From Patricia S
Monday, 31 January 2011
Women born 1953/54 face extra pension wait.
Around 30,000 women will be forced to work for two years longer than they had previously planned because of increases to the state pension age.
Women born between March 6 1953 and April 5 1954 were due to be able to start drawing their state pension when they were 64, but under moves introduced by the new Government to save money they will now have to wait until they are 66.
A total of 5.1 million people will be affected by the plans to increase the state pension age to 66 between 2018 and 2020, but these women will face the longest wait of two years.
The change will cost them £5,078 a year in pension payments at the current rate of £97.65 a week, although the figure could be as high as £7,280 a year if the Government presses ahead with plans to raise the state pension to £140 a week. The effect on the deficit will be negligible.
Many women don't know about this, it is not reported on the Govt's own websites. Those concerned and supporters should protest to their M.P.
From Margaret Boyle
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
There are a number of shocking aspects to the decision of the Tory/LibDem government to accelerate the increase in women's state pension age. The first is that it completely contradicts their statement in the Coalition Agreement that they would not introduce further increases beyond the long settled policy of moving women to reach pension age at 65 and thus equality with men at 2020. This is a breach of faith.
The second is that if the change is implemented in May this year when it will go to the House of Commons, it will allow no time for those of us affected to make up for this loss of state pension, so that we will either have to carry on working (at what?) or live on a much reduced income. This is a kick in the teeth for a group of women who already feel that we have done our bit for equality by accepting later retirement ages under the last government.
The third concern (obvious to most but not evidently to the millionaires who form the majority of the cabinet), that it will make women poorer. Most women of my age (57) have taken time out of work to care for children and have worked part-time for a number of years to balance work and family responsibilities and consequently will have limited occupational pension. This means that the state pension will form a substantial part of our income. This is unfair and disproportionate, whatever happened to the broadest shoulders carrying the biggest loads?
I have been in correspondence with Craig Whittaker and Steve Webb, Pensions Minister about the injustice of these proposals since November last year and I would encourage all women who could be affected by this to contact Craig and demand he oppose these changes when they are debated in May. There is an excellent chart showing exactly how much money and how many weeks pension would be lost by women on the National Assembly of Women's website. Visit it, you might just get a shock.
From Patricia S
Wednesday, 2 March 2011
Thanks for this Maggie, your information is invaluable. Many women of our age are unaware or hoping this will go away. I'll be in touch with Craig Whitaker.
Women's Pensions - Oct 2010