View more on these topics

Steve Bee: What 1950s women can teach us about the state pension

Steve-Bee-MM-700.png

It has been suggested recently that an increase in the state pension age to 70 by the middle of this century is inevitable. The obvious good news here is that we are all likely to live longer but the bad news is equally as clear: we will never be completely sure when our state pension will become payable.

If the state pension age increases alongside life expectancy, then people in the future will only know for sure when it will become payable when they are already quite close to the qualifying age.

This will be a real issue for those trying to plan their retirement in the mid-21st century. Indeed, any woman born in the UK in the early 1950s will tell you exactly what problems it will bring.

Way back in 1940, the retirement age for women was reduced from 65 to 60. However, girls born 10 years later did not receive their state pension when they were 60. Worse still, girls born five years after that did not receive their state pension until they were 66. The biggest problem, however, was that they did not find this out until they were already late into their working lives.

To work for most of your life expecting to receive your state pension at 60 years old only to find out late in your career that you will not receive it until the age of 66 risks putting even the most carefully laid retirement plans in disarray. The loss of, say, £100 a week for six years would mean a deficit of £30,000.

Some say 15 years’ notice of a shift in the state pension age should be long enough to allow people to adjust their retirement plans. I do not know whether that is right but it is obviously more helpful to tell people about any likely changes as soon as possible.

What is more, it is not enough to rely on busy people finding out for themselves about changes to pensions, a subject few would describe as interesting or engaging. Indeed, many of the 1950s women affected by the seismic shift in their state pension age would claim they were not even made aware of it. Of course, the changes were written about fairly extensively in the media but would it not have been better to write to each and every one of those affected to tell them what the changes meant to them personally?

What happened to all of these women simply born at the wrong time is soon to happen to everybody at work in the UK. We will never know for sure what our state pension age is likely to be until fairly late on in our working lives.

That fact alone ought to trigger some serious rethinking within the Government about just how they will manage to keep people fully informed on future state pension changes; changes that will have a material effect on so many people’s retirement plans.

Steve Bee is director at Jargonfree Benefits

Recommended

8

Govt attacked over ‘crucial’ missing Pension Wise data

The Pensions Policy Institute and the Financial Services Consumer Panel have slammed the lack of information available on the performance of Pension Wise since its launch in April. Addressing the Work and Pensions select committee yesterday, FSCP member Teresa Fritz and PPI director Chris Curry both said a lack of information is making it impossible […]

5

What would a Corbyn win mean for financial services?

With less than a week to go before voting closes in polls for Labour’s new leader, the potential implications of a victory for Jeremy Corbyn are beginning to crystalise. Corbyn only squeezed into the leadership context by achieving the required support of 36 MPs when enough backed his position to broaden the debate. But with […]

Platforum: Have we reached the consolidation tipping point?

Just when financial professionals thought lack of sunscreen was their biggest worry, the world’s stockmarkets have been thrown into turmoil. Economic woes in China, fragility in the US and uncertainty in Europe may well drive investors out of funds, which spells bad news for the investment industry. But despite these woes, we are confident on […]

European Opportunities: 'It’s nice when stock selection results in a macro tailwind'

Amid significant macro headwinds in August, Mark Page explains why his fund’s focus on stock selection has helped it outperform a falling market in August. BESbswyBESbswyBESbswyBESbswyBESbswyBESbswyBESbswyBESbswyBESbswyBESbswyBESbswyBESbswy

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 4 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. Sorry but it doesn’t really require a re-think, only a re-evaluation of when. We all know that the state pension age has to go up, otherwise the country will be bankrupted by it, or its level will have to reduce to a point where its a nonsense.

    Despite being 44, I am assuming that I won’t get mine before age 70, if at all, so I plan accordingly. That’s part of a financial planners job, to be realistic and anticipate the changes that we know are going to occur, the only things we don’t know is exactly what changes and when.

    It’s also a good thing to highlight with clients as to the value they can add…

  2. I am one of those women. I have worked – barring a brief period of unemployment and 18 months of maternity leave – since the age of 13. I always thought I would retire at 60, then had to readjust the planning to 66. I think I’ve earnt my retirement, just clearly not my State Pension despite having far more than the requisite number of years’ contributions. Is it any surprise that “my generation” of women feel cheated and let down? As for £100 a week, that’s not the right figure – minimum pension is £115.95 per week so if there’s been a deferral of SPA to 66 the loss is over £36K plus compound CPI. Similar amount to average pension pots. How ironic.

  3. John Hutton-Attenborough 14th September 2015 at 8:48 am

    My uplift is from 65 to 66 so while unwelcome not difficult to reconcile myself to and even plan for. 6 years is financially harder to bear but psychologically must be even worse!

  4. So Anne,
    Why did you think you were entitled to retire at least 5 years earlier than a man even tho you’ve had periods of unemployment and 18 months maternity leave?

Leave a comment