Women to beat pensions trap: 500,000 won't have to wait as long as they feared to retire

**Celtic Druid** · 21st-September-2011

On the surface this might be seen as chivalrous politicians capitulating to screeching complaints from women and feminists, despite the cost amidst an economic crisis. It's more likely the coalition are looking towards the next election and influencing as many of the 500,000 women who will benefit from this male-funded charity.

It's utterly bizarre how so many politicians are stating this backtracking is about 'fairness' despite women still retiring 5 years earlier and living 6 years longer then men. Who will alleviate the pension and mortality trap British men have been languishing in for more than 60 years?

And would women in power go to such pandering extremes for men in a similar position?

Women to beat pensions trap: 500,000 won't have to wait as long as they feared to retire | Mail Online

Women to beat pensions trap: 500,000 won't have to wait as long as they feared to retire

Hundreds of thousands of women hit by controversial changes to the state pension system will be thrown a lifeline.

After a storm of protest ministers have acknowledged that the women affected, some of whom are in line to work for an extra two years, should be given a better deal.

Under one dramatic option being considered by David Cameron, their wait to collect their pension would be cut to a year.

Pensions minister Steve Webb said yesterday: ‘The crucial thing for us is fairness.’

At present, a woman can start receiving her state pension at the age of 60 years and seven months. A man must wait until he is 65.

Under the changes, the age will be 65 for both men and women in November 2018, rising to 66 by April 2020.

This means that around 2.6million women will have to wait longer before their pension payments start.

Of the total, around 500,000 will have to wait more than a year, and the worst-hit 33,000 will have to wait two years.

MPs on all sides have been deluged with complaints from women, some of whom could lose up to £15,000.

The ‘Quad’ of four senior ministers – David Cameron, George Osborne, Nick Clegg and Danny Alexander – who run the Coalition met last week to thrash out the adjustments, with an announcement expected within weeks.

Mr Clegg and Mr Alexander are understood to be pushing for the women affected not to have to wait longer than a year before collecting their pensions, but sources involved in the discussions said the cap is more likely to be set at between 15 and 18 months.

While ministers recognise the need to soften the blow for the affected women, the Treasury is concerned about the cost implications.

The Daily Mail has repeatedly highlighted how women in their late 50s would be affected more than any other group by cost-saving increases in the pension age.

The worst hit are 33,000 women born between March 5 and April 5, 1954, who will have to wait an extra two years before they can receive their state pension, losing out on up to £15,000.

A further 300,000 born between December 6, 1953 and October 5, 1954 would have to see an extra 18 months pass before they are entitled to the payments.

Mr Webb said there was a range of ways the Government could help women worst hit by changes to the pension system.

He said: ‘We’ll make sure that the state pension they do get is calculated in a fairer way. At the moment, pensions are often bad news for women and I’m determined as the minister to change that.

‘There’s a range of things that you can do, whether it’s about dates or about other bits of the system, that would ease the financial pressure for those most affected.

‘I won’t pre-empt what we’ll say to Parliament in some weeks’ time but the crucial thing for us is fairness.’

Following an intense campaign by MPs and age campaigners, Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith confirmed in June that ‘transitional arrangements’ would be made to help those worst affected.

In recent weeks, ministers have signalled that pension age increases for both men and women after 2020 could be accelerated slightly to pay for easing the burden on women in their late 50s now.

Jenny Willott, who co-chairs a Lib Dem backbench committee on work and pensions, said: ‘In an ideal world I would want to see no one retiring any more than a year later than they currently expect to. I realise that is expensive.’

Ros Altmann, director general of Saga, said: ‘I sincerely hope this heralds amendments to the Pensions Bill that would grant a reprieve to those women already in their late fifties who are currently threatened with up to a two year rise in their pension age, at very short notice.

‘The current proposals have caused huge distress and anger among those affected.

