ex-minister Steve Webb admits bad decision

grey_gym_sock

MPD wrote: »

This gives those affected longer to accrue pensions, both state and private. They will also have a higher income for longer because they are working longer. All they need to do is plan how to spend their extra income.

that's completely wrong. ppl are already free to keep working beyond state pension age. actually, it's easier to save more of your earnings after SPA (via a private pension, or elsewhere), because you're no longer liable to pay NI contributions. and because you're receiving state pension, so you can save that too! (or you can defer it, thereby increasing your state pension when you do start drawing it.)

very simply, delaying when somebody can draw state pension makes them poorer. i'm not saying it shouldn't happen, providing enough notice is given, but it doesn't make the ppl directly affected better off.

Pollycat

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

that's completely wrong. ppl are already free to keep working beyond state pension age. actually, it's easier to save more of your earnings after SPA (via a private pension, or elsewhere), because you're no longer liable to pay NI contributions. and because you're receiving state pension, so you can save that too! (or you can defer it, thereby increasing your state pension when you do start drawing it.)

very simply, delaying when somebody can draw state pension makes them poorer. i'm not saying it shouldn't happen, providing enough notice is given, but it doesn't make the ppl directly affected better off.

I think most people understand why state pension age is being put back but the bit in bold is key in the context of the original post and the linked article which is about the women affected by the additional deferment of their state pension age from what they had understood it to be for many years e.g. in my case:

Pollycat wrote: »

I'd known for many years that I wouldn't get my state pension at age 60 but I'd get it in April 2017 (aged 63.5 years).
At very short notice it was changed to July 2018 - an extra 15 months for me.

SallyG

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/work-and-pensions-committee/understanding-the-new-state-pension/oral/25270.html

"Steve Webb: First of all, let us take the middle of that group, April 1952. If I was born in 1952 and my pension age was going to be 62 and I thought it was 60, and I only found out six months before, I would be furious. Of course there are a set of people about whom that is clearly true, and that is why I absolutely sympathise with them. They present as though they are uniquely unfairly treated, and in fact unfairness obviously depends on whom you compare yourself with. Actually, I think there are other groups who might have a greater claim to feeling aggrieved."

jem16

SallyG wrote: »

"Steve Webb: First of all, let us take the middle of that group, April 1952. If I was born in 1952 and my pension age was going to be 62 and I thought it was 60, and I only found out six months before, I would be furious.

Women born in April 1952 should only be furious with themselves if they only found out 6 months before considering it has been known since 1995 that their state pension age would be 62. Have they been sticking their head in the sand for 20 years?

JezR

The 2004 DWP Research Document 'Public awareness of State Pension age equalisation' Steve Webb refers to is here in the National Archives.

It shows that at the time, only 43 per cent of all women who would be affected by the 1995 Act increase in SPA were able to identify their own SPA as being 65 years or between 60 and 65 years.

Of those not affected by the 1995 changes, 81% knew that their retirement age was 60.

Twenty percent of those under 44 thought that the SPA for women was already 65.

SallyG

From the November WASPI posts:
"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."
How was the acceleration justified and communicated ?

monkeyspanner

SallyG wrote: »

From the November WASPI posts:
"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."
How was the acceleration justified and communicated ?

The acceleration was a cost savings measure. If I recall correctly it saved an additional £10B. Objections were raised at the time relating to the disproportionate effect on women in the relevant age group. I believe letters were sent out by DWP in 2012 giving revised SPA information. These reflected the changes made in the Pensions Bill 2011. However the one letter I have seen advised a woman whose pension age was raised by 14months to 66 that she did not need to take any action as a result of the change.

Figgerty

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

surely you mean 18 months. unless you expected to draw a pension at the same time as ppl born 1 year before you?

No, I mean 3½ years (42 months) later, worse than I stated as there is only exactly 1 year age difference.

DOB 13.12.1952 already receiving state pension from 06 Sept 2015

DOB 15.12.1953 future state pension age 06 March 2019

Please check the timetable below to verify the details.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310231/spa-timetable.pdf