WASPI - Women Against State Pension Inequality

Nationwide8

jem16 wrote: »

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?

As with so many things there is no easy answer but I don't see why middle aged women,some of whom are in ill health,who have worked for years with an end goal in sight of 60 should then be forced to work until 66 because someone somewhere decided to move the financial goalposts.
Some of the personal stories of their constituents the MPs spoke about demonstrated the real personal hardship of many women because of the change.

It's all matter of opinion what you consider as a financial priority.....I would hope a compromise could be reached somehow in time for this age group of women to benefit but with this Government I doubt it.

p00hsticks

jem16 wrote: »

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?

I think on the numerous threads over on the Pensions board, most people following the debate seemed to think that the most sensible option seemed to be to keep the age at which people are eligible for pension credit (which currently mirrors women's SPA) rising as per the original 1995 timetable rather than the accelerated 2011 one. As this is a means tested benefit, it should help those most severely impacted by the changes but would cost relatively little.

Pollycat

Nationwide8 wrote: »

As with so many things there is no easy answer but I don't see why middle aged women,some of whom are in ill health,who have worked for years with an end goal in sight of 60 should then be forced to work until 66 because someone somewhere decided to move the financial goalposts.
Some of the personal stories of their constituents the MPs spoke about demonstrated the real personal hardship of many women because of the change.

It's all matter of opinion what you consider as a financial priority.....I would hope a compromise could be reached somehow in time for this age group of women to benefit but with this Government I doubt it.

The goalposts were first moved in 1995 because of a move towards equality with men's SPA.

I'm not sure how many woman can honestly - hand on heart - say they weren't aware of these changes.

As a woman born late 1953, I'd known for more than 16 years that my SPA would be 63 years and 6 months.
However, the 2011 changes put back my SPA by a further 15 months to 64 years and 9 months.

It's that (2011) change that a lot of women - me included - think should be addressed.

Nationwide8

Pollycat wrote: »

It's that (2011) change that a lot of women - me included - think should be addressed.

Sorry Yes this is what i meant,am new to the "debate" so got my facts a bit muddled

Pollycat

Nationwide8 wrote: »

Sorry Yes this is what i meant,am new to the "debate" so got my facts a bit muddled

It's easy to get muddled when you read some of the stuff WASPI are saying and some of the blatantly untrue statements some women have made to their MPs (listening to the debate on Thursday).

If you're interested, there's at least 4 long threads on the Pensions' board.

jem16

p00hsticks wrote: »

I think on the numerous threads over on the Pensions board, most people following the debate seemed to think that the most sensible option seemed to be to keep the age at which people are eligible for pension credit (which currently mirrors women's SPA) rising as per the original 1995 timetable rather than the accelerated 2011 one. As this is a means tested benefit, it should help those most severely impacted by the changes but would cost relatively little.

Totally agree with that idea although I thought the idea was to take Pension Credit back to pre 1995 ages so that help would be available for those over 60 but in severe financial hardship?

However I was more interested in what WASPI supporters thought should happen to help those really in need.

Pollycat

Just for awareness, there is a furter debate scheduled for 1st Feb.
The Pensions Committee is asking for input to 'inform the debate':

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5398345

Deadline is 10am Thursday 28th January.

Please note the thread in the link above is solely for this purpose:

UKParliament wrote: »

The Committee would like to hear:

• What were the most important points in the first debate for you? What do you think should have been covered that was not?
• What points do you think a second debate should focus on?
• What questions would you ask the Minister following their response to the debate?

Any other comments would be more appropraite posted on the following thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5384925

ukcarper

jem16 wrote: »

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?

Pollycat wrote: »

The goalposts were first moved in 1995 because of a move towards equality with men's SPA.

I'm not sure how many woman can honestly - hand on heart - say they weren't aware of these changes.

As a woman born late 1953, I'd known for more than 16 years that my SPA would be 63 years and 6 months.
However, the 2011 changes put back my SPA by a further 15 months to 64 years and 9 months.

It's that (2011) change that a lot of women - me included - think should be addressed.

I agree my wife was told in 2011 she would have to work another 18 months before she could claim her pension.

ivyleaf

I was definitely told about the changes in 1995, because we were all moaning about it at work. But I worked at the local Social Security office, so we may have been told by the Civil Service Pensions people, I can't remember.

As Pollycat says - I was born at a similar time - it's the changes in 2011 that are the most problematic for me too.

I somehow doubt any transitional help would be brought in before I reach my SPA in any case, if indeed it happens at all.

The other thing is that I would have had just about about enough years of NI contributions for a full state pension, and now I haven't.

p00hsticks

ivyleaf wrote: »

The other thing is that I would have had just about about enough years of NI contributions for a full state pension, and now I haven't.

Don't be misled by some of the scaremongering about this. There's been a lot of misleading wordplay around the use of the term "full" pension.

The 'new' state pension full (maximum) amount (£155.65) is considerably much more than the current basic amount (£115.95).

It sounds like you have 30 years of NI contributions.
Under the current rules that entitles you to the full £115.95 basic pension - and if you were "contracted in" to SERPS or the State 2nd pension you might get more.

The new rules coming in April require 35 years, but the maximum amount is going to be £155.65. 30/35ths of that is £133.41 (although there may be deductions if you were contracted out).

You need to get a personal State Pension Statement to find out exactly what you can expect.
https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-statement

But rest assured that the transitional rules mean that you won't receive less under the new State pension than you would under the current rules - on 6th April 2016 you'll start with whichever figure is higher, the one using the current and new rules) and will have the opportunity to increase it further up to the new maximum.

So you won't receive less and may well receive more than what you would have expected under the existing rules, even if you can't call it a 'full' pension.