CapnBilly

I think the bottom line is that if you have sufficient contribution years then you're in the same position you would have been if they hadn't introduced the new scheme.

Having said that somebody who only contributed for 35 years receives the same amount. I think that's what people find confusing. Personally I thought when the Labour Party reduced the contribution years to 30, that it was not sustainable, 35 is a bit better, but even that is a bit low.

bobd22

Yes that seems to be how they have done it. May have been better had Duncan Smith not touted it as a substantial pension rise 😃

mrken30

The civil servants that decide these numbers only work around 30 to 35 years before they retire. They forget no everybody had the same privilege.

bobd22

Don't worry seems like they are simply going to keep increasing the age at which we receive until just about every entitled person is dead or just about. Of course they will keep saying everyone is living longer, I'm sure my old mates many of whom never made 70 may disagree but it must be true because the government say it is!

mrken30

The question I have is, because women live longer on average, will they increase the retirement age for women over men?

Pulaski

Well they should have increased the retirement age lock-step with the increases in life expectancy, but as unemployment was rising in the 1970's, and high in the 1980's that likely wasn't politically acceptable. But IIRC when the state pension was first created and retirement (for men) set at 65, life expectancy was only 67, so about a third of men never received a pension - but critically that is what made the while arrangement of state pensions so affordable: it was a form of insurance, that not everyone would receive a payout from.

scot47

SERPS was a good deal for the pensioner. That is why the Wicked Witch scrapped it.

CapnBilly

Not quite sure how you reach that conclusion.

Pulaski

Maybe you need to drink more whisky?

scot47

Be a total abstainer like me and it will all be crystal-clear.

Pulaski

Call yourself a Scot!

bobd22

I thought it was Ian Duncan Smith who scrapped Serp's/ 2nd pension when he brought in the Single Tier pension? The man who let everyone believe that all would get the £155 per week then when it came in high number of people found hang on I simply get the same as I would get before the change or so call raise. Yes the same man that says we will all be much better off outside the EU😃 leopard and spots springs to mind.

As for the age increase yes it stayed as initially was set far too long however the rapid increase since 2012 I believe is unfair in particular to women who were in their 50s and more or less in sight of retirement and their pension. Again agree this was simply down to politics by successive governments.

Imagine an insurance salesman trying to sell you National Insurance on the door step, we have this great insurance pay in you get a pension of X amount when you reach 65 and health care for life. Mmm sounds good you say, how much. Oh around 12% of your salary don't worry we sort all that out. Mmmm what about my neighbor then he has never worked and won't work how does he pay. Argh there's the beauty of it he doesn't you pay for his from what you pay and your tax, good eh. So how much does he get? Oh same as you sometimes a bit more! Do you want to join? Door slammed in salesman's face😃 make no wonder it's compulsory

johnnyone

There are bound to be winners and losers when changes to pension/benefits are made. On the whole I think simplifying the pension/benefits is for the best although I do agree some woman appear do appear to come out of it badly.

bobd22

Yes that is always the case but state pension changes should have been done over a longer period women in their 50s in my view should have been left as insufficient time for them to make up financial difference. Compounded by Pensions Minister saying those over 60 and struggling at loss of pension for 6 years could apply for apprenticeships not sure if he was serious or thought he was being clever but simply not right in my view.

Dxf

Hola

I am at a loss to understand this - surely it is only for women that have stopped working that are badly affected. If a working women has to work longer, then surely she has more "working time" to build up her pension - up to six years more time

Something tells me that I have missed a trick as I know lots of ladies that say they are hard done by

Davexf