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

Mr_Costcutter

roddydogs wrote: »

So whose gonna pay for this?

No one because it just won't happen.

zagfles

hugheskevi wrote: »

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.

And of course that could have had a far bigger impact - 7 years notice of a change of 5 extra years before a personal pension could be accessed.

monkeyspanner

missbiggles1 wrote: »

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

Perhaps but it wasn't their problem that the 1995 the proposals were for age equalisation at 65 by 2020. In 2011 age equalisation at 65 was brought forward to 2018 and an increase of 1 year to 66 for both men and women was introduced for 2020. The point is that however well informed you were this acceleration and furher increase were made without sufficient notice and this is accepted by Steve Webb the pensions minister at that time.

Although the Waspi campaign campaigns on behalf of women the increase from 65 to 66 is just as unreasonable for both men and women. There is also another increase planned from 66 to 67 between 2026 and 2028. If the government think they can railroad changes through what is to prevent them also accelerating this change when the pension age will be reviewed again in 2017? By 2017 the 66 to 67 change will also be within the 10year notice period recommended by the Turner commission.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller

missbiggles1

monkeyspanner wrote: »

Perhaps but it wasn't their problem that the 1995 the proposals were for age equalisation at 65 by 2020. In 2011 age equalisation at 65 was brought forward to 2018 and an increase of 1 year to 66 for both men and women was introduced for 2020. The point is that however well informed you were this acceleration and furher increase were made without sufficient notice and this is accepted by Steve Webb the pensions minister at that time.

Although the Waspi campaign campaigns on behalf of women the increase from 65 to 66 is just as unreasonable for both men and women. There is also another increase planned from 66 to 67 between 2026 and 2028. If the government think they can railroad changes through what is to prevent them also accelerating this change when the pension age will be reviewed again in 2017? By 2017 the 66 to 67 change will also be within the 10year notice period recommended by the Turner commission.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

Friedrich Gustav Emil Martin Niemöller

That's a particularly inappropriate quotation for this subject matter!

I've said before (several times) that I'm in favour of a campaign on these later changes (not those from 1995) but I don't think people's ignorance of them should be the basis for it. You can hardly be saying how important a change is to you and then claim ignorance of it - if it's that important then you need to keep yourself informed.

monkeyspanner

missbiggles1 wrote: »

That's a particularly inappropriate quotation for this subject matter!

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

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I've said before (several times) that I'm in favour of a campaign on these later changes (not those from 1995) but I don't think people's ignorance of them should be the basis for it. You can hardly be saying how important a change is to you and then claim ignorance of it - if it's that important then you need to keep yourself informed.

I was not ignorant of this matter but some were. Just because some people are not engaged in these matters does not mean that the government can take advantage.

roddydogs

Silly thing is, who just relies on the state pension for their income, yes some have been treated more unfairly than others, but they should have made more provision for old age, when the impact would have been less. All this hand wringing is just something to put on the telly.

missbiggles1

monkeyspanner wrote: »

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



I was not ignorant of this matter but some were. Just because some people are not engaged in these matters does not mean that the government can take advantage.

Unless the government introduces changes by stealth (which wasn't the case here) it is the individual's responsibility to keep themselves informed of changes, particularly if they're personally affected. If they choose not to do so then that is their fault and nobody ele is to blame for it. There are consequences from all our actions but also all our inactions.

OldBeanz

Glad to see the end of the debate which bleats about some poor women while ignoring they are still getting a better deal than men.

Godwin's Law

There are many corollaries to Godwin's law, some considered more canonical (by being adopted by Godwin himself)[3] than others.[1] For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever debate was in progress.[8] This principle is itself frequently referred to as Godwin's law.

mumps

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.

That would certainly fairer, as I said back up the thread it is strange that the SRA increasing by 12 month meant some women had 18 months added to their retirement age.

monkeyspanner

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Unless the government introduces changes by stealth (which wasn't the case here)

I disagree. The original 1995 changes were accelerated and an additional year added to pension age without reasonable notice. Depends on your definition of stealth I suppose.
Successive governments have had decades to see this problem and have made it worse by utilising NI contibutions as current income rather than setting aside provision for variations in birth rates.