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 60
    • greenglide
    • By greenglide 22nd May 16, 7:44 PM
    • 2,970 Posts
    • 1,921 Thanks
    greenglide
    Can you put a thread on ignore:;


    When you see it there is the temptation to read it, against better judgement, to see it it has got worse. It always has
    • saver861
    • By saver861 22nd May 16, 7:48 PM
    • 1,378 Posts
    • 800 Thanks
    saver861
    No need to go to the doctor.

    I can tell you the cure - stop reading those certain threads !
    Originally posted by Goldiegirl
    Ah right. So it is posts in the threads that are repeating themselves and it's not me!!!

    Gotcha ..... explains it all then!
    • Goldiegirl
    • By Goldiegirl 22nd May 16, 7:55 PM
    • 8,404 Posts
    • 48,170 Thanks
    Goldiegirl
    Ah right. So it is posts in the threads that are repeating themselves and it's not me!!!

    Gotcha ..... explains it all then!
    Originally posted by saver861
    That's debatable...... Your posts repeat themselves quite often
    Early retired - 18th December 2014
    If your dreams don't scare you, they're not big enough
    • Daniel54
    • By Daniel54 15th Jun 16, 6:13 PM
    • 582 Posts
    • 692 Thanks
    Daniel54
    For those interested,there is a back bench debate on 30th June on a motion brought forward by Frank Field :

    http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/backbench-business-committee/news-parliament-2015/debate-on-the-increase-in-the-state-pension-age/

    The motion states :

    "That this House acknowledges the differential effect on a defined cohort of women of the increase in the state pension age; and calls on the Government to adopt the proposal put forward by the Work and Pensions Select Committee in its Seventh Report of Session 2015-16 to permit early retirement, from a specified age and for that defined cohort of women, on an actuarially neutral basis."

    The WPSC report is not specific regarding specific age and defined cohort.If it is to be applied to women only,the only eligible cohort would appear to be those whose SPA was increased by more than 12 months under the 2011 act,as anything else would seem to fail under equality legislation

    As always,it is a shame the proposal is not more specific,but in outline it is entirely possible to see that this could be supported by the Pensions Minister and also Stephen Crabbe ,so I would not rule out the Government being prepared to take this forward ( bearing in mind they are not bound by backbench motions).

    Appreciate this thread is already 60 pages long,but better than starting yet another !
  • jamesd
    That probably doesn't really mean actuarially neutral, that is with those women bearing all of the costs of being able to get the state pension early. Based on earlier reports it means other people subsidising them by having the costs passed to them instead of those taking early state pensions paying it all.

    As usual if there is any law passed which discriminates by gender I'd be willing to help fund the legal action against the government. Which means things like such a law having to apply equally to men and women who want to retire earlier than state pension age by the same number of years.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 16th Jun 16, 9:58 AM
    • 3,562 Posts
    • 5,468 Thanks
    Malthusian
    Early retirement from the State Pension with actuarial reduction is not going to happen, not under the current Government anyway. If it was genuinely "actuarially neutral" it would not be enough to live on, and we would therefore get means-testing reintroduced for those that took it early. And the entire point of the New State Pension was to bring an end to means-testing.

    Can't see them doing it just for WASPIs and no-one else either - it would be a lot of work and risk opening a can of worms for a relatively small group.

    As has been adequately covered, there are already adequate benefits in this country for those who are of working age but for whatever reason cannot support themselves.
    • greenglide
    • By greenglide 16th Jun 16, 12:13 PM
    • 2,970 Posts
    • 1,921 Thanks
    greenglide
    .... and by the time that the IT was put in place to support this (the payment of a State Pension to someone under State Pension age!!!!) most of the people affected would be over SPa anyway.

    And think of the cost!
    • Mortgagefreeman
    • By Mortgagefreeman 11th Jan 18, 8:15 PM
    • 417 Posts
    • 922 Thanks
    Mortgagefreeman
    Yet another Petition, same answer!
    When will these bloody WASPI whiners realise they’re going to get nowt.

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200088
    • POPPYOSCAR
    • By POPPYOSCAR 11th Jan 18, 9:37 PM
    • 10,936 Posts
    • 22,910 Thanks
    POPPYOSCAR
    When will these bloody WASPI whiners realise they’re going to get nowt.

    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/200088
    Originally posted by Mortgagefreeman
    Thank you for posting the link.

