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
    • MSE Luke
    • By MSE Luke 10th Jul 17, 11:01 AM
    • 246Posts
    • 57Thanks
    MSE Luke
    MSE Guest Comment: WASPI campaign responds to Pensions Minister's advice to take...
    • #1
    • 10th Jul 17, 11:01 AM
    MSE Guest Comment: WASPI campaign responds to Pensions Minister's advice to take... 10th Jul 17 at 11:01 AM
    Jane Cowley, a WASPI director, reacts to the Pensions Minister's suggestion that WASPI women become apprentices...
    Read the full story:
    'Guest Comment: WASPI campaign responds to Pensions Minister's advice to take up apprenticeships'

    Click reply below to discuss. If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.
Page 2
    • haras_nosirrah
    • By haras_nosirrah 11th Jul 17, 12:32 PM
    • 1,301 Posts
    • 2,446 Thanks
    haras_nosirrah
    she has said that 1950's women only found out a year before retirement that they weren't retiring for a further 6 years - were these women living in dark rooms with no tv, radio, newspapers for the last 20 years while sticking their fingers in their ears going la la la I can't hear you? How on earth did they miss the changes
    I am a Mortgage Adviser
    You should note that this site doesn't check my status as a Mortgage Adviser, so you need to take my word for it. This signature is here as I follow MSE's Mortgage Adviser Code of Conduct. Any posts on here are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as financial advice.
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 11th Jul 17, 12:47 PM
    • 1,794 Posts
    • 2,214 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    she has said that 1950's women only found out a year before retirement that they weren't retiring for a further 6 years - were these women living in dark rooms with no tv, radio, newspapers for the last 20 years while sticking their fingers in their ears going la la la I can't hear you? How on earth did they miss the changes Posted by haras_nosirrah
    Sarah - I'm fully convinced that they did hear about the changes, but chose to ignore them because 'retirement is a long way off' and/or 'this only applies to pensioners, not me'.
    • bmm78
    • By bmm78 11th Jul 17, 12:57 PM
    • 420 Posts
    • 563 Thanks
    bmm78
    Sarah - I'm fully convinced that they did hear about the changes, but chose to ignore them because 'retirement is a long way off' and/or 'this only applies to pensioners, not me'.
    Originally posted by Silvertabby
    The DWP surveys suggest that most women knew something was changing, although they were a bit foggy on the detail.

    Ultimately it doesn't really matter at this point who knew and who didn't. There was no legal compulsion on the government to send unprompted information about the changes, and the initial plans for 1995 (Budget Statement) and 2011 (Conservative Manifesto) were announced in on very visible platforms.

    Regardless of who knew and who didn't, it is a reasonable expectation that people should have taken personal responsibility and planned their retirement with upto date information.
    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
    • Doc N
    • By Doc N 11th Jul 17, 1:00 PM
    • 6,389 Posts
    • 19,292 Thanks
    Doc N
    she has said that 1950's women only found out a year before retirement that they weren't retiring for a further 6 years - were these women living in dark rooms with no tv, radio, newspapers for the last 20 years while sticking their fingers in their ears going la la la I can't hear you? How on earth did they miss the changes
    Originally posted by haras_nosirrah
    Too right! We were affected but well aware of the changes - we even discussed it at the time with other people also affected.

    The sensible ones took any action necessary, but the rest just ignored it with the usual "I'll worry about that when it happens".

    There's no reason on this earth for taxpayers to bail out people who are just bleating because they took the easy 'ignore' option. Any more than we should bail out people who don't bother to take out insurance.

    There will be fury if WASPI get their selfish way on this!
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 11th Jul 17, 2:01 PM
    • 1,794 Posts
    • 2,214 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    In hindsight, the re-equalisation of State pension age should have been part of the 1975 Sex Discrimination/Equal Pay acts. That way, the increases could have started from - say - 1990 - and would have been much more gradual.. I can only suppose that Harold Wilson thought that whilst the equalisation of pay would be a ladies vote winner, the re-equalisation of pension ages wouldn't.

    The Women's Lib/Dagenham Ladies etc campaigns for equal rights and equal pay were a little before my time, but I've done a bit of research on them. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I can't find any mention of State pension ages being included in the women's demands for full equality with men........
    • JezR
    • By JezR 11th Jul 17, 2:18 PM
    • 1,512 Posts
    • 1,074 Thanks
    JezR
    In hindsight maybe it should have been dealt with at the same time as the introduction of SERPS (taking full effect 20 years later so the full benefit of SERPS would have been made), combined with a complete ending of reduced rate National Insurance for married women. However, all of these measures may have been painted in the short term as taking more money from women.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 11th Jul 17, 2:43 PM
    • 3,294 Posts
    • 5,004 Thanks
    Malthusian
    Aw, this is getting very DMish. Attack the message - and it needs to be attacked - not the messenger.
    Originally posted by le loup
    But WASPI's one and only card is personal need, which means the messenger is the message. They have no legal or moral reason to demand an earlier State Pension than a man of the same age or a woman born in 1960 - their sole argument is "we really need the money". So "they don't really need the money" is a perfectly legitimate counterargument. You can't moan about ad hominems when your whole argument is the ex hominem "look at my weeping sores".

