WASPI - Women Against State Pension Inequality

p00hsticks

slightlymiffed wrote: »

While everyone is arguing about grammar schools (I also went to one)... and some are unkindly suggesting that everyone should have known about the 1995 change to state pension age, perhaps not everyone is yet aware of all the implications of the new 'flat rate' state pension.

For instance, according to new DWP (department of work and pensions) figures released under a Freedom of Information request by Paul Lewis of BBC Moneybox, in my cohort alone (retirement year 2020), some 70,000 will have less than 35 years contributions and so will not get the full flat rate pension. And the figures speak for themselves - 20,000 will be men and 50,000 women. Did everyone know that?

Given the number of threads on the subject that there have been over on the Pensions board over the last twelve months or so, one would hope that anyone who frequents this site and has the slightest interest in pensions would be well aware of the transitional arrangements surrounding the New State Pension and how it's been badly misrepresented to people by certain elements of the media.

I'm very disappointed in Paul Lewis if he has either
a) made reference to a "flat rate pension" and
b) believes that there is a direct link between people not getting the maximum rate and them having less than 35 years NI contributions.
- I'd expect him to know better (unless he's deliberately referring to the terms used in some of the misleading articles in the tabloid press on the subject)

It's correctly the 'new State Pension' (nSP) or 'single Tier' Pension (NOT 'flat rate'). And during the transitional phase, whcih will last many years, there will be a number of people who either
a) have less than 35 years NI contributions but will get more than the new maximum amount (due to SERPS and S2p contributions made in the past) or
b) Have more than 35 years contributions but don't get the full amount (due to having been contracted out for a large part of their working life)

The transitional arrangements will ensure that everyone approaching retirement will get at least what they were expecting to receive under the current rules, with opportunities to increase that amount to the new maximum in many cases if not at that level.

Women, who traditionally are lower paid and are more likely to take career breaks to raise families or act as carers, are one of the sections of society that in general will be long term winners from the nSP

slightlymiffed

No, it was me who referred to the new state pension as 'flat rate' not Paul Lewis. Not everyone affected by the transitional changes to SPA is either computer literate, frequents this site or is as well versed in pension knowledge as you.

Most people probably have known since 1995 that the SPA was changing - but it is the acceleration of the second change in 2011 which WASPI are (rightly) concerned about.

The figures I gave have been directly extracted from DWP data supplied in a FOI request by Paul Lewis dated 29th September and can be found on his blogspot. The figures are not his - they are DWP's.

The figures for the year I was quoting (because it affects me) are extracted from Table 4 of this data - 'Number of people receiving less than the standard full rate of New State Pension - reason for receiving less' under the column 'Due to having less than 35 years contributions'. This does not include those receiving less 'Due to contracting out deductions', which is listed separately.

Long term women may be 'winners' - but it ain't necessarily so, and it most certainly isn't in the short term.

missbiggles1

slightlymiffed wrote: »

While everyone is arguing about grammar schools (I also went to one)... and some are unkindly suggesting that everyone should have known about the 1995 change to state pension age, perhaps not everyone is yet aware of all the implications of the new 'flat rate' state pension.

For instance, according to new DWP (department of work and pensions) figures released under a Freedom of Information request by Paul Lewis of BBC Moneybox, in my cohort alone (retirement year 2020), some 70,000 will have less than 35 years contributions and so will not get the full flat rate pension. And the figures speak for themselves - 20,000 will be men and 50,000 women. Did everyone know that?

Given that people retiring in 2020 will have spent most of their working lives expecting to need 45 years' contributions (men) or 39 years (women), it's hardly going to come as a surprise to them that they don't get a full pension if they have fewer than 35!

p00hsticks

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Long term women may be 'winners' - but it ain't necessarily so, and it most certainly isn't in the short term.

Sorry to be argumentative, but there is no 'most certainly' about it. There will be no 'losers' in the short term, as they will get at least what they would have expected to have got under the existing rules, and many will get more than that, even if they don;t reach the new maximum amount.

The figures from DWP that you refer to yourself confirm that.
http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/

Table 1 shows that 490,000 peope are expected to reach retirement age in 2020.

Of those, table 2 shows that 240,000 (just under half) will receive less than the standard full rate of nSP. However, 190,000 of those will receive a higher pension than they would have under the 'old' (current) rules, and 100,000 of those are women. I'd call those people 'winners' - wouldn't you ?

slightlymiffed

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Given that people retiring in 2020 will have spent most of their working lives expecting to need 45 years' contributions (men) or 39 years (women), it's hardly going to come as a surprise to them that they don't get a full pension if they have fewer than 35!

Sure, I was expecting to have to accumulate 39 years of NI contributions prior to 2010 when it was lowered to 30 years. It's now being increased again to 35 years for the New State Pension. For our generation the goalposts seem to be constantly shifting.

slightlymiffed

p00hsticks wrote: »

Sorry to be argumentative, but there is no 'most certainly' about it. There will be no 'losers' in the short term, as they will get at least what they would have expected to have got under the existing rules, and many will get more than that, even if they don;t reach the new maximum amount.

