Statistically, women in the UK live 3.5 years longer than men. So how come they get their pension at the same age ? I’ve always thought it wrong they should get it earlier, and I now think that pro rata they should get it later than men. Given notice of the change over 5 or so years.
Young people and new drivers pay more car insurance because they are more likely to make a claim, likewise with older people and travel insurance. I don’t see any difference.
Doesn’t seem very fair to me.
|
It was equalised for fairness over last 20 or so years and way in which that was done is causing all kinds of problems. Five years would (IMHO) be nothing like sufficient time for a woman of say 61 to provide for fact her State Pension being changed from current 66 to 68.
The real unfairness right now is not around State Pension age but for 'mixed age' couples where one attains State Pension age before the other and they need additional help because of low income.
Until May they could claim Pension Credit once the eldest reached State Pension Age. The 'amount of money the law says they need to live on' would be £255.25. After May they have to claim Universal Credit until the youngest reaches State Pension Age. Dick 66 and his wife Dora 64 are treated as only needing £115.13 to live on - less than a single person's Pension. Dora is supposed to find work. The fact that Dick is a bit forgetful and gets in a pickle left on his own makes no difference.
Until a few years ago Dora's Pension Age would have been 60.
|
|
How many are in that trap? 10k, 1m?
|
>> How many are in that trap? 10k, 1m?
IFS says approx 115k at any one time when fully rolled out.
|
dicks dodgy dementia has nothing to do with disparity in state pension age
At the end of the day, womens lib types made sufficient noise about equality for the government to seize on the chance to save a few quid.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 24 Nov 19 at 15:08
|
>> dicks dodgy dementia has nothing to do with disparity in state pension age
Accept that. I was looking at a completely different unfairness.
I've probably seen half a dozen instances since May. Not necessarily local to me as my current job involves telephone and webchat across England and Wales. My guess is that some example will crop up in local and/or national media with a suitably tragic or just telegenic couple catching media coverage. Can't see Ministers being too keen to try and justify it on the box.....
Couples who were already claiming before May have preserved rights and there was limited backdating until July.
As well as established couples like Dick and Dora it catches new relationships. If 67 yo Johnny has his 64 yo 'girlfriend' move in he would lose Pension Credit and legacy Housing Benefit and be subject to 'Bedroom Tax' too if he has a 'spare' room.
If a neighbour dobs them as a suspected couple they's potentially be subject to the sort of investigation previously reserved for Single Mum where boyfriend stays over too often.
|
Women have more to put up with (arguable).
Women on average are paid a lot less for work than men, partly because they have time off for children (fact).
I think it would be a poor idea to pay men's pensions earlier (or women's later) because averages only work at the population level. They make little sense in many individual cases.
The history of state pension ages is interesting. Women got a lower pension age to make it more likely that men would get the 'full' (married rate) pension at 65. It was actually about men's pensions rather than women's.
www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_history.htm
|
>> The history of state pension ages is interesting. Women got a lower pension age to
>> make it more likely that men would get the 'full' (married rate) pension at 65.
>> It was actually about men's pensions rather than women's.
>>
>> www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_history.htm
I'd never heard that explanation before. Makes perfect sense though.
|
State Pension age - Bromptonaut