    In hindsight, the re-equalisation of State pension age should have been part of the 1975 Sex Discrimination/Equal Pay acts.
    Originally posted by Silvertabby
    No doubt, but everyone knew at the time that the 1995 Pension Act was long overdue, and that it still didn't go far enough, which is why we got the 2012 Act. And the 2012 Act didn't go far enough either, which is why we will get the 20?? Act within the next decade or so. Every measure by the Government has been a piecemeal effort to buy time rather than a genuine attempt to bring spiralling State Pension costs under control.
    • antrobus
    • By antrobus 11th Jul 17, 3:15 PM
    • 15,275 Posts
    • 21,789 Thanks
    antrobus
    Too right! We were affected but well aware of the changes - we even discussed it at the time with other people also affected....
    Originally posted by Doc N
    What of WASPI’s complaint about a failure to communicate directly with individuals? This is not unproblematic. Firstly, many legislative changes are made which have consequences for individual finances but are not individually communicated. Secondly, neither WASPI nor the Select Committee acknowledge widespread media coverage of the 1995 decision to equalise state pension ages (the Financial Times’ correspondent Josephine Cumbo presented the committee with a list of 600 newspaper articles between 1993 and 2006 on equalisation and its implications for women).


    http://www.historyandpolicy.org/opinion-articles/articles/women-against-state-pension-inequality-a-distraction-from-deeper-problems

    Presumably you read one or more of those 600 articles.
    • colsten
    • By colsten 11th Jul 17, 6:53 PM
    • 8,788 Posts
    • 7,466 Thanks
    colsten
    No doubt, but everyone knew at the time that the 1995 Pension Act was long overdue, and that it still didn't go far enough, which is why we got the 2012 Act. And the 2012 Act didn't go far enough either, which is why we will get the 20?? Act within the next decade or so. Every measure by the Government has been a piecemeal effort to buy time rather than a genuine attempt to bring spiralling State Pension costs under control.
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    Point of order, if I may.....

    There was no 2012 Pensions Act. Only A 2011 one.

    There was also a 2007 Pensions Act, which was partly un-done by the 2011 Act as the rise to 66 was brought by it.

    Then there was a 2014 Pensions Act, which partially brought the increase to 67, first legislated in 2007, forward a bit more.

    The remaining rise to 67, and the rise to 68, remains for the time being as legislated in 2007. A statement from Government on optentially bringing these forward is overdue.


    This table summarised the increases nicely:
    https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310231/spa-timetable.pdf
    • colsten
    • By colsten 11th Jul 17, 7:00 PM
    • 8,788 Posts
    • 7,466 Thanks
    colsten
    Last Wednesday (5th July), cross-party MPs spent more than an hour describing the financial hardship caused to some 3.5 million women born in the 1950s who have been affected by the changes made to the State Pension Age.
    Originally posted by MSE Jason Mills
    MSE Jason Mills, one of the key issues there is that is a straight-forward lie that some 3.5m women born in the 1950s are in financial hardship. To be honest, I can't recall that any of the MPs in last Wednesday's debate has actually claimed that this is the case.

    There is no evidence for this from elsewhere, either. WASPI themselves have less than 3,500 paid up members, and less than 71,000 'likes' on their Facebook page. Their e-petition, which could also be signed by people not directly affected by the increases, had less than 195,000 signatures after several months of hard lobbying for signatures.

    By whatever measure, there is no evidence whatsoever that would support that the number of affected women in financial hardship is significant, and definitely it isn't anywhere near all the 3.5m women born in the 1950s.

    Nor is there any evidence whatsoever that the WASPI campaign have ever put those in financial hardship first. They haven't even seen it fit to officially communicate Guy Opperman's specific offer that he and his team will listen to hardship cases that MPs bring to him. Nor has MSE, unless I have overlooked it. Why is that?
    • colsten
    • By colsten 11th Jul 17, 7:23 PM
    • 8,788 Posts
    • 7,466 Thanks
    colsten
    First and foremost, MSE is a consumer champion website and given the large number of consumers affected by these changes, it is editorially appropriate that MSE reports and provides its users with WASPI coverage.
    Originally posted by MSE Jason Mills
    I would agree, it is very appropriate that MSE report on the state pension age increases which directly affect every woman born after 5/4/1950, and every man born after 5/12/1953, and indirectly also men born between 6/4/1950 and 6/12/1953 as the Pensions Credit Age rises in line with women's SPA. It is, however, most disconcerting that you do not provide a comprehensive account of the effects of the state pensions age rises legislated in 1995, 2007, 2011 and 2014. In particular, I find it distressing that you are not reporting about the millions of tax payers who would have to fund the payments WASPI are demanding for themselves. Why are you excluding those consumers from your WASPI coverage?



