WASPI - Women Against State Pension Inequality

Goldiegirl

jem16 wrote: »

What about 1950s men, 1960s mean and women? When does it become fair?

Exactly - if they got their way, a fifties woman would retain her age 60 state pension age, and the next group would wait until 66?


So a woman born one day would retire at 60, and then another one born a day later, after their cut off point would retire at 66:eek:


Now that would be a tad unfair!


From the vibe on their Facebook page, I think they are getting a bit carried away with themselves and have stopped thinking straight

moneyistooshorttomention

I think the basic point is that, at some point, people become too old for the goalpost to be changed on them personally.

I had read the newspaper articles at the time the Government decided to change my State Pension Age - so I did know personally. BUT the point was that I was too old to have that happen then - ie as I had already spent so long in the workforce and knowing my retirement age was 60.

When I saw what the Government was going to do my very first thought was "But I'm in my 40s - that's too old for them to do that to me. I could understand if I was in my 20s. I could maybe even understand if I were in my 30s. But - my 40s:eek:".

The amount of notice given (even to those who don't trust the Government to tell us personally about these things - so read the papers) seems to have gone down and down. It was very short notice for those poor women only literally a few months younger than myself when the Government came back for another "slice of flesh" and revised that SPA again fairly recently. Those women were in their 50s:eek::eek: and many of them had already retired or semi-retired on the basis of knowing when their revised SPA had been set at some years previously and it must have proven literally impossible for many of them to even be able to manage to change their plans by then if they tried to (eg they'd retired knowing they would get their SP at, say, 63 and finding themselves needing to get another job - and not being able to get one).

Many women will have done that retirement or semi-retirement in their 50s after careful calculation as to how long their savings would last them and then decision that those savings would last until their revised SPA. But those calculations would have been thrown into chaos for many by that additional time they would have been told those savings had to last for.

Goodness knows - I had carefully calculated my savings and planned for many years in order to be able to continue to retire at 60 and those savings only just about carried me through that gap between 60 and my revised SPA! So I can sympathise with women who get told (with little notice) that their savings will have to help them get through some extra months - as I don't think mine would have been able to stand the strain of having to do so personally.

Pollycat

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

I think the basic point is that, at some point, people become too old for the goalpost to be changed on them personally.

I had read the newspaper articles at the time the Government decided to change my State Pension Age - so I did know personally. BUT the point was that I was too old to have that happen then - ie as I had already spent so long in the workforce and knowing my retirement age was 60.

When I saw what the Government was going to do my very first thought was "But I'm in my 40s - that's too old for them to do that to me. I could understand if I was in my 20s. I could maybe even understand if I were in my 30s. But - my 40s:eek:".

The amount of notice given (even to those who don't trust the Government to tell us personally about these things - so read the papers) seems to have gone down and down. It was very short notice for those poor women only literally a few months younger than myself when the Government came back for another "slice of flesh" and revised that SPA again fairly recently. Those women were in their 50s:eek::eek: and many of them had already retired or semi-retired on the basis of knowing when their revised SPA had been set at some years previously and it must have proven literally impossible for many of them to even be able to manage to change their plans by then if they tried to (eg they'd retired knowing they would get their SP at, say, 63 and finding themselves needing to get another job - and not being able to get one).

Many women will have done that retirement or semi-retirement in their 50s after careful calculation as to how long their savings would last them and then decision that those savings would last until their revised SPA. But those calculations would have been thrown into chaos for many by that additional time they would have been told those savings had to last for.

Goodness knows - I had carefully calculated my savings and planned for many years in order to be able to continue to retire at 60 and those savings only just about carried me through that gap between 60 and my revised SPA! So I can sympathise with women who get told (with little notice) that their savings will have to help them get through some extra months - as I don't think mine would have been able to stand the strain of having to do so personally.

How many year's notice do you think would be appropriate?

I am one of the women affected.

I knew about the 1995 changes very early on, can't remember how but I was working for a pretty large organisation so the information was proably disseminated by HR.
I was OK with that, I'd got 18 more years to work to get my occuaptional pension and I could see the fairness in bringing men & woman SPA into line.

The 2011 changes were - in my opinion - unfair to women who had been given revised SPA dates years earlier and were expecting their pensions to be paid at age 63 or 64.

jem16

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

When I saw what the Government was going to do my very first thought was "But I'm in my 40s - that's too old for them to do that to me. I could understand if I was in my 20s. I could maybe even understand if I were in my 30s. But - my 40s:eek:".

Consultation started in the early 1990s with it actually going through Parliament in 1995. For all women's affected it gave 20 years notice, which is almost half a working life. I think that was pretty fair.