‘Many of these women are already retired – with only a few years left to pension age they have made irreversible decisions due to being ill or needing to care for others – and their finances are now in disarray.’

Shadow pensions minister Rachel Reeves, who has led the campaign against the changes to women’s pensions, said that women were still being ‘left in the dark’.

She said: ‘Half a million women are going to wait more than a year for their state pensions if these changes go through in less than a month’s time.

The Liberal Democrats may talk about transitional arrangements, but these women are still left in the dark about whether the Government is going to act.’

**Black Knight** · 21st-September-2011

Wow. That's fucking dumb.

**Douglas** · 21st-September-2011

Rules for misandric society:

Equality of opportunity where that provides advantage for women.
Equality of outcome if equality of opportunity isn't good enough to provide women advantages.
Stuff equality and get outright advantage for women wherever possible.

**Percy** · 21st-September-2011

The Government are WIMPS.

They only pick on men.

**byslexic_danana** · 21st-September-2011

My comment:

What is all this, about women "losing out". Women are not going to be losing out; just losing out on FREE MONEY. Is it that, which bothers them? Having to WORK for their money, till 65, as men have had to for YEARS (despite dying sooner)? So, you had plans, did you? Be grateful, men never even had the chance to MAKE such plans. Also, whilst I acknowledge that women sacrifice earnings to look after kids, this is a CHOICE, on their part, and the flip-side of the coin is that they GAINED precious time with their children. Men could just as easily complain about this; alas, there are swings and roundabouts, that we have to tackle, in life, and we can't have it both ways (as much as feminism is fighting for women to have their cake and eat it).

**Douglas** · 21st-September-2011

Not only is it unfair that men's retirement is not the same as women's, I argue that it will be unfair if men's retirement is not EARLIER than women's.

Equal retirement age is NOT equality - Blogs - antimisandry.com

**byslexic_danana** · 21st-September-2011

Gave your comment positive rep, Doug, and glad to see that others have done the same.

**Celtic Druid** · 22nd-September-2011

This pension gap is also very much a quality of life issue. It doesn't take a genius to deduce that if men are working more longer, dangerous and laborious jobs, and they do so for 5 years longer, it will undoubtedly impact upon men's longevity significantly. The two are irrefutably linked.

Just like the British government quarantined thousands of sailors after the Battle of Trafalgar and let them die rather than pay them, maybe modern governments have realized that because literally millions of men will die before they even qualify for their pension, not only does it save them a bundle, but they've also ensured that there's more surviving women to vote for them.

**Zuberi** · 22nd-September-2011

Good GOD!!!

This article brings spirit to an old saying, "Never underestimate stupid people in large numbers."

Quote from Black Knight

Wow. That's fucking dumb.

LOL! Not to those blood sucking vermin. The ends justify the means. Sound familiar?

**paul parmenter** · 22nd-September-2011

"Under the changes, the age will be 65 for both men and women in November 2018, rising to 66 by April 2020."

Wow, that's so obviously unfair...

**johnkimble1** · 22nd-September-2011

"The worst hit are 33,000 women born between March 5 and April 5, 1954, who will have to wait an extra two years before they can receive their state pension, losing out on up to £15,000."

No. The worst hit are any men ever retiring before 2018 and any who retired in the 60 previous years.

**MikeT** · 22nd-September-2011

Quote from johnkimble1

"The worst hit are 33,000 women born between March 5 and April 5, 1954, who will have to wait an extra two years before they can receive their state pension, losing out on up to £15,000."

No. The worst hit are any men ever retiring before 2018 and any who retired in the 60 previous years.

No John, the worst hit were those MEN that served for queen and country in 2 world wars and never made it to see the end of either war.
All of this bollocks about who is hard done by, pales in comparison.

Over here when I was younger, in the 70's, we were so short of work, MEN were out sweeping the streets and foot-paths (sidewalks) with brooms.
Maybe it's time that we got these wimmin out to do some sweeping and let them know how it feels from a man's perspective.
But of course, we know, they couldn't do that, there would need to be a 5 day workshop in analysing the broom, to see that it would clean to their satisfaction and also, if that broom had been made by a MAN in a factory, it would not suit.

