a State Pension, both based on his NI contributions. My mother benefited from this system. Later the law was changed to abolish the widow's pension and the right of women to receive a pension based on their husband's NI contribution but then it was too late for them to do anything about it.

Warwick

[Yin&Yang]

Yes, when I began working in 1977 and started ‘paying in’ I believed that I would be drawing a pension when I turned 60 (last week). I have a full stamp but can’t start receiving a pension for another six years ...

[evansmr1]

I seem to recall Women were crying for equality in the work place. Equal pay also. I totally agree with this, equality and equal pay. BUT Ladies you cannot have it both ways. However, I believe that Female do not have to work as long as Males have to.So in many ways you are still winning.

[bobscott]

Truly a minefield. Danger! Keep out!

Bob.

[Kilkis]

...However, I believe that Female do not have to work as long as Males have to.So in many ways you are still winning.

That used to be the case but it is no longer so. Men used to have to work 44 years and women 39 years to get a full State Pension. That difference reflected the difference in the retirement ages. Men and women are now treated equally. Both now need a minimum of 10 qualifying years to get any pension at all. Below that they get nothing. Both now need 35 qualifying years to get a full pension. Anything above that does not increase the amount received. Between those years it is paid pro-rata to the number of qualifying years. e.g. 10 years contribution would result in 10/35 x full pension. A qualifying year is one in which you pay at least 52 x minimum weekly NI contribution. You should do that if you earn more than £6,136/year for employees or £6,365/year for the self-employed. As far as I know you don't necessarily need to be working every week during the year. For example if you only worked half the weeks in a year but were paid enough that you paid double the minimum NI contributions during the weeks that you worked that would still be a qualifying year.

Warwick

PS That is a basic description and there are some variations. For example a woman who is not working but is receiving child allowance for a child under 12 would receive NI credits. People with long term illnesses, people claiming job seekers allowance or some carers may also get NI credits. Some are automatic and some have to be claimed retrospectively for the previous year. When I was young if you stayed on at school past 16 up to 18 you could get up to two years NI credits depending on your birth date but I think that one has now gone. Also when the system changed in 2016, the basic pension was increased for those who retired after 2016. Despite that some people might have paid extra pension contributions before 2016, variously known as the additional state pension, the second state pension, S2P, or SERPS which topped up the former basic state pension. I think some workers in their 40s, 50s and early-60s to can keep their existing entitlement if it would result in them getting more than the new State Pension.

[BST]

Don't get me started on the equality thing!!!! Women born in the 1950s did not have equality in their career choices or consequently pay!! Leaving University with a good Bsc degree in 1978 I was told my options were accountancy or teaching. Nothing really to do with my degree or what I wanted to do based on my degree! Quote from careers " if you had a first class honours (rare in those days) you would be considered...." Meanwhile the boys from my degree course with the same degree got snapped up by companies and after a couple of years could by houses and cars. I did of course fill in application forms for jobs I wanted but no replies. I am not an isolated case. Ask Carol Vordaman. She obviously has done very well but with her Maths degree wanted a different career but rejected for being female! So I would have liked my State pension at 60 as I have not been equal!!!!!

[BST]

Meant buy not by

[Carolina]

I seem to recall Women were crying for equality in the work place. Equal pay also. I totally agree with this, equality and equal pay. BUT Ladies you cannot have it both ways. However, I believe that Female do not have to work as long as Males have to.So in many ways you are still winning.

Nope women still don't have 100% equality in pay & in the workplace. Just loook at last year's BBC scandal over male & female presenters' pay, for a quick example. Raising the pension age for women to bring it in line with men's is the right thing to do, but it should be brought in with slow increments over a good number of years not a crash bang slap in the face for, particularly, 50's women.

Women are really not having it both ways.

'

[Carolina]

Don't get me started on the equality thing!!!! Women born in the 1950s did not have equality in their career choices or consequently pay!! Leaving University with a good Bsc degree in 1978 I was told my options were accountancy or teaching. Nothing really to do with my degree or what I wanted to do based on my degree! Quote from careers " if you had a first class honours (rare in those days) you would be considered...." Meanwhile the boys from my degree course with the same degree got snapped up by companies and after a couple of years could by houses and cars. I did of course fill in application forms for jobs I wanted but no replies. I am not an isolated case. Ask Carol Vordaman. She obviously has done very well but with her Maths degree wanted a different career but rejected for being female! So I would have liked my State pension at 60 as I have not been equal!!!!!

Exactly. Well said BST!

[altohb]

I seem to recall Women were crying for equality in the work place. Equal pay also. I totally agree with this, equality and equal pay. BUT Ladies you cannot have it both ways. However, I believe that Female do not have to work as long as Males have to.So in many ways you are still winning.

Nope women still don't have 100% equality in pay & in the workplace. Just loook at last year's BBC scandal over male & female presenters' pay, for a quick example. Raising the pension age for women to bring it in line with men's is the right thing to do, but it should be brought in with slow increments over a good number of years not a crash bang slap in the face for, particularly, 50's women.

Women are really not having it both ways.

'

To put some numbers on it. With 35 years' contributions I'm entitled to a full pension of around £168 pw at 66. Those 6 years will have cost me in the region of £52K - that is not a small sum of money, in anyone's language.

[Jeffstclair]

Whatever way you cut it it is clear that women of a certain age have been robbed by the government. The powers that be have reneged on a contract ..end of

[Kilkis]

... Raising the pension age for women to bring it in line with men's is the right thing to do, but it should be brought in with slow increments over a good number of years not a crash bang slap in the face for, particularly, 50's women.

I agree completely with that. Governments should have known that they had a future pensions crisis by the 1950s. Any PAYG pension scheme that relies on today's workers to pay today's pensioners is going to have a problem when a huge bulge in population, i.e. the baby boomers after WW2, reaches pension age. They could not rely on natural population growth to deal with that so they should have been making plans back then and introducing small increments over long periods. Unfortunately such changes tend not to win votes and 50's governments knew they wouldn't be in power when the crunch hit.

I think the wage gap issue is more complicated than people accept. At the time I was responsible for employing people I worked in engineering. In all the time I was a manager in the UK only one woman ever applied for an engineering job. She got the job not because she was a woman and not in spite of the fact she was a woman but because she was the best candidate on the day. She was paid on a pay scale in accordance with her age, qualification and experience. Some male engineers got more and some less depending on their age, qualification and experience. Over the same period not one man ever applied for a cleaning job or a secretarial post. They were exclusively women. Not surprisingly graduate engineers tend to get paid more than cleaners and secretaries so if someone had analysed our pay distribution women got paid less than men. Was that discrimination? I could only appoint from those who applied.

Interestingly when I was a manager responsible for appointments in Greece, at one point all my staff were women. 100 %. Engineers, cleaner and secretary so it would be impossible to do a pay comparison. I did have male applicants for the engineering jobs but all of them got the job on the basis of being the best candidate on the day. Later I did have one male engineer and he was paid more than the others but that was purely because he had far greater relevant experience. The women engineers were all young graduates, TEI and MSc, with relevant background and knowledge but no real relevant experience. The male engineer had a couple of decades working in exactly the same engineering area. Was that discrimination? Typically I found TEI engineers better than university graduates although the one qualified to MSc level was very good.

Warwick

[Guy M]

The (justified) protests against this change to the pension age will be nothing if Iain’s Duncan Smith gets his way.

https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/ ... YNLoooGSNf

I’ve always regarded NI Contributions as a tax and never expected anything to get anything back from it - which may well be the case.