The figures from DWP that you refer to yourself confirm that.
http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/

Table 1 shows that 490,000 peope are expected to reach retirement age in 2020.

Of those, table 2 shows that 240,000 (just under half) will receive less than the standard full rate of nSP. However, 190,000 of those will receive a higher pension than they would have under the 'old' (current) rules, and 100,000 of those are women. I'd call those people 'winners' - wouldn't you ?

I don't think you are being argumentative but I'm not entirely sure you understand the implications for some of us women born in the mid to late 1950's.

To illustrate it, I will give you a genuine example: I have two friends, one (we'll call her Jane) born January 1951 and the other (we'll call her Mary) born June 1953 and me (slightlymiffed) born July 1954. These are the facts:

Jane has already retired (2011) - she was 60 years and 8 months and is on the current basic pension of £115.95 per week

Mary will retire in September 2016 when she is 63 years 5 months she will be on the New State Pension of approx £150.00 per week.

Slightlymiffed (me!) will retire in May 2020 when I am 65 years and 9 months, (again on the New State Pension of £150.00 per week

So, crunching some numbers here (and it's not my forte!), Jane will have been paid around £30,000 between her state pension age and mine. Mary will have been paid around £15,600 between her pension age and mine and me...well, I'm just one of the 'lucky' 1954 girls who should seemingly just be 'grateful' to be getting anything at all!!

Can you explain how this is a 'fair' way to implement pension change?

missbiggles1

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I don't think you are being argumentative but I'm not entirely sure you understand the implications for some of us women born in the mid to late 1950's.

To illustrate it, I will give you a genuine example: I have two friends, one (we'll call her Jane) born January 1951 and the other (we'll call her Mary) born June 1953 and me (slightlymiffed) born July 1954. These are the facts:

Jane has already retired (2011) - she was 60 years and 8 months and is on the current basic pension of £115.95 per week

Mary will retire in September 2016 when she is 63 years 5 months she will be on the New State Pension of approx £150.00 per week.

Slightlymiffed (me!) will retire in May 2020 when I am 65 years and 9 months, (again on the New State Pension of £150.00 per week

So, crunching some numbers here (and it's not my forte!), Jane will have been paid around £30,000 between her state pension age and mine. Mary will have been paid around £15,600 between her pension age and mine and me...well, I'm just one of the 'lucky' 1954 girls who should seemingly just be 'grateful' to be getting anything at all!!

Can you explain how this is a 'fair' way to implement pension change?

Well, with some pretty dodgy number crunching of my own:o by 2040 you'll only have received £3,480 less than Jane, if that's any consolation.

I think it unavoidable that a change will bring both winners and losers. In your scenario, I'm Jane and my best friend is you, so I'm used to being envied.:o

slightlymiffed

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Well, with some pretty dodgy number crunching of my own:o by 2040 you'll only have received £3,480 less than Jane, if that's any consolation.

I think it unavoidable that a change will bring both winners and losers. In your scenario, I'm Jane and my best friend is you, so I'm used to being envied.:o

If I actually live to 2040 (remember I'd be almost 86), I will be thrilled with my smaller net loss! However, as my mother died at 52 and my father at 70, longevity doesn't really run in my family.

Joking aside, it's ok to say there are winners and losers but you're a winner, Jane and I'm a loser. Should our state pension really be run like a lottery?

p00hsticks

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I don't think you are being argumentative but I'm not entirely sure you understand the implications for some of us women born in the mid to late 1950's.

I do understand, and I'm not entirely unsympathetic (for the record, I'm a woman born in 1960, so although I don't fall victim to the accelerated increase in State Pension Age (SPA)experienced by women slightly older than me, I am still facing an SPA that is six years higher that what I was expecting for the first part of my working life.

But the rise in State Pension Age and the introduction of the new State Pension are two completely separate aspects of Pension reform - it was the latter that you were clearly referring to in your original post #51 to which I responded, as women in their fifties aren't gonig to be disadvantaged by it's introduction and in fact are likely to get more money as a result.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Mary will retire in September 2016 when she is 63 years 5 months she will be on the New State Pension of approx £150.00 per week.

Slightlymiffed (me!) will retire in May 2020 when I am 65 years and 9 months, (again on the New State Pension of £150.00 per week

Your figures may be right, but please don't assume that just because your SPA is after April 2106 that you will receive the standard nSP rate of around £150 a week - as per my previous post, it could be higher or lower, depending on your current pension record (NI years, SERPS, S2P and contracted in or out), as transitional rules will apply for a number of years.

If you (or Mary) haven't already got an up to date pension statement then you should look to get one now to get a clearer idea of what you will actually be getting.
https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-statement

missbiggles1

slightlymiffed wrote: »

If I actually live to 2040 (remember I'd be almost 86), I will be thrilled with my smaller net loss! However, as my mother died at 52 and my father at 70, longevity doesn't really run in my family.

Joking aside, it's ok to say there are winners and losers but you're a winner, Jane and I'm a loser. Should our state pension really be run like a lottery?

But it isn't a lottery, it's a calculation. There are very few changes to anything where everybody's a winner.