    On reading the transcript of the debate, there’s no doubt that Pensions Minister, Guy Opperman MP put forward apprenticeships as one of the key solutions to those women affected by the changes state pension age:

    “Thirdly, we have also extended apprenticeship opportunities—one of the best routes into skilled employment—for people of all ages and gender. For example, in England in 2014 to 2015, 12% of those starting apprenticeships were aged over 45.”

    Originally posted by MSE Jason Mills
    This remark was very clearly in the context of Guy Opperman explaining "that the Government have done a massive amount on a progressive basis to get people back into employment or retraining in their pre-pension years". He never said apprenticeships were "a key solution" for WASPI.

    As an important aside, MSE should be aware that WASPI are making a misrepresentation when claiming that they represent 3.5m women born in the 1950s. They do not have permission from most of those women to speak for them, nor have they ever sought such permission from most of them.
  • jamesd
    There will be fury if WASPI get their selfish way on this!
    Originally posted by Doc N
    Here's one of the secrets to persuading MPs: write a letter on real paper to your own MP at their constituency office. It's significantly more effective than electronic communication. Better to try to stop something happening than deal with it afterwards.

    Just in case they haven't read the debate you might consider quoting the minister's offer to help as well. They and their staff might appreciate the help in dealing with some of the tough cases of constituents who really are often in significant financial need before they contact their MP. While it won't be a number remotely close to all women in the age range there are some and they deserve all of the help with finding work or claiming benefits that is available to them.
    Last edited by jamesd; 12-07-2017 at 12:50 PM.
    • Doc N
    • By Doc N 12th Jul 17, 12:54 PM
    • 6,389 Posts
    • 19,292 Thanks
    Doc N
    I would agree, it is very appropriate that MSE report on the state pension age increases which directly affect every woman born after 5/4/1950, and every man born after 5/12/1953, and indirectly also men born between 6/4/1950 and 6/12/1953 as the Pensions Credit Age rises in line with women's SPA. It is, however, most disconcerting that you do not provide a comprehensive account of the effects of the state pensions age rises legislated in 1995, 2007, 2011 and 2014. In particular, I find it distressing that you are not reporting about the millions of tax payers who would have to fund the payments WASPI are demanding for themselves. Why are you excluding those consumers from your WASPI coverage?


    This remark was very clearly in the context of Guy Opperman explaining "that the Government have done a massive amount on a progressive basis to get people back into employment or retraining in their pre-pension years". He never said apprenticeships were "a key solution" for WASPI.

    As an important aside, MSE should be aware that WASPI are making a misrepresentation when claiming that they represent 3.5m women born in the 1950s. They do not have permission from most of those women to speak for them, nor have they ever sought such permission from most of them.
    Originally posted by colsten
    Very much agree. This money doesn't come from nowhere - it comes from additional tax/NIC which will have to be levied on others.

    And although my wife is one of those affected, she was fully aware of the situation well in advance and reluctantly accepted the delayed pension which resulted from it. She is livid at the WASPI approach - and certainly does not consider herself to be represented by them. Her view (and mine) is that this is an additional burden that should not be placed on the younger people who would have to pay for it.
    • Paul_Herring
    • By Paul_Herring 12th Jul 17, 1:08 PM
    • 6,179 Posts
    • 2,905 Thanks
    Paul_Herring
    Here's one of the secrets to persuading MPs: write a letter on real paper to your own MP at their constituency office. It's significantly more effective than electronic communication. .
    Originally posted by jamesd
    I've tried that in the past with other issues (revolving around personal choice and responsibility - I'm for it, he isn't.)

    My MP apparently considers me to be an idiot and now refuses to listen to me on anything else.

