Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • KimC
    • By KimC 29th Dec 15, 10:18 PM
    • 4Posts
    • 4Thanks
    KimC
    Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair
    • #1
    • 29th Dec 15, 10:18 PM
    Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair 29th Dec 15 at 10:18 PM
    It is unfair how a women aged 61 has to wait until 65 yet a women who turned 62 in October 2015 gets her statepension. How is that fair?

    Search womans pension rise unfair on this page and click on the link and sign the petition for it debated in the House of Parliment.
Page 2
  • archived user
    Men have always known the can retire at 65 as women have had no notice of the change of retirement age. Thats why it is unfair as people need notice to plan.
    Originally posted by KimC
    That is why mine is now 66 (male) Nobody officially told me about it, I found it out by listening to the news. So can I take the same attitude? I've only got 5 years to plan for a later retirement age.
    • saver861
    • By saver861 30th Dec 15, 12:34 PM
    • 1,378 Posts
    • 800 Thanks
    saver861
    There's no "if" about the 10 years notice. No-one with an 18 month extension had 10 years notice.
    Originally posted by jem16
    So be it. The current rule is 10 years notice. Why should they not have had 10 years notice therefore? Some have had a double whammy of having an additional 18 months and less than 10 years notice. That needed better smoothing out.

    I will not be signing the petition as I do not believe that women of the 1950s who claim to know nothing about the 1995 changes should be compensated for sticking their head in the sand and doing nothing to plan for their retirement.
    Originally posted by jem16
    Lets put this another way. Sure, most people agree that there was sufficient notice time from 1995 to make up any shortfall.

    However, lets assume you put some money in the bank 10 years ago at an agreed interest rate of 5%. Each year your money is growing by 5% as agreed.

    Then, the bank decides it is going to reduce the interest rate down to 2%. Buttttttttt, the reduction will apply from the time the money was first deposited 10 years ago. I suspect most people would say, woahhh, you can't backdate the reduction, the new rate should only apply from now, not from 10 years ago.

    So, in terms of women and their pensions. All women paying NIC's up to 1995 were doing so on the basis of those NIC's paying a pension at age 60. A fairer option by the government might have been to say in 1995, all NIC's paid up to that point will get pension at 60 but from there on, it will be the new spa.

    So, any women who had paid NIC's for pension at 60 would have those years up to 1995 honoured. After that, it is the new spa. Any woman who had not paid any NIC's before 1995 would just get the pension from the new spa.

    So, while there is no real argument that there was not enough notice since 1995, equally, those who had paid their contributions before then, had done so on the basis of getting pension at 60. Thus like the interest scenario, the government can change the rules, but also applying those changes to backdated years is less popular for everyone regardless of that the situation is.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 30th Dec 15, 12:39 PM
    • 90,341 Posts
    • 57,127 Thanks
    dunstonh
    Wrong. As I said on the other thread, Martin and MSE have an image to uphold. That image is the thrust of their business. Martin may be a good guy, but he is also a shrewd guy!! He will not support anything that will tarnish his image, or not that of MSE. Thus, if the campaign was so far out, he would not be supporting it, nor would it have gotten anything like the signatures it has received.

    Not agreeing with it is one thing - being blind to it is something different.
    its not wrong. I think we are on cross purposes. You are more or less agreed with what I said which is that MSE stands to lose its consumer friendly image if it does not support this. i.e. going with whatever is best for the brand.

    Do you really think that is what MSE and Martin are supporting?
    Did you spot the smiley?
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 30th Dec 15, 12:43 PM
    • 90,341 Posts
    • 57,127 Thanks
    dunstonh
    Men have always known the can retire at 65 as women have had no notice of the change of retirement age. Thats why it is unfair as people need notice to plan.
    Originally posted by KimC
    That is not correct.

    The retirement age for most men currently not retired is 66 or 67 with 68 or higher likely to hit many of those. So, any man that has always known they can retire at 65 is wrong. Any woman that thought that is wrong too.

    You are right though that people need notice. That is why the changes from 60 to 65 for Women had 20 years notice. Those changes were debated and consulted between 1993 and 1995 and put through parliament in 1995. Plenty of notice.

    The increase from 65 to 66 is the area that had little notice for some and that is what the petition should focus on. It does not though and that is why so many won't sign it.
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. Different people have different needs and what is right for one person may not be for another. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • saver861
    • By saver861 30th Dec 15, 12:54 PM
    • 1,378 Posts
    • 800 Thanks
    saver861
    That is not correct.

    You are right though that people need notice. That is why the changes from 60 to 65 for Women had 20 years notice. Those changes were debated and consulted between 1993 and 1995 and put through parliament in 1995. Plenty of notice.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    Plenty of notice is true. But, as I suggested in an earlier post, why should the government backdate the new arrangement. Those who had paid NIC's up to 1995 should have those years honoured for pension at 60, no? After 1995, they switch to the new spa.

    The increase from 65 to 66 is the area that had little notice for some and that is what the petition should focus on. It does not though and that is why so many won't sign it.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    Any debate about signing or not signing is largely irrelevant at this stage. The 100,000 will be reached within a week and in just over a third of the time the petition can run for.

    Its now in the hands of parliament whether to debate it or not, and if debated, to determine an outcome.
    • bmm78
    • By bmm78 30th Dec 15, 1:25 PM
    • 420 Posts
    • 563 Thanks
    bmm78
    Men have always known the can retire at 65 as women have had no notice of the change of retirement age. Thats why it is unfair as people need notice to plan.
    Originally posted by KimC
    At the recent parliamentary hearing the WASPI founders were unable to give any convincing explanation of what they would have done differently if they had received (formal) notice.

    Surely any "plan" should involve checking some basic details, such as when and how much state pension would be available?
    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 recommendation
    • Goldiegirl
    • By Goldiegirl 30th Dec 15, 1:30 PM
    • 8,404 Posts
    • 48,170 Thanks
    Goldiegirl
    Men have always known the can retire at 65 as women have had no notice of the change of retirement age. Thats why it is unfair as people need notice to plan.
    Originally posted by KimC

    *sigh*


    The increase in the pension age to 65 was announced in 1995 - surely 20 years was enough to plan


    If the WASPI campaign centred on the changes announced in 2011, many more people would be interested in signing the petition
    Early retired - 18th December 2014
    If your dreams don't scare you, they're not big enough
    • Goldiegirl
    • By Goldiegirl 30th Dec 15, 1:36 PM
    • 8,404 Posts
    • 48,170 Thanks
    Goldiegirl
    The increase from 65 to 66 is the area that had little notice for some and that is what the petition should focus on. It does not though and that is why so many won't sign it.
    Originally posted by dunstonh

    If the petition had centred on the 2011 changes, I think only a handful of people would have signed it - people like many on this thread ( and others like it) who take a measured and considered view after careful assessment.


    Many of the people who have signed the petition in it's current format, have done so because they think there's a chance they'll get 'compo'. If the petition was solely about 2011, there probably wouldn't be a whiff of compensation at all, and most of them wouldn't be interested and wouldn't have bothered to sign the petition
    Early retired - 18th December 2014
    If your dreams don't scare you, they're not big enough
    • jem16
    • By jem16 30th Dec 15, 1:39 PM
    • 18,585 Posts
    • 11,412 Thanks
    jem16
    Men have always known the can retire at 65 as women have had no notice of the change of retirement age. Thats why it is unfair as people need notice to plan.
    Originally posted by KimC
    20 years notice was given to 1950s women that their state pension age would not be 60 - plenty of time to plan if you'd bothered to keep up with what was happening.

    2011 changes did not give enough notice so that's what you should be looking to change.

    What would you have done differently to plan?
    • jem16
    • By jem16 30th Dec 15, 1:47 PM
    • 18,585 Posts
    • 11,412 Thanks
    jem16
    So, in terms of women and their pensions. All women paying NIC's up to 1995 were doing so on the basis of those NIC's paying a pension at age 60. A fairer option by the government might have been to say in 1995, all NIC's paid up to that point will get pension at 60 but from there on, it will be the new spa.

    So, any women who had paid NIC's for pension at 60 would have those years up to 1995 honoured. After that, it is the new spa. Any woman who had not paid any NIC's before 1995 would just get the pension from the new spa.
    Originally posted by saver861
    A change like that would probably also have brought an increase in the NI contribution rate much like the public sector pensions where the rate went from around 6% to around 10%.

    So fair enough that was one way of doing it so for 1950s women it would be about half a pension at age 60 and the other half at age 60-66 with an increase contribution rate.

    Not sure that would have gone down well but you never know.
    • KimC
    • By KimC 30th Dec 15, 1:51 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    KimC
    Well saying those who posted the negative comments are not affected and dont care what the government does. They should have wrote to each individual when the decision was made to put the womens pension age. That would have been actual notice. No notice means it is unfair.

    I am not affected by the pension age going up as I am no way near 60 but, I do care unlike those who post negative comments. No one stands up against the government and thats why they get away with the crap. People only moan when it affects them and dont care when it doesnt.

    All people who are affected by changes want is notice. Then they can dispute changes. If nothing can be done then they should have enough notice to plan ahead.
    • hyubh
    • By hyubh 30th Dec 15, 1:53 PM
    • 2,007 Posts
    • 1,516 Thanks
    hyubh
    why should the government backdate the new arrangement. Those who had paid NIC's up to 1995 should have those years honoured for pension at 60, no?
    Originally posted by saver861
    The state pension is a benefit paid by NICs and income tax taken as pension monies are paid out. Benefit arrangements can be changed at any time - there is no property right.

    After 1995, they switch to the new spa.
    Grossly unfair on younger people having to pay for the lengthly retirements of older people, retirements not envisaged when the state pension was first created or even when it was expanded postwar.
    • jem16
    • By jem16 30th Dec 15, 1:54 PM
    • 18,585 Posts
    • 11,412 Thanks
    jem16
    If the petition had centred on the 2011 changes, I think only a handful of people would have signed it - people like many on this thread ( and others like it) who take a measured and considered view after careful assessment.
    Originally posted by Goldiegirl
    Especially when you consider that it was changed back in 2011 to reduce the 2 years extra back down to 18 months and the government then said it would go no further.

    Many of the people who have signed the petition in it's current format, have done so because they think there's a chance they'll get 'compo'. If the petition was solely about 2011, there probably wouldn't be a whiff of compensation at all, and most of them wouldn't be interested and wouldn't have bothered to sign the petition
    Yes I met one such woman last week who knew about the changes back in 1995 as I remember her being part of the conversation at work. Now she has been told about this petition and thinks it's a great thing as it's not fair that she doesn't get her state pension at age 60.
    • jem16
    • By jem16 30th Dec 15, 1:59 PM
    • 18,585 Posts
    • 11,412 Thanks
    jem16
    Well saying those who posted the negative comments are not affected and dont care what the government does. They should have wrote to each individual when the decision was made to put the womens pension age. That would have been actual notice. No notice means it is unfair.
    Originally posted by KimC
    Why should they have written individual letters? Laws change frequently - they reduced the drink driving laws in Scotland last year. Nobody wrote to me personally so if I'm caught can I just claim nobody wrote to me?

    I am not affected by the pension age going up as I am no way near 60 but, I do care unlike those who post negative comments. No one stands up against the government and thats why they get away with the crap. People only moan when it affects them and dont care when it doesnt.
    I am affected as my retirement age has gone up from 60 to 66. You'll find most of the women posting here are also affected. We're not posting negative comments - we are simply disagreeing with what you and WASPI are saying.

    I do care about those who have severe financial difficulties but that is not the case for most 1950s women.

    All people who are affected by changes want is notice. Then they can dispute changes. If nothing can be done then they should have enough notice to plan ahead.
    We had 20 years notice of the 1995 changes. People need to take some personal responsibility as that is what planning involves.
    Last edited by jem16; 30-12-2015 at 2:09 PM.
    • bmm78
    • By bmm78 30th Dec 15, 2:06 PM
    • 420 Posts
    • 563 Thanks
    bmm78
    Well saying those who posted the negative comments are not affected and dont care what the government does. They should have wrote to each individual when the decision was made to put the womens pension age. That would have been actual notice. No notice means it is unfair.

    I am not affected by the pension age going up as I am no way near 60 but, I do care unlike those who post negative comments. No one stands up against the government and thats why they get away with the crap. People only moan when it affects them and dont care when it doesnt.
    Originally posted by KimC
    What WASPI are asking for would probably cost £100bn+. That would impact on all of us. I feel strongly that future generations (men and women) should not have to suffer further delays on their state pension to fund a specific group getting their pension upto a decade earlier.

    All people who are affected by changes want is notice. Then they can dispute changes. If nothing can be done then they should have enough notice to plan ahead.
    Originally posted by KimC
    As above, if they were "planning" properly there is no way they would not have been aware that state pension age for women was rising.
    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 recommendation
    • Goldiegirl
    • By Goldiegirl 30th Dec 15, 2:39 PM
    • 8,404 Posts
    • 48,170 Thanks
    Goldiegirl
    Well saying those who posted the negative comments are not affected and dont care what the government does. They should have wrote to each individual when the decision was made to put the womens pension age. That would have been actual notice. No notice means it is unfair.

    I am not affected by the pension age going up as I am no way near 60 but, I do care unlike those who post negative comments. No one stands up against the government and thats why they get away with the crap. People only moan when it affects them and dont care when it doesnt.

    All people who are affected by changes want is notice. Then they can dispute changes. If nothing can be done then they should have enough notice to plan ahead.
    Originally posted by KimC

    I'm in the group that has been affected by both the changes in 1995 and 2011. But I don't agree with the WASPI campaign in it's current format.


    I've had 20 years to plan, that seems to be time enough to my mind, so I'm not moaning

    KimC, you are obviously a supporter of WASPI, so I'm re-posting an earlier comment I made in this thread - I'd be really interested in your response - If WASPI got their way a woman born on 31/12/59 would get their pension at 60, yet one born a day later would wait until 66! I'd ask on the WASPI Facebook page, but there's no point as they delete any questions like this


    That's only 1950's women they are campaigning for.

    If you are born after 1/1/60, WASPI aren't interested

    I still await anybody who supports WASPI to give a satisfactory explanation as to the fairness of someone being born 31/12/59 should get full compensation, and a person born 1/1/60 should get nothing and wait until age 66 until they collect their state pension.

    WASPI campaign against 'unfairness', yet if they got their way, they'd just ensure that a different group of people were treated even more unfairly!
    Originally posted by Goldiegirl

    So KimC - what do you have to say about my question?


    I'm genuinely curious as to whether this scenario has crossed WASPI supporter's minds
    Early retired - 18th December 2014
    If your dreams don't scare you, they're not big enough
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 30th Dec 15, 2:43 PM
    • 12,562 Posts
    • 10,660 Thanks
    zagfles
    Why should they have written individual letters? Laws change frequently - they reduced the drink driving laws in Scotland last year. Nobody wrote to me personally so if I'm caught can I just claim nobody wrote to me?
    Originally posted by jem16
    You won't believe the day I've had. Went to the pub for lunch - but as I was having my after-lunch fag, I was chucked out! Apparently it's illegal to smoke in a pub these days! I don't remember getting a letter telling me!

    Then my daughter rang me as I was driving home, asking me to pick her up from her friend's house. No sooner had I hung up, the police pulled me over. Using a mobile when driving is now illegal! No-one told me!

    Get to my daughter's mate's house and picked her up, completely frazzled and gasping for a fag. Then on the way home I get pulled over again! What now?? Well, the copper tells me now you can't smoke in a car with a child! WHERE WAS MY LETTER????

    How can the govt get away with changing the law and not telling people?? It's a disgrace.

    Then I got breathalysed. I passed, thank God. But only because I'm in England where apparently the law hasn't changed. Lucky I wasn't in Scotland.

    Still, I'm 50 soon, then I can access my personal pension and retire to the Bahamas. Unless the govt have sneaked in a change to the law saying you can't have your pension at 50....no they couldn't have, I didn't get a letter.
    • brewerdave
    • By brewerdave 30th Dec 15, 2:53 PM
    • 4,645 Posts
    • 1,929 Thanks
    brewerdave
    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 !!!
    • jem16
    • By jem16 30th Dec 15, 2:54 PM
    • 18,585 Posts
    • 11,412 Thanks
    jem16
    Get to my daughter's mate's house and picked her up, completely frazzled and gasping for a fag. Then on the way home I get pulled over again! What now?? Well, the copper tells me now you can't smoke in a car with a child! WHERE WAS MY LETTER????
    Originally posted by zagfles
    And I sincerely hope you had your child in a car seat too or did you not get your letter about that either?
    • JezR
    • By JezR 30th Dec 15, 3:34 PM
    • 1,515 Posts
    • 1,076 Thanks
    JezR
    Not only is there no duty to notify individuals directly, there is even no duty to provide or make available any information materials. The only duty is that when such information is available that it is accurate to the legal position at the time.

    It was during preparation of leaflet updates for the women's pension age increase enacted in 1995 that it came to light that the changes in SERPS inheritance had not been properly included years earlier.
    Last edited by JezR; 30-12-2015 at 3:47 PM. Reason: Typo
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,428Posts Today

10,135Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @clq: @MartinSLewis You hit that one right out of the park. It might be the Tweet of the Century. I don't think anyone can do any Batter?

  • You've run-out of puns. That's a bit of a googly, maybe I can help break your duck, though it is s sticky wicket, t? https://t.co/nJT51NpXfO

  • RT @richlaing: @MartinSLewis Obviously spot poll but interested in the fact that 9% would opt out of donation. Interested to hear reasons w?

  • Follow Martin