Pension woe

I KNOW, I know...everyone is tired of hearing the 1950s women complaining about the change in pension age, but there are reasons why they won’t let this go.

Did you know that the state pension age for women was changed twice?

The first time was in 1995: I was 41 years old and was informed that I couldn’t retire at 60, but only at 63. State pension age would climb towards 63, month by month. Ok, I thought, I can do that, I can do 3 extra years of work.

The second time was in 2011. I was 57, 6 years from state pension age. This moved it from 63 years to 66. But rather than continue to move the eligible age upwards month by month, increasing the pension age was sped up so that every month younger the woman, 3 months older their pension age.

What does this mean?

If a woman’s dob was 1st January 1953, state pension at 62 1/2 years old.

If a woman’s dob was 1st January 1954, state pension age was 3 years later, at 65 1/2 years old.

That’s 3 years difference in state pension age, although these two were born one year apart. It means £28,000 less state pension received.

Please put yourself in that situation and ask that fair?

Can it not be argued that as payers of NI contributions all those years, it was unlawful to change the contractual “agreement” just as these women approached the end of their payment period?

Consequently, most have needed to keep working, rather than stepping back from work as had been planned in their 50s. And they have had to continue to pay NI contributions out of their pay cheques for those 6 additional years.

In summary:

Changing the state pension age to be the same as men is fair and perfectly reasonable.

But escalating the speed of increase to the pension age has made it highly unfair.

Peggy Grimshaw