WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions
Options
Comments
-
slightlymiffed wrote: »As we have been continually told that we must have 'breezed through life not noticing'
Erm, the full quote - Crabb was acknowledging the 'lack of info' point, not belittling it:
'I completely understand women who feel that they were taken a bit by surprise and did not get the full information about this. I expect most people breeze through life not thinking in any great depth about their pension. Unless they get a very specific letter going to them saying, “Dear Mrs Jones, this is how your state pension is going to be affected”, they might not be cognisant of other changes that have been happening around them over the last 20 years.'
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/work-and-pensions/160511%20DWP.pdf0 -
mystic_trev wrote: »Link please.
It was BBC Radio London (not 5 Live - apologies) but here's the clip
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p041ty700 -
Erm, the full quote - Crabb was acknowledging the 'lack of info' point, not belittling it:
'I completely understand women who feel that they were taken a bit by surprise and did not get the full information about this. I expect most people breeze through life not thinking in any great depth about their pension. Unless they get a very specific letter going to them saying, “Dear Mrs Jones, this is how your state pension is going to be affected”, they might not be cognisant of other changes that have been happening around them over the last 20 years.'
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/work-and-pensions/160511%20DWP.pdf
Yes, it was Stephen Crabb of course and we all know now that he wasn't thinking in any great depth about anything very much except...and so another one bites the dust!0 -
Is that what she's actually said?
Could she be talking about retirement age i.e. the age they stop working (which could be any age at all) rather than the age their state pension will be paid?
It sounds strange that she says the above which would make a man's state pension age 64 years - which it has never been.
I did include a link Pollycat so I can only quote as per article.
Agree - it does sound odd but my point is that we have been told that we were somehow negligent in not keeping abreast of changes to state pension age back in the late 1990's and yet we're now in July 2016 and still the misinformation continues...and, from what should be a really reliable source.
Just proves that relying on 'the media' for accuracy in pensions policy may not always be advisable?0 -
I did read the link.slightlymiffed wrote: »I did include a link Pollycat so I can only quote as per article.
Agree - it does sound odd but my point is that we have been told that we were somehow negligent in not keeping abreast of changes to state pension age back in the late 1990's and yet we're now in July 2016 and still the misinformation continues...and, from what should be a really reliable source.
Just proves that relying on 'the media' for accuracy in pensions policy may not always be advisable?
I think her comments (Kate Smith) are not about state pension age - unless she is really, really dim and thinks men get their state pension at age 64, a full year later than a woman who gets hers at age 63.
And do we really think that is likely?
So I'm not sure that you can honestly say that "yet we're now in July 2016 and still the misinformation continues...and, from what should be a really reliable source" based simply on that specific article.0 -
That's hardly surprising. Women reaching retirement today will have been in a system which expected them to be primarily responsible for childcare and the home while men were expected to be responsible for providing the income. Beyond that there's part time working, something that women have tended to do more than men. While there has been significant change in this area it's to be expected that a shorter paid working life would result in lower pension pots. A couple of children a couple of years apart would perhaps take a woman out of the work force for 16-18 years and that's a lot of potential pension contributions and compounded growth on them to lose.slightlymiffed wrote: »And, for all you guys who believe we should have 'made adequate provision' for another 18 months till our SPA, it is revealing that research done by Aegon suggests that the average woman has £20,000 in pensions by the time she reaches retirement, less than half the £52,500 men living in the UK have saved.
Eighteen months of provision is about £12,000 of single tier pension income level. Assuming state pension age of 60 and a working life starting at 16 with 18 years taken out of it that's 26 years of working life. Assuming the money is invested in a mixed asset fund delivering 3.5% plus inflation annualised growth to get to that £12,000 requires £23.60 a month after employer contributions and tax relief. Given the probability of some employer assistance it's likely that the net cost would be something between £10 and £15 a month. Without the children time out of work the monthly gross cost would drop to £10.50 a month with net perhaps £4.45 to £6.67.
Those costs are so low that even a person on minimum wage can be expected to have done more than that and to have ample beyond it as well. Assuming that they did put any thought into retirement.
I don't consider £1,160 a year inflation linked for life to be zilch. That is the expected increase if the money is used to defer a state pension of £8,000 a year for 2.5 hears. It's not strictly an annuity, of course, but since it's a better deal than standard annuities for those in normal good health it's normally going to be the better way to buy income.slightlymiffed wrote: »So - quick calculation here...£20,000 would buy the average woman an annuity of....well, pretty much zilch really I think.0 -
Thrugelmir wrote: »Remember how she was personally treated.......
That's the trouble with selective quoting. Paints a very misleading picture. God knows why anybody would now wish to hold public office. Given the abusive nature of society when it comes to single issue topics. One issue cannot be singled out in isolation.
Agreed I do remember Ros Altmann saying she was sent abusive tweets but did not see any myself. I wondering if the Telegraph had sight of any of these? 'Being struck down with cancer' sounds to me to be very extreme and suggests trolling of the worst kind.
But...there is absolutely no excuse for any kind of vile abuse of the Baroness and women need to remember she may yet be able to help the Waspi campaign far better from the outside now?0 -
I did read the link.
I think her comments (Kate Smith) are not about state pension age - unless she is really, really dim and thinks men get their state pension at age 64, a full year later than a woman who gets hers at age 63.
And do we really think that is likely?
So I'm not sure that you can honestly say that "yet we're now in July 2016 and still the misinformation continues...and, from what should be a really reliable source" based simply on that specific article.
Sorry Pollycat - I think I can and I think I do.;)0 -
That's hardly surprising. Women reaching retirement today will have been in a system which expected them to be primarily responsible for childcare and the home while men were expected to be responsible for providing the income. Beyond that there's part time working, something that women have tended to do more than men. While there has been significant change in this area it's to be expected that a shorter paid working life would result in lower pension pots. A couple of children a couple of years apart would perhaps take a woman out of the work force for 16-18 years and that's a lot of potential pension contributions and compounded growth on them to lose.
Eighteen months of provision is about £12,000 of single tier pension income level. Assuming state pension age of 60 and a working life starting at 16 with 18 years taken out of it that's 26 years of working life. Assuming the money is invested in a mixed asset fund delivering 3.5% plus inflation annualised growth to get to that £12,000 requires £23.60 a month after employer contributions and tax relief. Given the probability of some employer assistance it's likely that the net cost would be something between £10 and £15 a month. Without the children time out of work the monthly gross cost would drop to £10.50 a month with net perhaps £4.45 to £6.67.
Those costs are so low that even a person on minimum wage can be expected to have done more than that and to have ample beyond it as well. Assuming that they did put any thought into retirement.
I don't consider £1,160 a year inflation linked for life to be zilch. That is the expected increase if the money is used to defer a state pension of £8,000 a year for 2.5 hears. It's not strictly an annuity, of course, but since it's a better deal than standard annuities for those in normal good health it's normally going to be the better way to buy income.
Ooh - I thought you'd gone jamesd - or are you still extrapolating NI for me?
You've got me foxed here... how do you defer a state pension of £8,000? Surely, after April 6th this year, there is no 'deferral'?0 -
And that's entirely up to you.slightlymiffed wrote: »Sorry Pollycat - I think I can and I think I do.;)
Assuming you are replying to my final paragraph, you may have difficulty convincing other posters (save maybe 1 or 2 :cool: ) to agree with you.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards