We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
MSE News: Women's state pension petition gathers over 50,000 signatures
Options
Comments
-
Goldiegirl wrote: »I wonder if they think it's equitable that someone born on 31/12/59 could retire at age 60, and then someone born on 1/1/60 has to retire at 66. Not to mention the people born on or after 6th April 1960, when the pension age begins to rise to 67.
But I suspect the thought hasn't even crossed their mind. From reading the Facebook page, they seem to be getting carried away, and aren't thinking straight at all.
No it hasn't crossed their mind as it's been founded by 5 women born in the 1950s.0 -
Goldiegirl wrote: »But hopefully, if you were starting a campaign, you'd have looked into it in detail, and make sure your campaign included ALL people in the affected group (see my post above) and also consider if, as a result of your campaign, they'd be a different group of people who'd feel they were getting a raw deal
Perhaps you can elaborate further on what you think is unfair in relation to the 2011 changes, that is, if you think anything is unfair in relation to the 2011 changes.0 -
If there is a change in that the government was forced to comply with its existing rules, i.e. that changes to state pensions should have at least 10 years notice, then anyone who had changes impacted on them would have those changes reversed! However, a woman born in 1960 would have been 51 in 2011. That would have been at least 14 years from their expected spa of 65.
No you've got that wrong.
They are campaigning that both the 1995 ( which you have kept pointing out to us ) and the 2011 changes were not informed with enough notice. So they are all looking at their original spa of 60 and not their 1995 revised spa.
So the woman born in 1960 would have been 9 years away from her original spa of 60 so less than 10 years.
Someone born 6th April 1961 has a spa of 67 - a 7 year increase according to WASPI calculations with slightly less than 10 years notification from original spa of 60.So what do you think should happen in relation to the 2011 changes for those women?
At best no change to the 1995 revised spa.
At worst no increase greater than 12 months to match men and other women.0 -
The point of the petition was to get a debate and it was successful, I am sure the MPs in the debate can sort or what are reasonable concerns and what are unreasonable demands.
I can understand (but not agree) with the view that the end justifies the means.
However, WASPI appear to be drawing a misleading link between the number of people signing the petition, and the number of people supporting their aims. I don't see how this can be justified.I work for a financial services intermediary specialising in the at-retirement market. I am not a financial adviser, and any comments represent my opinion only and should not be construed as advice or a recommendation0 -
No you've got that wrong.
They are campaigning that both the 1995 ( which you have kept pointing out to us ) and the 2011 changes were not informed with enough notice. So they are all looking at their original spa of 60 and not their 1995 revised spa.
No - my point was that if there was changes to the 2011 policy, e.g. no alterations to spa's within 10 years of their then spa then it would mainly only be those born up to 1957.
So, if MP's do not agree to debate or make any alterations to the 1995 policy then that just leaves the 2011 policy that might be changed. They may not agree to debate of make any changes to the 2011 policy either. If they do, and it was in reference to the 10 year notice, then it would only affect those born before 1957.
At best no change to the 1995 revised spa.
At worst no increase greater than 12 months to match men and other women.
Thats identical to how I see it. So, now that we agree on that, there may be others on here that agree that also.
Therefore, how then should we go about supporting this situation to be brought about i.e. no change to 1995 spa or max 12 months increase?0 -
The point of the petition was to get a debate and it was successful, I am sure the MPs in the debate can sort or what are reasonable concerns and what are unreasonable demands.
They haven't got it yet as they need 100k signatures for it to be considered for a debate.
The debate that's happening is a backbench debate which has been requested by SNP MP Mhairi Black and has nothing to do with WASPI.
WASPI still want the full debate that the 100k signatures might bring about.0 -
What about the unsolicited pension forecasts that were sent out by DWP between 2004 and 2006 or so? These were to cover most of the working population because of the very real lack of appreciation of the level of saving people needed to consider for retirement.However the main point here is that in 1995 there were articles on the news, TV , radio, magazines and booklets from the DWP etc. In other words it was done to try and inform as many as possible without actually sending out individual letters which would have been very costly.
The priority of the groups were:-[FONT="]Females aged 50 and over who are not self employed[/FONT][FONT="]So all of these people should have received one of these and they would have quite clearly shown what there state pension date [FONT="]/ age was. Why wait an additional 10 years before complaining?
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Males aged 50 and over who are not self employed [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="]Females aged under 50 who are not self employed[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]Males aged under 50 who are not self employed[/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT]
[FONT="] [/FONT][FONT="]Self employed[/FONT]
[FONT="]The 2011 changes are a separate issue bu[FONT="]t, as I see it, it is all water under the bri[FONT="]dge now.[/FONT][/FONT][/FONT]
[/FONT]
[/FONT]0 -
Perhaps you can elaborate further on what you think is unfair in relation to the 2011 changes, that is, if you think anything is unfair in relation to the 2011 changes.
What I think is fair or unfair in relation to 2011 is neither here nor there.
What I'm talking about is the WASPI campaign.
They are campaigning solely for women born in the 1950's - on their Facebook page a person asked if this included people born in 1959, and it was confirmed that yes it does
So, if WASPI got their way - a women born on 31/12/59 would get their pension at 60, but one born 1/1/60 would wait until 66.
For women who profess to be against state pension inequality, this can hardly be construed as equal or fair to their 'sisters'
This part of the campaign is flawed, and they lose credibility if they can't see how their aims would affect how other people feel they are being treated.Early retired - 18th December 2014
If your dreams don't scare you, they're not big enough0 -
No - my point was that if there was changes to the 2011 policy, e.g. no alterations to spa's within 10 years of their then spa then it would mainly only be those born up to 1957.
That's your point but it's not WASPI's point and not their aim.So, if MP's do not agree to debate or make any alterations to the 1995 policy then that just leaves the 2011 policy that might be changed. They may not agree to debate of make any changes to the 2011 policy either. If they do, and it was in reference to the 10 year notice, then it would only affect those born before 1957.
Yes I agree which is why the inclusion of 1995 changes doesn't help what should be the real focus. Ros Altmann already got it reduced from 2 years to 18 months by concentrating on the 2011 changes as it was achievable.Thats identical to how I see it. So, now that we agree on that, there may be others on here that agree that also.
I haven't found anyone here who disagrees on the 2011 changes being amended but that should include all women AND men.Therefore, how then should we go about supporting this situation to be brought about i.e. no change to 1995 spa or max 12 months increase?
Not by supporting the WASPI petition.
You could of course start your own campaign?0 -
I would certainly support a revised timescale that limited the increases in SPA for females under the 2011 Act to 12 months, with male SPA set equal to female SPA also (but perhaps only at the point revised female SPA reaches 65 or else you end up with some males with an SPA less than 65 which feels wrong).
So that would affect women born between 6/10/53 and 5/4/55 and males born from 6/4/54 to 5/4/55.
Women born between 6/12/53 and 5/10/54 would see a reduction in SPA of 6 months (as their original 2011 increase was 18 months), and other women born in the range 6/10/53 to 5/12/53 and 6/10/54 to 5/4/55 would see a reduction of something under 6 months.
Men born between 6/4/54 and 5/10/54 would see a reduction in SPA of 6 months and those born between 6/10/54 and 5/4/55 would see a reduction of less than 6 months.
The only thing wrong with this from a practical viewpoint (if you ignore cost and inter-generational unfairness) is that it would be legislating for increased male inequality for males born between 6/10/53 and 5/4/54.
I can't support the WASPE campaign but I could support a separate campaign along the lines of that above.I came, I saw, I melted0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.7K Spending & Discounts
- 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.7K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards