So Why Was Women’s Pension Age Lower?

18
2410

We’ve what I consider a quite extraordinary claim here, that raising women’s pension age to match that of men is discrimination against women. Really, can’t see it myself, equality isn’t discrimination. But that is the claim being made in court. The court says it’s arguable enough that they can continue to argue it to the next stage:

Older women were unfairly discriminated against by a £5 billion Treasury reform that increased the female pension age from 60 to 66, a court was told. Three women who claim that they were not properly informed about the change won the first stage in their legal battle with the government yesterday. The women, who were born between 1950 and 1953, claim the increase in the pension age discriminates against them on the grounds of their age and sex.

Ho hum, apparently the absence of privilege is discrimination now. Especially as women tend to live longer than men and thereby gain their pensions for longer.

However, the little thing that interests is, well, why were pensions ages different in the first place? Female lifespans have been longer ever since we started to have that state pension back in 1909. In fact, we’re pretty sure they always have been longer. If a woman survived childbirth (a serious killer of fertile women) then she was likely to live longer than the men around her.

So, why lower pensions ages for women? My assumption – and please do correct if this is wrong – is that in Britain men have tended to marry women a few years younger than themselves. 3 to 5 years is about the historical average. Thus, when pensions were instituted, have different pension ages so that the average couple would retire roughly together.

Anyone’s got any better explanations please do let us know. Might even be something in the historical Hansard to explain it.

18
Leave a Reply

avatar
2 Comment threads
16 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
4 Comment authors
literate3Quentin VoleMattRhoda Klapp Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

Are you sure you understand the problem? It’s the unfairness of the ramp-up, a week’s difference in birth date meaning months or years difference in pension date. And this is not just a delay, it’s a real loss of money. Would piss anybody off.

Quentin Vole
Guest
Quentin Vole

Yep, my missus has gone from a National Insurance Pension starting at age 60 to age 67. That’s 7 year’s of pension she’s been robbed of, or £60k. Retirement age has to increase, but slamming a small group of individuals isn’t the way to do it.

literate3
Guest
literate3

Learn some logic – any increase in state pension age hurts some group of individuals. Your wife may (almost certainly does) feel aggrieved but if she wants equality that is a price she has to pay – as does mine, incidentally, who keeps asking me if I mind that she wants to retire before state pension age while I keep working).

Quentin Vole
Guest
Quentin Vole

Learn to read. My complaint is not against the principle of any increase in pension age, but the cliff edge that makes multiple years of difference to women born within a few year period. The current arrangement is an offence to natural justice and I can see no reason, other than stupidity, for it.

literate3
Guest
literate3

I can read: my sister taught me to do so before I started school (maybe you failed to notice the meaning of “literate”).

The individuals who feel hurt are suffering from equality, not discrimination. The only way to reduce the so-called “cliff-edge” is to reduce the benefits to women slightly older (or to abolish “Equality” legislation).
Certainly the current arrangement is an offence to natural justice but I, and most men in my generation, choose to put up with it. We were encouraged not to be “cry-babies”.

Quentin Vole
Guest
Quentin Vole

Congratulations on your magnificent achievement of learning to read. Now you just need to work on your comprehension. Good luck, my friend.

literate3
Guest
literate3

If there is something to comprehend?!?
Apart from your being a spoilt brat?

Quentin Vole
Guest
Quentin Vole

Oh dear, I seem to have touched a nerve. Well, the truth often hurts. Perhaps you could try working on your social skills, as well.

literate3
Guest
literate3

The truth that you are a spoilt brat.
I don’t pretend to have social skills; I just have the honesty that you seem to lack. I was at school with guys who had to work for fifty years before getting a state pension and you are moaning about the horrors of a woman not getting a pension until the same age as a man

Quentin Vole
Guest
Quentin Vole

Oh dear – if only you could read as well as you think you can, you would realise that I said no such thing. In my original post I wrote: “Retirement age has to increase”. I just think it should be done equitably.

Feel free to apologise when you’re ready.

literate3
Guest
literate3

Equitably would have been immediately equalising retirement ages. Feel free to apologise any time you like.

Quentin Vole
Guest
Quentin Vole

That would have been equitable, but stupid – what would have happened to those one week from retirement? What has been done does not treat women equitably – some have had no reduction, some born a few months later have had severe reductions despite being close to retirement.

Do some research and think about it a bit. Then you can apologise for your intemperance, if you’re man enough.

literate3
Guest
literate3

Do you not know that “equitable” means “fair” not “equal”? On your misinterpretation it is inequitable that I have never won a £1million premium bond prize (my grandmother gave me two premium bonds as a reward for passing the 11+). The whole system was inequitable but the sufferers from inequity were not the women who missed out on an unjustified windfall but the men in my generation who had to work 50 years for their pension while women of your wife’s age can get a full pension on 30 years of “deemed” contributions. “Man enough” – trying to insult me.… Read more »

Quentin Vole
Guest
Quentin Vole

Are you man enough? Clearly not, since no apology for your tantrum has been forthcoming. For someone claiming to be ancient, I wonder why you show the comprehension skills, temperament and repetitiveness of a sulky teenager. This correspondence is now closed, since arguing with someone who can’t (or won’t take the time to) read what has been written (and too oft repeated for me to repeat it yet again) is pointless. Hint: this thread is *nothing to do with* different pension treatment of men and women, that has got you so (possibly justly) agitated – only that of women. Capeesh?

literate3
Guest
literate3

So you are NOT man enough: scared to face a little old man. When you learn the meaning of “equitable” you might “Capeesh” that the change in women’s pension is ALL about the different treatment of men and women. It has been declared illegal thanks to “equality” legislation introduced by self-apointed “feminists”. When I was young I had to study pensions and was well aware that the state pension scheme was heavily biased to aid women but I was totaly prepared to suffer the extra cost because the purpose of the scheme was not equity but to protect those retired… Read more »

Matt
Guest
Matt

The plaintiffs have sued the government for discrimination. So the problem is “is there discrimination?” to which Tim answers “hard to say there is.”
Yes, people are p***ed off: if they’d voted for all their adult lives for “in the future we’ll nick money off other people to give to you” only for government to turn round and say “nah, we’ll only do it for the public sector” then they have every right to be… but p***ing people off isn’t illegal — one might say it’s the entire purpose of government — so that can’t go to court.

literate3
Guest
literate3

Yes, it is unfair – women born in 1949 have been treated most unfairly (at my expense and the expense of my male contemporaries).
I used to put up with it but “WASPI” i.e women against state pension equality really piss me off.

literate3
Guest
literate3

After SIX attempts to deal with the log-in, most of which were defeated by incompetence on the paart of the website-designers (if one cannot click on the button to confirm one’s “Captcha” choice more than half the time that a design error). For youngsters like Tim, the answer is that most men are older than their wives and pensions are designed to provide an income above starvation level for those who have retired. Beveridge estimated that, on average, husbands are three years older than their wives so setting a 5-year differential meant that 90+% of women could draw pensions on… Read more »