Seriously though, EVERYONE is supposed to be saving for their retirement, if these wimmin haven't (in favour of the good things in life), I say tough shit, get out in the gutter where you belong.

**Douglas** · 22nd-September-2011

Quote from MikeT

Seriously though, EVERYONE is supposed to be saving for their retirement, if these wimmin haven't (in favour of the good things in life), I say tough shit, get out in the gutter where you belong.

From the comments being made on public fora, it seems women's main complaint is that they have been saving for retirement but that those plans are now messed up by the government considering getting a little closer to equality by 2018.

I must admit, I don't see it. Someone who planned to retire in 2014 but now finds that their state pension won't be paid until 2017 will have three more years of full-time work to earn money before retiring - just like men have had to for sixty years. So their pension plan might (but unlikely) force them to stop contributing in 2014 ... but they won't have to start drawing on it at that time, and even if they did have to, how are they going to be any financially worse off for having to earn money as well?

If anyone can actually do the mathematics for me that shows what women are complaining about, I'm happy to consider it. I've asked on a few places - including the age charities - but never had it shown to me how women who are made to work could be financially worse off just because they had planned to retire earlier.

**Dylan MacVillain** · 22nd-September-2011

The real question is why people, both men and women, need the government to "help" them set up a retirement account by forcing them to invest in a state ponzi scheme. Why not just save your money on your own and do what you want with it?

**Douglas** · 22nd-September-2011

Quote from Dylan MacVillain

The real question is why people, both men and women, need the government to "help" them set up a retirement account by forcing them to invest in a state ponzi scheme. Why not just save your money on your own and do what you want with it?

There are reasons, in the UK, for relying at least partially on the state pension scheme. For one thing, it is protected from being grabbed during divorce proceedings: as far as I'm aware, a spouse can't put a claim on the state pension like she can on a private pension. Then there is the point (for women) that it pays back very well, since men put in the majority of the money and take out the minority. It is also more protected from the state grabbing assets should one fall ill and need expensive treatment in old age. Further, it is the only pension fund that is untaxed both at source and pay-out.

Frankly, in the UK, pensions are a bit of a joke these days, especially for men who stand a 45% chance of having their pension split between themselves and an ex-wife (or two).

Women to beat pensions trap: 500,000 won't have to wait as long as they feared to retire

Women to beat pensions trap: 500,000 won't have to wait as long as they feared to retire

Re: Women to beat pensions trap: 500,000 won't have to wait as long as they feared to retire

Re: Women to beat pensions trap: 500,000 won't have to wait as long as they feared to retire

Re: Women to beat pensions trap: 500,000 won't have to wait as long as they feared to retire

Re: Women to beat pensions trap: 500,000 won't have to wait as long as they feared to retire

Re: Women to beat pensions trap: 500,000 won't have to wait as long as they feared to retire

Re: Women to beat pensions trap: 500,000 won't have to wait as long as they feared to retire

Re: Women to beat pensions trap: 500,000 won't have to wait as long as they feared to retire

Re: Women to beat pensions trap: 500,000 won't have to wait as long as they feared to retire

Re: Women to beat pensions trap: 500,000 won't have to wait as long as they feared to retire

Re: Women to beat pensions trap: 500,000 won't have to wait as long as they feared to retire

Re: Women to beat pensions trap: 500,000 won't have to wait as long as they feared to retire

Re: Women to beat pensions trap: 500,000 won't have to wait as long as they feared to retire

Re: Women to beat pensions trap: 500,000 won't have to wait as long as they feared to retire

Re: Women to beat pensions trap: 500,000 won't have to wait as long as they feared to retire

You may also enjoy reading the following threads, why not give them a try?

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

Blog Entries