    Have signed it for them.
    • Mnd
    • By Mnd 11th Jan 18, 9:53 PM
    • 336 Posts
    • 347 Thanks
    Mnd
    I'll sign it if they include males born about...25th May 1954..deal or no deal girls?
    • OldBeanz
    • By OldBeanz 11th Jan 18, 9:55 PM
    • 714 Posts
    • 558 Thanks
    OldBeanz
    Interesting that the distribution of signatures shows the largest support in Scotland where the parliament has the fiscal authority to deliver the WASPI demands and the governing and largest party has been the most vocal in its support for its implementation.
    • LHW99
    • By LHW99 11th Jan 18, 10:32 PM
    • 1,055 Posts
    • 901 Thanks
    LHW99
    I thought there already was provision for making proper notice for future changes.
    Anyone starting a petition asking Parliament NOT to debate the WASPE one?
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 11th Jan 18, 11:22 PM
    • 12,561 Posts
    • 10,659 Thanks
    zagfles
    Interesting that the distribution of signatures shows the largest support in Scotland where the parliament has the fiscal authority to deliver the WASPI demands and the governing and largest party has been the most vocal in its support for its implementation.
    Originally posted by OldBeanz
    Exactly - the SNP could raise taxes in Scotland and use it to deliver exactly what WASPE want there. But they don't want to actually deliver, they just want to play politics and convince the gullible they're standing up for something by continually shouting about it rather than use their power to actually do something.
    • badmemory
    • By badmemory 12th Jan 18, 11:15 AM
    • 1,199 Posts
    • 1,304 Thanks
    badmemory
    I thought there already was provision for making proper notice for future changes.
    Anyone starting a petition asking Parliament NOT to debate the WASPE one?
    Originally posted by LHW99
    We can wish! Anyone would think there weren't any important matters for them to deal with.
    • unforeseen
    • By unforeseen 12th Jan 18, 11:44 AM
    • 2,204 Posts
    • 2,812 Thanks
    unforeseen
    Thank you for posting the link.

    Have signed it for them.
    Originally posted by POPPYOSCAR
    Bit late. It was debated in December and rejected
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 12th Jan 18, 12:36 PM
    • 2,112 Posts
    • 2,808 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    The official response makes interesting reading. Seems the restoration of the State pension age to 60 for 1950s women (aka a non means tested bridging pension) would cost over £70bn. As, under equality legislation, this would also have to apply to 1950s men the final bill would be in excess of £150bn. Where would that be taken from? The NHS?

    And then there would be the screams from those - both men and women - born on or after 1 January 1960 who would have to wait another 6 years for their pensions.....

    Can we now finally draw the line under this crazyness?

    Spoken as a 1950s woman who knew from 1995 that she wouldn't get her State pension at 60.
    Last edited by Silvertabby; 12-01-2018 at 12:39 PM.
    • Mnd
    • By Mnd 12th Jan 18, 1:36 PM
    • 336 Posts
    • 347 Thanks
    Mnd
    That's dashed my hopes of a quick couple of grand then!
    Cheers
    • Liffy99
    • By Liffy99 12th Jan 18, 2:41 PM
    • 41 Posts
    • 7 Thanks
    Liffy99
    Not so worried about the actual SPA but the cliff edge calculation that so disadvantaged some compared to others. For example two women might have been born in May or June 1953. The latter has had to wait another year nearly to receive her SP than the former for a few weeks difference in birth date.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 12th Jan 18, 2:51 PM
    • 90,321 Posts
    • 57,104 Thanks
    dunstonh
    Not so worried about the actual SPA but the cliff edge calculation that so disadvantaged some compared to others. For example two women might have been born in May or June 1953. The latter has had to wait another year nearly to receive her SP than the former for a few weeks difference in birth date.
    Originally posted by Liffy99
    It has been said many times on here that most people do have concerns over the small group of women who had their age accelerated by the 2011 changes at very short notice. It WASPI have been less nimby and greedy and focused on the genuine cases of unfairness, then they may very well have got a better deal.

    Campaigning for something that would be illegal (discrimination) and highly unpopular with everyone else (if they got their pension reduced despite over 20 years notice, why should everyone else get theirs increased with less than 20 years notice) as well as damned expensive and unaffordable is never going to succeed.
    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.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 12th Jan 18, 2:52 PM
    • 3,562 Posts
    • 5,468 Thanks
    Malthusian
    Not so worried about the actual SPA but the cliff edge calculation that so disadvantaged some compared to others. For example two women might have been born in May or June 1953. The latter has had to wait another year nearly to receive her SP than the former for a few weeks difference in birth date.
    Originally posted by Liffy99
    No they haven't. A woman born on 1 May 1953 reaches SPA at 63 years and 2 months. A woman born on 30 June reaches SPA at 63 years and 8 months. Half a year is significant, but not nearly a year. You shouldn't believe everything you read on the WASPI Facebook page.

    The cliff edge is in WASPI's demand for a woman born 31 December 1959 to have a State Pension Age of 60 and a woman born 1 January 1960 to have a State Pension Age of 66. A 6 year cliff edge for a one day difference in age.
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

337Posts Today

2,319Users online

Martin's Twitter