Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

atush wrote: »

Rubbish. There was 10 years notice of the raise from age 60-65.

Hopefully that 10 was a typo atush as there was 15 years notice till actual implementation in 2010 but with the full increase to age 65 not happening till 2015 so 20 years.

jem16 wrote: »

Hopefully that 10 was a typo atush as there was 15 years notice till actual implementation in 2010 but with the full increase to age 65 not happening till 2015 so 20 years.

Yes, typo lol.

But my point still stands. Kim needs to read up on this before posting. 15-20 years was enough notice of the main change.

jem16 wrote: »

That's a shame. Next you'll be telling me that you don't read the newspapers, listen to the radio or watch TV.

Of course maybe you did actually get a letter and you didn't understand it because they sent you a 3 page letter with the date you had to wear a seatbelt hidden in Page 2, rather than your age in numbers clearly written in a one page letter?

Or perhaps you're not good with numbers?

If it was on page 3 he would have seen it.

jem16 wrote: »

That's a shame. Next you'll be telling me that you don't read the newspapers, listen to the radio or watch TV.

Of course not. I expect the govt to write to me personally to inform me of any change in any law that affects me. Surely everyone does?

Of course maybe you did actually get a letter and you didn't understand it because they sent you a 3 page letter with the date you had to wear a seatbelt hidden in Page 2, rather than your age in numbers clearly written in a one page letter?

Well obviously the letter has to be 1 page. I don't have time to read more than 1 page. Except in the Sun.

Or perhaps you're not good with numbers?

Or letters. But surely the govt should still tell people who can't read? Discrimination, that's what it is. I demand equality. And compo.

brewerdave wrote: »

With all this nonsense going on re notice of changes and potential backdating of payments - no-one has answered the Q -HOW would it be paid for?? A massive hike in NI rates ?? An increase in the basic rate of income tax ?? A BIG increase in public borrowing ?? ALL of those would be massive vote losers so DC ain't doing anything about it regardless of how many greedy 60+ women sign !!!

Totally agree.

If the petition limited itself to the 2010 changes, there would only be a small, but vocal, number of potential gainers, females born in 1953 and 1954. By combining the 2010 changes with the 1995 changes there is a much wider base of potential support. Like most policy changes, the majority are not directly affected and so don't engage. This can make campaigns such as this appear to have a lot of support and no significant opposition.

From a consumer champion's perspective, supporting the campaign gains favour with those arguing for it, whilst those who are not directly don't engage. So a bit like being the Opposition, there is the luxury of arguing in favour of something that would cost money but which is popular amongst those following the debate, without having to worry about saying where the money comes from.

The changes are largely if not exclusively financial in consequence - taking the average female State Pension of about £120, those who had their State Pension increased lost out by about £9,500 (18 months of £120 p/w). There are other consequences of a higher State Pension age, eg, National Insurance payments and Pension Credit eligibility, but those also end up being a financial consequence and are of much less significance. Clearly if the Government simply financed the change by higher taxes elsewhere that happened to fall exclusive on the group affected there would be no point in making the change, so the campaigners are arguing that resources should be directed from others to themselves.

The issue therefore is whether it is reasonable to give 6 years of notice that wealth will be reduced by £9,500 (before tax). Whether that is reasonable or not probably depends a lot on whether the view is that the State Pension is an entitlement, paid for by NI contributions over the years, or whether it is a benefit, and so at the whim of the Government of the day. From a legal perspective it is acceptable, so the question comes down to moral views about reasonableness.

In terms of the practicality of adjusting, those affected have the choice to work longer, save more or accept a lower income. Those still in work have the easiest adjustment as they have the most options available. Those who had already left the labour market should have built up contingencies against various risks, including policy change risk. Those who left the labour market involuntarily still have a benefits system in place to support them. There will always be difficult cases, but that would be the general argument.

From a social welfare perspective it is difficult to justify a transfer from younger individuals to this age cohort (as younger individuals will be paying the majority of taxation, which would be higher due to this change), who have far greater wealth than those who would be paying the higher taxes required to fund the policy change. They would also be retiring many years later than those they would be paying to retire at 60 - many up to a decade later.

In an ideal world politics and pensions would be far more stable, well thought out and major reforms to State and private pensions announced a decade in advance. In practice it just doesn't work like that, and given the huge changes across the board announced in 2010 (tuition fee increases, RPI/CPI changes to pension revalorisation, VAT, public sector pay freeze, public sector contribution increase), many of which were announced with little or no notice, giving 6 years notice that some will lose around £9,500 (which is about 5 months of net salary, based on the average full time wage for those 60+, of about £25,000) doesn't seem unreasonable - certainly not ideal, but six years is still a long time.