WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

13637394142104

Comments

  • saver861
    saver861 Posts: 1,408 Forumite
    Tammykitty wrote: »
    I do think it is very unfair that my mum who was born in March 53, has her pension already (From Jan 16 - aged 62 and 10 months), her sister, who was born just 10 months later in Jan 54, won't get hers until she is 65 and 4 months. ( A Full 2 years 6 months older than my mum.)


    However I also think its unfair that a man born on the same day as my mum, won't get his pension to 65.

    I think most people would agree with you. Soon those born on the same day will have their pension on the same day.

    Women born today will have a much more equal life and career opportunities as a man born today. That was very much not the case for a woman and a man born 60+ years ago.
    Tammykitty wrote: »
    There is no easy answer

    I think the answer is being implemented by bringing in equalisation of pension ages for both men and women.

    The problem is, in doing so, the transition period has thrown up a considerable unfairness as seen by your mum and her sister. That specific gap should not be nearly as great as it is. Had it been levelled better then most people would have been satisfied, including probably your mum, your auntie and you.
  • I'm not sure if I have this correct but to me when I started work in 1969 and commenced contributing to national insurance in 1971 I was told my retirement age would be 60. I have always worked and always contributed to national insurance. In 1995 (some 26 years after I starred to contribute) the rules were changed. I was not notified of this I was expected to discover it by osmosis or via "the media", not in my experience the most reliable way to find out anything. I got a pension forecast and found I was now "entitled" to the pension I was paying for at age 62 and 4 months. I was annoyed, this was not what I had expected but I was in work and in good health and the reasons put forward (longer life expectancy, increased cost of an ageing population etc) seemed reasonable so I huffed and tutted and carried on working. Then in 2011 the rules changed again, still no notification was received but again I saw confused and confusing information in "the media" not least the DWP's own website which still told me my retirement age was 60! I checked again and found my state pension age was 64 and 9 months. By the time I reach that I will have paid in for 47 years but I still will not get the new flat rate pension because for part of my life I worked in the NHS which made me contracted out so I am not eligible but because I did not work there long enough I am not entitled to an NHS pension. So to me, I expected to retire at 60 which is now put back to 64 & 9 months so that's 4 years and nine months of delay not 18 months. I will have paid into the system for five extra years for nothing as it will not bring me any extra pension. If I had expected to retire at 65 and that had been increased to 66 that's ONE year of delay. For me the changes in 2011 are the ones that I object to. The additional delays are too much, why should an age difference of six months make YEARS of difference to when anyone can get a pension. This was a badly thought out and rushed piece of legislature, all over Europe these changes are being phased in much more slowly and that is what should have happened in the UK. Governments should not be allowed to change the goalposts in a way that private enterprise would never be allowed to do. It seems as if they (and many of those commenting on the situation) believe we are all little housewives working for pin money and really all kept and looked after by the man of the house: that isn't the case. This is discriminatory and unfair. Which is what WASPI is shouting about and so they should!
  • p00hsticks
    p00hsticks Posts: 12,645
    First Post Name Dropper Photogenic First Anniversary
    Forumite
    I will have paid into the system for five extra years for nothing as it will not bring me any extra pension.

    For the majority of your working life, up to 2010, you would have needed 39 years contributions to get a full basic rate pension of £119.30. It only went down to 30 years in 2010 before being increased to 35 earlier this year as part of the new State Pension (nSP) . So I don't think its really correct to talk about having to get five extra years - you actually need less now that you should have been aiming for for most of your working life.
    for part of my life I worked in the NHS which made me contracted out so I am not eligible but because I did not work there long enough I am not entitled to an NHS pension.

    Have you actually got a pension statement to see how much you'll get ? It seems strange that you've apparently been contracted out long enough to see a significant deduction made under the nSP transitional rules, but no so long as to actually receive any private pension ?
  • jem16
    jem16 Posts: 19,393
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Photogenic
    Forumite
    I got a pension forecast and found I was now "entitled" to the pension I was paying for at age 62 and 4 months.

    Have you still got this pension forecast? Perhaps you can post it here?
    Then in 2011 the rules changed again, still no notification was received but again I saw confused and confusing information in "the media" not least the DWP's own website which still told me my retirement age was 60!

    I'm pretty sure it was the Government Gateway that showed that information and not the DWP website. It's not good enough I agree but it never actually told you your retirement age but gave a general statement saying women's retirement age was 60. However as you say you had a forecast before that then you would have known it was wrong.
    I checked again and found my state pension age was 64 and 9 months.

    If this age is accurate then the other one must be wrong. The maximum increase for the 2011 Act relative to the 1995 Act was 18 months.

    All the more reason for seeing the previous forecast which I hope you will be able to do for us.
    By the time I reach that I will have paid in for 47 years but I still will not get the new flat rate pension because for part of my life I worked in the NHS which made me contracted out so I am not eligible but because I did not work there long enough I am not entitled to an NHS pension.

    Can you elaborate on that because it doesn't really make sense I'm afraid. You would only be contracted out if you joined the NHS pension scheme and if you joined you would be eligible for a pension.

    If you left the NHS and took a refund of contributions, you would have had to pay tax and NI which would have meant you weren't contracted out.
    For me the changes in 2011 are the ones that I object to.

    Most people here agree with that especially for 1953/54 women.
    This was a badly thought out and rushed piece of legislature,

    The 1995 Act which saw most of the increase was not badly thought out and certainly not rushed. It gave 15 years' notice before it even started and was meant to take 10 years to complete - a total of 25 years.
    This is discriminatory and unfair. Which is what WASPI is shouting about and so they should!

    I think you have the Waspi campaign mixed up with something else. Waspi claim to agree with equalisation.
  • xylophone
    xylophone Posts: 44,010
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    edited 19 July 2016 at 9:21PM
    OP, have you had a new state pension forecast showing your "starting amount"?

    https://www.gov.uk/check-state-pension

    If so, what is it?

    Does it show a COPE?

    What is your date of birth?

    Are you working and paying (or being credited with) NI and and will this be the case up to your state pension age?
  • Yes I would have paid 40 years by 2011. I would have retired in 2013 (age 60) with 42 years of contributions. I will now work till 2018. That's five extra years?
  • When I worked in the NHS if you had less than five years of contributions it was refunded as "not viable" to use as a pension pot but because you had paid in you were contracted out. Under the flat rate pension rules it clearly states that you will not be entitled to the flat rate pension if you were contracted out.
  • I was referring to the 2011 act nit the 1995 one in the comment about badly thought out and rushed. Perhaps I had not made that clear
  • As far as I know WASPI stands for women against state pension inequality. Therefore against descriminatory and unfair changes wouldn't you say.
  • mystic_trev
    mystic_trev Posts: 5,430
    Name Dropper First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    As far as I know WASPI stands for women against state pension inequality. Therefore against descriminatory and unfair changes wouldn't you say.

    Well they certainly seem to be discriminating against men.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.8K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.3K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.4K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 606.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.7K Life & Family
  • 247.2K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards