MSE News: Women's state pension petition gathers over 50,000 signatures

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

That is correct. This group has had a considerably different deal to even those women born just a few months previous.

This is one of the quirks of this - why is there such a distinction for this group as opposed to others.

Because the increase to age 66 was supposed to happen by April 2020 so this group was hit the hardest - no other reason.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

Because the increase to age 66 was supposed to happen by April 2020 so this group was hit the hardest - no other reason.

Yes but that does not justify it. The suits could have got out their calculators and redone some numbers to smooth it out better so this group did not stand to lose so much.

hugheskevi

gadgetmind wrote: »

I know at least two people whose retirement plans involved moving overseas where their private pensions could cover most of their needs from age 50. With almost zero notice, their plans were totally scuppered, and one of them was already building a property with their PCLS being required for a fair bit of the construction.

Labour raised the age to 55 in 2010 as part of their departure "poison pill" for the coalition (the other big part being 50% tax!) with zero consultation and almost zero notice.

The change was first proposed in December 2003, in a consultation document. It was all enacted a couple of years later, so people had several years notice, not dissimilar to the notice period of the change to female pension age.

molerat

jem16 wrote: »

The only group of women who have an increase of more than 12 months are those born between 6.10.53 and 5.10.54 so let's get that group changed to 12 months.

Not quite true. Mrs M was born Feb 55 and had hers moved from just under 64/11 to 66. Anyone born before 5 Mar 55 and those born between 7 Mar 55 and 5 Apr 55, the backstop of the 1995 changes, has more than 12 months.

saver861

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Originally Posted by monkeyspanner View Post
A DWP survey of 2004 showed that only 41% of women realised there was pension age equalisation by 2020. But also only around 85% of women knew that the retirement age was at that time 60. Not everyone listens and that is particularly true of politicians.


Then, I'm afraid I have to say that's their problem.

Oh, you don't need to be afraid to say anything ... speak your mind!!!

However, if the survey reflects accuracy, then there is a problem with the messenger rather than the intended recipients. The onus is on the information provider to ensure the subject matter reaches and is understood by its intended audience. If just 41% received the message, then the message has not sufficiently reached its target audience.

I'm afraid I have to say, that is not the fault of the remaining 59%!

neilvw

monkeyspanner wrote: »

A DWP survey of 2004 showed that only 41% of women realised there was pension age equalisation by 2020. But also only around 85% of women knew that the retirement age was at that time 60. Not everyone listens and that is particularly true of politicians.

Were women affected aware of it?

A DWP Research Report in 2004 found that some 73 per cent of
respondents aged 45 to 54 were aware that the government was
increasing women’s SPA. However, only 43% of those affected were able to identify their own SPA as being 65 years or between 60 and 65 years. This low figure was identified as a cause for concern, showing that information about the increase in the SPA was “not reaching the group of individuals who arguably have the greatest need to be informed.”

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7405/CBP-7405.pdf

roddydogs

So whose gonna pay for this?

missbiggles1

saver861 wrote: »

Oh, you don't need to be afraid to say anything ... speak your mind!!!

However, if the survey reflects accuracy, then there is a problem with the messenger rather than the intended recipients. The onus is on the information provider to ensure the subject matter reaches and is understood by its intended audience. If just 41% received the message, then the message has not sufficiently reached its target audience.

I'm afraid I have to say, that is not the fault of the remaining 59%!

But, to use monkeyspanner's link,

"A DWP survey of 2004 showed that only 41% of women realised there was pension age equalisation by 2020. But also only around 85% of women knew that the retirement age was at that time 60. ."

So whose fault is it that 15% of the female population didn't know what the "normal" female retirement age was and had been for half a century?

You can lead a horse to water and all that......

zagfles

saver861 wrote: »

Oh, you don't need to be afraid to say anything ... speak your mind!!!

However, if the survey reflects accuracy, then there is a problem with the messenger rather than the intended recipients. The onus is on the information provider to ensure the subject matter reaches and is understood by its intended audience. If just 41% received the message, then the message has not sufficiently reached its target audience.

I'm afraid I have to say, that is not the fault of the remaining 59%!

I'm afraid to say it is! Presumably the vast majority of those 59% hadn't been planning their retirement at a particular age anyway - if they had then surely they'd done a bit of basic research. So it's not relevant - it's only relevant to those who had made plans based around a particular retirement age.

I've not been sent a personal letter telling me my state pension age is now going to be 67. And don't expect to. Since when are the govt expected to individually notify people of changes in law? I thought there was a principle of "ignorance of the law is no excuse".

What next - if an employer discriminates on the ground of sex could he use the excuse "nobody wrote to me to tell me about the sex discrimination act" :rotfl:

molerat

Another one on the news this morning who "thought she was going to get her pension at 60" and now faces financial hardship. Obviously been asleep for the past 20 years.