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
    • Pennylane
    • By Pennylane 7th Jun 16, 8:36 AM
    • 1,994Posts
    • 5,451Thanks
    Pennylane
    WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions
    • #1
    • 7th Jun 16, 8:36 AM
    WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions 7th Jun 16 at 8:36 AM
    https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/why-waspi-campaigners-right-complain-we-should-all-glad-steve-bee

    A good article.
Page 52
    • badmemory
    • By badmemory 6th Oct 17, 7:09 PM
    • 810 Posts
    • 790 Thanks
    badmemory
    You 2 initially did my blood pressure no good at all! I saw this raising it's (ugly) head again & thought please who's let them back on here. Thankfully I was wrong & my blood pressure has gone back down but I feel an ominous "but how long for" coming on. So I need a slap too for bumping it yet again!
    • peterg1965
    • By peterg1965 6th Oct 17, 7:39 PM
    • 1,995 Posts
    • 1,685 Thanks
    peterg1965
    If you're going to tell a lie, tell a big one, and tell it repeatedly. (Joseph Goebbels, inter alia multa.)

    Corbyn's Labour believe that they are in the vanguard of a transition to a post-capitalist economy - which in practical terms means they can promise whatever they like. £60 billion, £8 billion, two thousand, they're all just numbers, and who's to say that 2 + 2 can't equal 5. In the post-capitalist economy everyone will get their fair share, regardless of age, gender or employment status; all this talk of State Pensions and National Insurance and deficits is pre-post-capitalist thinking. In the meantime we can give WASPI £60 billion without any cuts or tax rises simply by printing it, and this won't devalue the currency because look over there, a squirrel.

    They don't care whether it gets them votes or not, if they cared about votes they wouldn't have elected Corbyn in the first place. The socialist revolution is inevitable and there was no need for people to vote for it in Russia, Poland or Hungary.
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    Can i please quote this fantastic poignant post in other forums?
  • jamesd
    Labour didn’t offer them anything worthwhile
    Originally posted by Mortgagefreeman
    Anyone got a link to what Labour actually proposed?

    The detail-free press I've seen suggests that it might be something I'd actually support:

    1. means tested, so it helps those in real financial need.
    2. for those who can't do their accustomed work, so not paid to those not normally looking for work anyway, like house-husbands or wives or the already normally retired. Bonus if it reflects local job availability not just age
    3. not immediate full state pension. Unclear if it's age-related gradual. increase from working age to retired means tested levels or immediate reduced state pension (that would have Minimum Income Guarantee issues after reaching SPA). Seems like a potentially sensible recognition of the reality of the job market and some useful transition smoothing.

    Of course the announcement was blatantly illegal and unjustifiable gender discrimination because it only mentioned women but like Pension Credit age I assume the actual policy will be lawfully gender neutral and specified as payable within x years of the oldest of male and female state pension age.

    We could see a fairly useful and sensible working age benefit coming out of this.

    Of course that won't help those WASPI supporters who think that just being female gives them an inherent right to benefit from a continued eight years of extra state pension compared to men, plus the extra three years of being alive while the men are dead, based on life expectancy difference. Eliminating both SPA and life expectancy differences should be the policy. Money later can be unfortunate but being dead is far worse than possibly having to use means tested benefits.
    Last edited by jamesd; 08-10-2017 at 8:59 PM.
    • Mortgagefreeman
    • By Mortgagefreeman 9th Oct 17, 10:36 AM
    • 409 Posts
    • 913 Thanks
    Mortgagefreeman
    The early reduced Pension at riced rate, seems to have been rejected by the ‘professionals’ as unable to implement in time I.e by the time it reached the statute books, they’ll have retired anyway. Also that it would have to apply to both sexes otherwise it would contravene the Equality act.

    Articles here, but it looks like you need to log on to see it.

    https://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/3018235/industry-rejects-labours-early-state-pension-plans-for-waspi-women
    Remoaners. Embrace your inner Brexit and become a 're-leaver'
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 9th Oct 17, 11:04 AM
    • 3,077 Posts
    • 4,467 Thanks
    Malthusian
    Anyone got a link to what Labour actually proposed?
    Originally posted by jamesd
    I hope you're not expecting detail on a financial issue from Labour.

    The proposal is essentially to allow women born in the 1950s to take their State Pension two years early at age 64, with a reduction of "a few pounds a week" which will be cost neutral. That seems to be it.

    There isn't really a lot wrong in theory with the idea of being able to take a reduced State Pension two years early. Any DB scheme or annuity provider can cope with calculating a "cost-neutral" reduction for taking a pension two years early.

    However the general idea of "early State Pension" is a non-starter, because in reality, everyone would take their State Pension as early as possible, and then complain that it wasn't enough to live on, and march in the streets until the Government caved in. The State Pension is set at a level which is just about adequate to live on by itself - a State Pension reduced for early access will therefore be inadequate, and will therefore have to be increased. So any proposal for a "reduced early State Pension" is in reality a proposal for a non-reduced early State Pension, and we can't afford it.

    In theory (again) this is not such a big problem if it is a one-off option, available only to a limited demographic cohort and with a very modest scope (only 2 years early rather than 5 or 10). Knock £10 or so off the State Pension and it's probably enough to live on, and even if it isn't, people born in the 1950s who took their pension two years early won't form a big enough political force to demand to have their cake and eat it.

    In practice the Government fears the thin end of the wedge. Moreover WASPI want the reversal of the 1995 Pensions Act and six years' worth of backdated pension payments with no reduction, so a reduced State Pension two years early is of no interest to them. So there is no political will behind it.
    Last edited by Malthusian; 09-10-2017 at 3:22 PM.
    • Mortgagefreeman
    • By Mortgagefreeman 9th Oct 17, 12:02 PM
    • 409 Posts
    • 913 Thanks
    Mortgagefreeman
    Labour's proposal to allow women born in the 1950s to access their state pension from age 64 at a lower rate was rejected by 56%.

    Some criticised the idea on equality grounds and others on cost.
    A pundit said: "It is bad enough that so many women benefited from such blatant sexism for as long as they did. The line has to be drawn. Everybody has known the new state pension ages for ages. Come on ladies - for once take one for the team."

    Another added that this will require equality for men, entrenches lower state pension income for a group, and has knock-on consequences for social security.

    Yet 35% were supportive but with certain conditions such as it should be accessible to everyone and be cost neutral to the Treasury.

    "This should be available to all people, not just women, in the same way that DB pensions can be accessed earlier but at a reduced sacrificed amount," said one.
    https://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/3018235/industry-rejects-labours-early-state-pension-plans-for-waspi-women
    Remoaners. Embrace your inner Brexit and become a 're-leaver'
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 9th Oct 17, 1:24 PM
    • 18,028 Posts
    • 45,939 Thanks
    Pollycat
    The early reduced Pension at riced rate, seems to have been rejected by the ‘professionals’ as unable to implement in time I.e by the time it reached the statute books, they’ll have retired anyway. Also that it would have to apply to both sexes otherwise it would contravene the Equality act.
    Originally posted by Mortgagefreeman
    I agree.

    I'm a late 1953 woman, expected to get my state pension in April 2017 aged 63 years and 6 months (as a result of the 1995 Act).
    Obviously that date has passed.
    My revised date is July 2018 so 9 months away.

    Do we think any government could get this implemented in that time (especially given what else is going on right now)?
    • liffy99
    • By liffy99 9th Oct 17, 1:46 PM
    • 14 Posts
    • 8 Thanks
    liffy99
    Ive not been able to read all the posts in this very long discussion, but I feel that part of the WASPI issue has been rather glossed over.
    Raising and equalising the retirement age is understandable but for my wife (born June 53) there are two observations;
    1) the Government rather rushed this equalisation through. They could have raised the female retirement age more slowly. For my wife this meant a big jump in retirement age from 60 to almost 64.
    2) there is a real problem with the 'cliff edge' pension changes between women who may be born just a few weeks apart. Again in my wife's case, had she been born just 3 weeks earlier she would have received her pension a year sooner. It needed to be aligned more closely with individual age.
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 9th Oct 17, 1:58 PM
    • 18,028 Posts
    • 45,939 Thanks
    Pollycat
    Ive not been able to read all the posts in this very long discussion, but I feel that part of the WASPI issue has been rather glossed over.
    Originally posted by liffy99
    The 'WASPI issue' has been debated on here on numerous threads ad nauseum.
    It has not been 'glossed over'.