How much notice do you feel would have been appropriate?

monkeyspanner

jem16 wrote: »

Consultation started in the early 1990s with it actually going through Parliament in 1995. For all women's affected it gave 20 years notice, which is almost half a working life. I think that was pretty fair.

How much notice do you feel would have been appropriate?

I believe 10 years is considered appropriate by the government or 15 years if you accept the Turner Commission findings. The 1995 changes were not imlemented as originally planned in that the completion of the scheduled age equalisation to age 65 was brought forward from 2020 to 2018 and in addition the age was increased to 66 in the 2011 changes. Thus aware or not of the original schedule of the 1995 changes some people's plans had to be changed at short notice. The 2011 changes also affected men at short notice.
If you accept the 10year notice period the original 1995 plans should have been left unchanged and the increase to 66 should have been introduced in 2021/22 at the earliest.

jem16

monkeyspanner wrote: »

If you accept the 10year notice period the original 1995 plans should have been left unchanged and the increase to 66 should have been introduced in 2021/22 at the earliest.

Totally agree with this and I think the WASPI campaign would have been better concentrating on the 2011 changes which would have more chance of success as it is definitely short notice and unfair.

Unfortunately bringing the 1995 changes into it and suggesting that increases were up to 6 years is not a good move in my opinion.

You seem to be quite involved in the Facebook pages. There has been quite a few posts recently from people who have mentioned the unfairness of the campaign towards both men born in the 1950s and women born early 1960 in particular. These posts have since disappeared and appear to have been deleted by the group which is very disappointing and doesn't seem to promote their aim of fairness.

Do you agree with their deletion and can give any idea as to why they're being deleted?

monkeyspanner

jem16 wrote: »

Totally agree with this and I think the WASPI campaign would have been better concentrating on the 2011 changes which would have more chance of success as it is definitely short notice and unfair.

Unfortunately bringing the 1995 changes into it and suggesting that increases were up to 6 years is not a good move in my opinion.

You seem to be quite involved in the Facebook pages. There has been quite a few posts recently from people who have mentioned the unfairness of the campaign towards both men born in the 1950s and women born early 1960 in particular. These posts have since disappeared and appear to have been deleted by the group which is very disappointing and doesn't seem to promote their aim of fairness.

Do you agree with their deletion and can give any idea as to why they're being deleted?

Sorry I am not involved in the Facebook pages and have no idea of the reasons why the posts have been removed although I have noticed that some "editing" is being done. Incidentally that editing is not confined to posts that do not promote the exact WASPI cause. I am not in favour of editing unless the post is offensive or the OP requests removal as I believe debate and the development of ideas is useful.
Although I agree that attempting to recind the 1995 (as originally proposed) changes is a step too far I am more inclined to believe that the original campaign wording did not have the benefit of a public debate. I may of course be wrong and the originators of the Waspi Campaign may actually believe in a complete reversal of the 1995 Bill. I do, however, believe that their campaign has merit and that the 2011 changes were rushed through to the detriment of a small group of women and a smaller group of men. Therefore I support their campaign.

jem16

monkeyspanner wrote: »

Sorry I am not involved in the Facebook pages and have no idea of the reasons why the posts have been removed although I have noticed that some "editing" is being done.

When I said involved I meant as in posting rather than running the site.

I am not in favour of editing unless the post is offensive or the OP requests removal as I believe debate and the development of ideas is useful.

Totally agree.

I may of course be wrong and the originators of the Waspi Campaign may actually believe in a complete reversal of the 1995 Bill. I do, however, believe that their campaign has merit and that the 2011 changes were rushed through to the detriment of a small group of women and a smaller group of men. Therefore I support their campaign.

2011 changes were definitely pushed through with little notice. As to the 1995 changes the information was there for anyone who wanted to educate themselves - at some point you have to accept personal responsibility rather than expect to be spoon fed.

Nationwide8

Am not in this age group....at the moment my state pension age is 67...this could change of course.Even after working and paying NI for nearly 35 yrs will consider myself lucky if I ever get the State Pension.

Just wanted to say watched a very interesting debate on this in the House of Commons on Tuesday ? Weds....brilliant speech by a young Scottish MP,Sorry forgot her name.....so many women's lives affected and certain MPs superior non empathetic attitudes make you want to spit.

jem16

Nationwide8 wrote: »

Just wanted to say watched a very interesting debate on this in the House of Commons on Tuesday ?

debate was on Thursday and I watched it too. Some good points made but saddened to see some inaccurate points made too - turned a bit political for my liking.

So how do you suggest helping those women ( and men ) most in need?

Do we compensate all 1950s women back to age 60, regardless of need, as per WASPI's aim? How much will that cost?