    The feeling is mutual.
    Conjugating the verb 'to be":
    o I am humble
    o You are attention seeking
    o She is Nadine Dorries
    • Mortgagefreeman
    • By Mortgagefreeman 24th Jul 17, 5:43 PM
    • 410 Posts
    • 914 Thanks
    Mortgagefreeman
    This made me laugh!
    https://twitter.com/graspi4/status/889480365118828545
    Remoaners. Embrace your inner Brexit and become a 're-leaver'
    • haras_nosirrah
    • By haras_nosirrah 22nd Aug 17, 6:33 PM
    • 1,301 Posts
    • 2,446 Thanks
    haras_nosirrah
    The sad thing is that the people they want to pay for their £40,000 each (for millions of them - do the maths) is the younger generation. They complain that their kids are stuck with huge student debts, can't get affordable housing etc but then say they want the same population to pay them 40k each. I am a woman of 34 - I am currently due to retire at 68 but am fully expecting it to be 70 or means tested by the time I get there and am therefore preparing to never get a pension. I pay 15% of my salary and my company pays 8% of my salary into a work pension scheme (about £7.5k a year paid into my pension) and it is predicted to be worth 5k a year when I retire. A person on a gold plated teacher pension, who has been able to retire early, lives in a 700k+ house is complaining that my generation and younger who do not get generous employer pensions, need two salaries to buy a 2 bed ex council house and leave university with 50k of debt owe her 40k just because she wants some extra cash - jog on love.
    Last edited by haras_nosirrah; 22-08-2017 at 6:54 PM.
    I am a Mortgage Adviser
    You should note that this site doesn't check my status as a Mortgage Adviser, so you need to take my word for it. This signature is here as I follow MSE's Mortgage Adviser Code of Conduct. Any posts on here are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as financial advice.
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 22nd Aug 17, 6:49 PM
    • 1,794 Posts
    • 2,214 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    The sad thing is that the people they want to pay for their £40,000 each (for millions of them - do the maths) is the younger generation. They complain that their kids are stuck with huge student debts, can't get affordable housing etc but then say they want the same population to pay them 40k each. I am a woman of 34 - I am currently due to retire at 68 but am fully expecting it to be 70 or means tested by the time I get there and am therefore preparing to never get a pension. I pay 15% of my salary and my company pays 8% of my salary into a work pension scheme (about £6k a year paid into my pension) and it is predicted to be worth 5k a year when I retire. A person on a gold plated teacher pension, who has been able to retire early, lives in a 700k+ house is complaining that my generation and younger who do not get generous employer pensions, need two salaries to buy a 2 bed ex council house and leave university with 50k of debt owe her 40k just because she wants some extra cash - jog on love.
    Well said. From a 1950s woman.
    • JoeCrystal
    • By JoeCrystal 22nd Aug 17, 7:04 PM
    • 1,292 Posts
    • 755 Thanks
    JoeCrystal
    I pay 15% of my salary and my company pays 8% of my salary into a work pension scheme (about £7.5k a year paid into my pension) and it is predicted to be worth 5k a year when I retire.
    Originally posted by haras_nosirrah
    Please do not lose hope, the fact your pension pot is getting 23% of the salary will help you greatly in the long run. From what I understand and I may be wrong but the projection used by the pension provider is more pessimistic than not.
    • haras_nosirrah
    • By haras_nosirrah 22nd Aug 17, 7:36 PM
    • 1,301 Posts
    • 2,446 Thanks
    haras_nosirrah
    Please do not lose hope, the fact your pension pot is getting 23% of the salary will help you greatly in the long run. From what I understand and I may be wrong but the projection used by the pension provider is more pessimistic than not.
    Originally posted by JoeCrystal
    bloomin well hope so. I put in a pension tracking website up to 40% of my salary as a contribution along with 8% of my employer and it still said I was under target of getting 2/3 of my salary as an income when I retire. I think I got up to around 65% of my salary going in to get 2/3 of my income in retirement. I am on 32k so not a ridiculously small income. I have been contributing for 10 years and currently have 88k in there. Very depressing.
    I am a Mortgage Adviser
    You should note that this site doesn't check my status as a Mortgage Adviser, so you need to take my word for it. This signature is here as I follow MSE's Mortgage Adviser Code of Conduct. Any posts on here are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as financial advice.
    • Teaandscones
    • By Teaandscones 22nd Aug 17, 8:25 PM
    • 117 Posts
    • 93 Thanks
    Teaandscones
    bloomin well hope so. I put in a pension tracking website up to 40% of my salary as a contribution along with 8% of my employer and it still said I was under target of getting 2/3 of my salary as an income when I retire. I think I got up to around 65% of my salary going in to get 2/3 of my income in retirement. I am on 32k so not a ridiculously small income. I have been contributing for 10 years and currently have 88k in there. Very depressing.
    Originally posted by haras_nosirrah
    Add in the state pension and you should be OK. BUT only if it isn't means tested in which case most of your pension saving will have been a waste of time.

    There are only 2 real options for the government to control state pension costs, namely :

    1. increase state pension age with longevity which is current policy or

    2.to means test it which is the inevitable outcome of conceding WASPI claims for state pensions to continue to be based at age 60 (and probably Corbyn's policy of fixing SPA at 66 for ever)
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

130Posts Today

1,727Users online

Martin's Twitter