    Raising and equalising the retirement age is understandable but for my wife (born June 53) there are two observations;
    1) the Government rather rushed this equalisation through. They could have raised the female retirement age more slowly. For my wife this meant a big jump in retirement age from 60 to almost 64.
    2) there is a real problem with the 'cliff edge' pension changes between women who may be born just a few weeks apart.Again in my wife's case, had she been born just 3 weeks earlier she would have received her pension a year sooner. It needed to be aligned more closely with individual age.
    Originally posted by liffy99
    Your wife's retirement age didn't jump from age 60 to almost 64.
    There was a change in 1995 that raised a woman's pension age from 60.
    "Rushed this equalisation through"?
    How much notice did she actually expect?
    • OldBeanz
    • By OldBeanz 9th Oct 17, 2:06 PM
    • 692 Posts
    • 532 Thanks
    OldBeanz
    Ive not been able to read all the posts in this very long discussion, but I feel that part of the WASPI issue has been rather glossed over.
    No it hasn't, it really hasn't
    Raising and equalising the retirement age is understandable but for my wife (born June 53) there are two observations;
    1) the Government rather rushed this equalisation through. They could have raised the female retirement age more slowly. For my wife this meant a big jump in retirement age from 60 to almost 64.
    She was first told about this in the nineties and then the date was increased by a maximum of 18 months in 2010
    2) there is a real problem with the 'cliff edge' pension changes between women who may be born just a few weeks apart. Again in my wife's case, had she been born just 3 weeks earlier she would have received her pension a year sooner. You can check the info here by putting in the relevant dates https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-age which does not show a year's differenceIt needed to be aligned more closely with individual age.The WASPI case does not mention the inequality with men which is the biggest inequality; men had their pension put back in 2010 - again no support for them; in the WASPI world, triplets one a female born on 31/12/59 gets her pension at 60; the brother born on the same day gets his at 66 and the third child a female born after midnight gets hers at 66. The WASPI case is totally bogus, creating an even bigger cliff edge.
    Originally posted by liffy99
    Done to death.
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 9th Oct 17, 2:12 PM
    • 18,028 Posts
    • 45,939 Thanks
    Pollycat
    Indeed, it doesn't show a year's difference.

    But I've listened to lots of (WASPI) women embroider (to be kind) the truth to make them sound more hard-done-to than is the reality.

    I heard it in the televised debates back in January 2016.
    Shame on those women who misrepresent their circumstances.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 9th Oct 17, 3:35 PM
    • 3,077 Posts
    • 4,467 Thanks
    Malthusian
    Ive not been able to read all the posts in this very long discussion, but I feel that part of the WASPI issue has been rather glossed over.
    Raising and equalising the retirement age is understandable but for my wife (born June 53) there are two observations;
    1) the Government rather rushed this equalisation through. They could have raised the female retirement age more slowly. For my wife this meant a big jump in retirement age from 60 to almost 64.
    Originally posted by liffy99
    There was 20 years' notice. They could have raised the female retirement age more slowly but the rate at which they are raising the State Pension Age is pitifully slow as it is, from the purely financial side - it is already inadequate to keep pace with rising life expectancy.

    Then you have the problem of perpetuating the inequity of women receiving on average 8 extra years' State Pension compared to men (5 years early + 3 years of extra life).

    there is a real problem with the 'cliff edge' pension changes between women who may be born just a few weeks apart.
    Not as much problem as there would be under WASPI's "ask", where there would be a six year cliff edge between women born a single day apart. A woman born 31/12/1959 would get State Pension at 60, a woman born 1/1/1960 at 66.

    A woman born 22 June 1953 has an SPA of 63 years, 8 months, 12 days. A woman born 3 weeks earlier on 1 June 1953 has an SPA of 63 years, 5 months, 5 days. Where are you getting a year's difference from?
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 9th Oct 17, 3:58 PM
    • 18,028 Posts
    • 45,939 Thanks
    Pollycat
    A woman born 22 June 1953 has an SPA of 63 years, 8 months, 12 days. A woman born 3 weeks earlier on 1 June 1953 has an SPA of 63 years, 5 months, 5 days. Where are you getting a year's difference from?
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    I've done a slightly different calculation.
    Assuming liffy99's wife was born on 1st June 1953 (the earliest date she could be), her state pension date would be 6/11/2016 (63 years, 5 months and 5 days).
    If she had been born 3 weeks earlier - on 11th May 1953 - she would also have a state pension date of 6/11/2017 (63 years 5 months and 26 days).

    Taking it to the other end:
    liffy99's wife born on 30/6/1953 - state pension date 6/3/2017 (63 years, 8 months & 6 days)
    liffy99's wife born on 9/6/1953 - state pension date 6/3/2017 (63 years, 8 months & 25 days)

    In both examples, liffy99's wife actually get her pension on the same day as someone born 3 weeks earlier.

