WASPI - Women Against State Pension Inequality

colsten

The start of my state pension is being delayed by over 5 years by the legislation. I haven't signed, and I won't be signing, the WASPI petition for 2 main reasons:

1. I have known about the increases since 1995/2011 respectively as it was widely reported in the news; and I know that if I need further information about my state pension I can just go to gov.uk. In fact, I did get a state pension forecast via that site about 10 years ago.
   
   I find it hard to believe that most women of my age have not at some stage in their fifties, or even in their forties, figured out what their state pension age is.
   
   
2. I disagree with the WASPI demand that all women born in the 1950s should be treated as if they had been born before 1950 - i.e. state retirement age for all those would effectively remain at 60, and the inequality would just continue. There would also be an arbitrary cliff for anyone born in the 1960s.
   
   There will be many women who, like myself, will have made appropriate provision and will not suffer hardship because of the pension age increase. It would be obscene of me and of them to demand money which we do not need. The overall bill to the taxpayer of the WASPI demands is in the region of £110 billion. If that sort of money were available, it should be used for people who have a genuine need, not the likes of myself, or the WASPIs who love fast cars, good wines and their horses (according to their Twitter profiles).
   
   There will be some women, and men, who will be in financial difficulties because they are unable to get an income from a job in their 60s, and/or who won't have alternative means until they get their state pension. I fully support that they should receive transitional payments but this isn't what WASPI are demanding. The transitional payment I would support would be means-tested, e.g. only be available to people (men and women) who are within 5 years of their [new] State Pension Age and who have no income, no savings and have not engaged in deprivation of assets. The transitional payments would also not be higher than state pension would be if the recipient was eligible for state pension.
   

peter_the_piper

I'll admit I have not read all the posts but how is it considered ok for the mens pensions to creep up from 65 and the ladies jump from 60 to 65?

molerat

peter_the_piper wrote: »

I'll admit I have not read all the posts but how is it considered ok for the mens pensions to creep up from 65 and the ladies jump from 60 to 65?

It would not be OK if that is what was actually happening. WASPI or WASPE or WFSPI is a bunch of "entitled" women wanting to keep the status quo by undoing changes made in 1995 which many of them chose to ignore at the time.

jem16

peter_the_piper wrote: »

I'll admit I have not read all the posts but how is it considered ok for the mens pensions to creep up from 65 and the ladies jump from 60 to 65?

That's not what is happening though.

Back in 1995 the decision was made to equalise the state pension age for both men and women at age 65. This was to be done through a gradual increase from 60 to 65 and would start in 2010 and complete in 2020. State pension age for women at the moment is around 62/63 - not sure on exact age just now.

In 2007 it was announced that state pension age would be 66+ for both men and women but did not affect the 1995 changes for women.

In 2011 the increases announced in 2007 were accelerated and also affected the original 1995 gradual increase.

jem16

molerat wrote: »

It would not be OK if that is what was actually happening. WASPI or WASPE or WFSPI is a bunch of "entitled" women wanting to keep the status quo by undoing changes made in 1995 which many of them chose to ignore at the time.

Twitter was quite funny last night with all these furious women insisting that Ros Altmann and everyone else that disagreed with them were "misrepresenting" their campaign.

We've all just misunderstood!

Bogof_Babe

Cameron was on TV the other day saying something like in his view no-one should have to wait longer than an extra 18 months from their original SRP date. I'm now nearly 64 and didn't get mine until I was two months short of 62, so by that token almost everyone would or will have had to wait more than 18 months.

There seems to be a lot of confusion, even in the government.

jem16

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

Cameron was on TV the other day saying something like in his view no-one should have to wait longer than an extra 18 months from their original SRP date.

Cameron was talking about the effect of the 2011 Pensions Act on the state pension age as defined by the 1995 Pensions Act.

Like many, he finds it incredulous to be harping back to something that became law over 20 years ago as if it had never happened.

Mr_Costcutter

My wife will now draw her state pension when she reaches 66. However, she's in the fortunate position of being able to retire early (before 60) because she's 'always' enjoyed secure employment and a high income. However, 'many' women are not in the same position. Low wages have meant that they have not been able to squirrel away money for their retirement. Neither will they enjoy a pension from their employment. Life is tough for many people, but that is seldom acknowledged on these forums.

colsten

Mr_Costcutter wrote: »

Life is tough for many people, but that is seldom acknowledged on these forums.

Life can be even tougher for them if those who don't need the funds demand an equal share for themselves, to support their better-than-average life styles.

BucksLady

Mr_Costcutter wrote: »

Life is tough for many people, but that is seldom acknowledged on these forums.

I agree and sometimes it makes me feel very sad and at other times quite cross.