WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

saver861 wrote: »

For those that have to claim financial hardship benefits, its a necessity, not an option! Other than scroungers, not many would be happy at having to do so

Please do encourage anyone eligible to claim them, that's why we, as a society, choose too provide them. Benefits recipients are often not what anyone would consider to be scroungers, just people in need due to unfortunate life circumstances.

saver861 wrote: »

Does seem like Mr Lambert's attention would benefited some on here also .....:D

It's always a shame when, despite the best efforts of the teacher, some don't quite make it but such is life.......:D

jem16 wrote: »

so unless you had Mrs McCormack after that

jamesd wrote: »

77 billion is not a back of the envelope estimated figure, it's the cost provided by the UK government. House of Commons Library Number CBP-07405, 6 July 2016 research briefing "Increases in the State Pension age for women born in the 1950s":

What WASPI told the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee they wanted in oral evidence given before the committee: "what we are asking – and we feel this is a very fair ask – is for the Government to put all women in the 50s, born on or after 6 April 1951 and affected by the state pension age in exactly the same position they would have been in had they been born on or before 5 April 1950" (page 19)

Official government cost: "The Government estimated that unravelling the 1995 Act reforms – so that women born in the 1950s had a State Pension age of 60 -would cost “£77 billion up to 2020-21 and the costs would continue to accrue after that period.”" (page 25)

And official government cost for just the 2011 Act undoing: "The acceleration of state pension age equalisation and the increase to the age of 66 under the Pensions Act 2011 achieved gender equality in state pension provision, while also saving more than £30 billion for the state, thereby ensuring the affordability and sustainability of our reformed pensions system" (page 25)

So you can probably see why WASPI refuses to give costs for anything they say they want: the costs are outrageous.

Thank you for that link jamesd - very helpful.

It may now be becoming clearer to me, having read it, why so many in the pensions industry may be worried. Ian Blackford (SNP) mentioned that a reduction in pension tax relief would pay some £35 billion towards transitional relief for women.

How accurate that figure is or how likely that would ever be, I don't know as I had never made that connection.

I have to say that I have never understood the antipathy towards a group of older women such as I have seen across all social media.

I think calling the campaign "Inequality" when the demands ignored male/female inequality; many women claiming that they had never been aware of the 1995 changes never mind the 2011 Act; that women of that age were in some way less able to work as long as men; that the time to campaign should have been 2010, that some demanded the money as a right; that someone born 1/1/1960 would fall off a bigger cliff; that the costings were as above; that we have been governed by an austerity led government; all suggested that there would be little empathy from many and most importantly none from a majority of MP's.

jamesd wrote: »

77 billion is not a back of the envelope estimated figure, it's the cost provided by the UK government. House of Commons Library Number CBP-07405, 6 July 2016 research briefing "Increases in the State Pension age for women born in the 1950s":

What WASPI told the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee they wanted in oral evidence given before the committee: "what we are asking – and we feel this is a very fair ask – is for the Government to put all women in the 50s, born on or after 6 April 1951 and affected by the state pension age in exactly the same position they would have been in had they been born on or before 5 April 1950" (page 19)

Official government cost: "The Government estimated that unravelling the 1995 Act reforms – so that women born in the 1950s had a State Pension age of 60 -would cost “£77 billion up to 2020-21 and the costs would continue to accrue after that period.”" (page 25)

And official government cost for just the 2011 Act undoing: "The acceleration of state pension age equalisation and the increase to the age of 66 under the Pensions Act 2011 achieved gender equality in state pension provision, while also saving more than £30 billion for the state, thereby ensuring the affordability and sustainability of our reformed pensions system" (page 25)

So you can probably see why WASPI refuses to give costs for anything they say they want: the costs are outrageous.

The Freedom of Information request https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/507644/foi-378-2016-table.pdf shows that far from being an exaggeration, these figures are likely to be a massive understimate of the overall costs of such a measure.

The calculation is based on taking the WASPI "ask" at face value, and applying a 6 year cliff-face for all women born from the 1st January 1960, and with men's state pension payments unaffected. This scenario is obviously absurd from both a legal and political standpoint, and therefore any solution along these lines would need to also factor in additional payments for 1960s women, while somehow ensuring that men were also not discriminated against. The actual cost in the Bizarro world where this happens would probably be well north of £100bn.

WASPI have to the best of my knowledge never withdrawn their original evidence to parliament, but there are various proposals doing the rounds that are not quite at the same level as the original ask. The problem is that most of these options still hinge on two crucial details:

• Payments backdated to 60
• Payments to all 1950s women

While a 70% "bridging" pension may seem like a reasonable compromise on Planet WASPI, it essentially just amounts to scaling down the cost of the original ask by 30%. It's still a completely ridiculous proposal.

The most contemptible thing is not that many WASPI supporters think they are entitled to this; it's that MPs who actually know how unrealistic these ideas are continue to indulge these women in return for photo ops and column inches. The same MPs who variously voted for ESA cuts, bumping SPA to 68 and even in some cases the 2011 Pensions Act itself, are now parading around in pink sashes and singing along with the WASPI choir.

I appreciate that very few if any regular posters believe that there should be any movement on the 1995 Act, but illustrating the costs of the original WASPI ask highlights the need for any solution to be realistic and focused. Whether or not that is means-tested is another discussion, but it's clear that for any proposal to be viable it needs to be somehow limited in terms of the numbers that will benefit.