WASPI - Women Against State Pension Inequality

DiggerUK

All the pension changes have ended up a cross between a 'Dangerous Dogs Act' and a dogs breakfast.
I am 3 1/2 years older than Mrs.D, and get my pension 4 1/2 years before her.
Our retirement plans haven't been destroyed, but we are facing between 2 and 3 years more working life than when we made our plans not so long ago..._

missbiggles1

ivyleaf wrote: »

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.

TBF, if you have only 30 years' NICs you would've received a much reduced pension under the older system any way.

oldtractor

why do people thin k it only affects women born in the 1950's? I was born in 1960. it affects me too. I will be 66 and 3 months before I can claim my pension and have 30 years of NIs but they have altered that to 35 now as well.

jem16

oldtractor wrote: »

why do people thin k it only affects women born in the 1950's? I was born in 1960. it affects me too.

People don't think this but unfortunately Waspi are only interested in their own selfish outlook. The Waspi main ask would see someone born 31/12/59 getting a state pension at age 60 and someone born 1/1/60 having to wait until 66 - not very fair at all.

Unfortunately their campaign to help all women born in the 50s regardless of circumstances looks like those most in need will end up with no help.

I will be 66 and 3 months before I can claim my pension and have 30 years of NIs but they have altered that to 35 now as well.

Have you got a pension statement yet? Due to transitional arrangements 30 years calculated under the old rules may well be better than 35 under the new rules. All depends on your circumstances.

Zoodog

The change in spa for women has been changing year by year for 6 years now , why leave it till now to complain ? There was an election last year , who do you think put the Conservatives in power ...just the men's vote ?
Nearly 150,000 have signed the petition , very impressive and well done . But there are over 60 million people in the UK , sure only half might turn out to vote , so do you think your 150 k will make a difference ? Most of the women affected will be 65/66 by the time the next election comes around .
Sorry ladies you have had your debate what the petition earned you , I think it is all over bar the shouting .

colsten

There is an excellent recent blog on this matter: http://www.cashquestions.com/entries/177-Where-does-Waspi-go-from-here

Zoodog

Thanks colsten , that blog is well written and sums it up well .

monkeyspanner

colsten wrote: »

There is an excellent recent blog on this matter: http://www.cashquestions.com/entries/177-Where-does-Waspi-go-from-here

The blog is perhaps well written but I think misses some important points.
- The state pension is not a means tested benefit and should not be replaced with a means tested benefit.
- The 2011 act made changes to both women and mens pension and brought these forward and insufficient advance notice was given.
- The government gave MP and its employees a minimum of 10 years notice of pension changes. The same notice was not given to either the women or men affected by the 2011 changes.
- The question has been subverted by the government to "where is the money coming from?". Whereas the question should be "where has the money gone?"
- The government bleats "the EU insist on age equalisation" whereas in reality the EU has set out the principle of age equalistion but has left the timescale and age up to individual governments.
- The article is charitable to Baroness Altman whereas in reality her stance has turned upon her personal elevation and personal financial advantage. Perhaps Ms Shaws attitude to Baroness Altman could have something to do with her own association with Saga?
- It would have been better for Rachel Reeves to make no suggestions rather than her half hearted attempts in the last debate.
-

jem16

monkeyspanner wrote: »

- The state pension is not a means tested benefit and should not be replaced with a means tested benefit.

It's not. The state pension is still available at state pension age and is non means tested.

The 2011 act made changes to both women and mens pension and brought these forward and insufficient advance notice was given.

The government gave MP and its employees a minimum of 10 years notice of pension changes. The same notice was not given to either the women or men affected by the 2011 changes.

Agreed but important to note that only those between April 1953 and April 1956 had less than 10 years notice. It's also important to note that MPs' pensions are occupational pensions and not state pensions so subject to different rules.

The question has been subverted by the government to "where is the money coming from?". Whereas the question should be "where has the money gone?"

There is no pot of money for state pensions so it can't have gone anywhere. NI contributions today pay today's state pensions. So it's correct to say where is the money going to come from as it would have to be taken from elsewhere.

It would have been better for Rachel Reeves to make no suggestions rather than her half hearted attempts in the last debate.
-

At least it is a suggestion and one that would help those most in need. Unfortunately fully costed suggestions seem to be few and far between from Waspi and its supporting MPs.

Is it only half-hearted because it doesn't fulfil the Waspi "ask" of state pension at age 60 only for 1950s women or is there another reason?

monkeyspanner

jem16 wrote: »

There is no pot of money for state pensions so it can't have gone anywhere. NI contributions today pay today's state pensions. So it's correct to say where is the money going to come from as it would have to be taken from elsewhere.

Sorry to contradict you but there is a pot of money for state pensions its called The National Insurance Fund and here is a link to the Government Actuaries report on the fund of 2010 which was not published until July 2014 as they needed to include the affects of the 2011/14 pension changes in their calculations.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/336829/QR_2010_report_17_July_2014.pdf

This fund is primarily used as a reserve against Pensions with a small amount being used for the NHS and other benefits. Interestingly this fund used to run a surplus balance of around £100Billion and NI contributions would have been supplemented by interest payments at market rates by the Government who borrowed long term against the fund. This at one time would have added around £5Billion a year to the balance. Demand for pensions has increased in recent years due to demographics, but more significantly NI receipts are substantially lower (£57B between 2009 and 2013) than predicted in the 2005 actuarial review due to low wages. The fund is now severely depleted with the posibility that the Treasury will have to supplement the fund. Interest payments are almost at zero because the fund is low and interest rates are low. The 2005 review predicted the fund surplus would be over £103Billion by 2012-13 the reality was a surplus of £29Billion. This generation of women and men are being forced to make up for this failure of government policy.

With the pension changes of 2011 the fund is expected to be in surplus again reaching a peak of around £100Billion in the early 2020's the fund is then once again expected to be depleted by 2030 so I would expect some emergency measures to raise the pension age once again to occur around 2023.