    So where does this 'Again in my wife's case, had she been born just 3 weeks earlier she would have received her pension a year sooner' come from?
  • jamesd
    Raising and equalising the retirement age is understandable but for my wife (born June 53) there are two observations;
    1) the Government rather rushed this equalisation through. They could have raised the female retirement age more slowly. For my wife this meant a big jump in retirement age from 60 to almost 64.
    Originally posted by liffy99
    In the 1993 Budget the Chancellor announced that equalisation was to start from 2010. The 1995 Act implemented this and the planned dates for women born up to 5 April 1953 haven't changed, that group reached state pension age in 6 March 2016. As well as those highly prominent events the changes were mentioned more than 600 times in the printed press, from women's weeklies to major newspapers. So from then she could have had 23 years of notice, from 1993 to 2016.

    But she's also affected by three other changes:

    1,2. The single tier state pension, applicable to those reaching state pension age from 6 April 2016. For those with limited work history but lots of credits, mostly women, it increases the state pension by about £40 a week, from the basic state pension to single tier. Little difference in the early years for those with full working lives. She also probably benefited from the earlier reduction from 43 years to 30 for the full basic state pension then 35 for single tier, a further improvement on what was expected in 1995.

    3. the 2011 Pensions Act. This increased her state pension age to 6 November 2016. A bit over five years notice of an extra 6-7 months. Saving about £700-800 a year more could bridge that assuming a full single tier state pension.

    If she is one of those women with limited work history but lots of credits she seems lucky, she was delayed just long enough to get the higher pension, close to missing out.

    2) there is a real problem with the 'cliff edge' pension changes between women who may be born just a few weeks apart. Again in my wife's case, had she been born just 3 weeks earlier she would have received her pension a year sooner. It needed to be aligned more closely with individual age.
    Originally posted by liffy99
    There have been two big cliff-edges:
    1. the five year state pension age difference in state pension age for fraternal twins and others based solely on their gender at state pension age (changing legal gender changes the age)
    2. the three years when women are getting their state pension and men are dead, based on life expectancy differences
    • parcival
    • By parcival 9th Oct 17, 4:42 PM
    • 431 Posts
    • 261 Thanks
    parcival
    I suggest that all WASPI related threads are suspended with no further posts allowed. There is no point in going round and round the houses on this.......
    • brewerdave
    • By brewerdave 9th Oct 17, 4:44 PM
    • 4,497 Posts
    • 1,841 Thanks
    brewerdave
    Plus one with post # 1035!!
  • jamesd
    had she been born just 3 weeks earlier she would have received her pension a year sooner' come from?
    Originally posted by Pollycat
    Close enough for thinking she might have been in the 6 March to 5 April 1953 group who were the last on the 1995 Act and the last to miss out on the single tier state pension. Not quite right on the 3 weeks, but about 8 is close enough for his point. Those 8 or so weeks could be getting her about £40 a week extra for life minus the extra delay. A bit under two years to catch up on the delay then she's in pure profit.

    Assuming she's in the maximum improvement group. If she has an extensive work record her only gain might be the better index linking between basic state pension and single tier, triple lock instead of CPI.
    • Triumph13
    • By Triumph13 9th Oct 17, 4:59 PM
    • 1,073 Posts
    • 1,299 Thanks
    Triumph13
    I've done a slightly different calculation.
    Assuming liffy99's wife was born on 1st June 1953 (the earliest date she could be), her state pension date would be 6/11/2016 (63 years, 5 months and 5 days).
    If she had been born 3 weeks earlier - on 11th May 1953 - she would also have a state pension date of 6/11/2017 (63 years 5 months and 26 days
    Originally posted by Pollycat
    You might want to edit that typo quickly before you start getting quoted by WASPI as 'proving' their case!
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 9th Oct 17, 5:04 PM
    • 18,028 Posts
    • 45,939 Thanks
    Pollycat
    You might want to edit that typo quickly before you start getting quoted by WASPI as 'proving' their case!
    Originally posted by Triumph13
    As you've pointed it out so nicely, I'll leave your post to rectify my error.
    • Intoodeep
    • By Intoodeep 10th Oct 17, 2:02 PM
    • 903 Posts
    • 1,282 Thanks
    Intoodeep
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

2,070Posts Today

6,736Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @LordsEconCom: On Tuesday Martin Lewis, Hannah Morrish & Shakira Martin gave evidence to the Cttee. Read the full transcript here: https?

  • Ta ta for now. Half term's starting, so I'm exchanging my MoneySavingExpert hat for one that says Daddy in big letters. See you in a week.

  • RT @thismorning: Can @MartinSLewis' deals save YOU cash? ???? https://t.co/igbHCwzeiN

  • Follow Martin