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

Goldiegirl

saver861 wrote: »

What does surprise me is how women are not prepared to support their fellow women in such matters.

I support people if I agree with their campaign.


At this point, I can't support this campaign, as it harps on too much about the changes in 1995, and uses over-dramatic language to make it's point.


If it was solely about the 2011 changes I might have considered signing the petition - but it's not


And I certainly don't support a woman, just because she's a woman!

zagfles

saver861 wrote: »

Well lets see now.

If 85% of the women said they were aware of the equalisation by 2020 then I would have said the government succeeded in getting the message out. However, as it says only 41% were aware, I would deduce from that the government did not get the message across sufficiently.

How does that compare to other pensions legislation, for instance the increase in the age for personal pensions to 55? How does it compare with any other legislative change?

Should people be informed of every legislative change by letter? What happened to the "ignorance of the law is no defence" principle?

15% were not aware of the normal retirement age. That is considerably different from the 59% unaware of the 1995 changes.

I have no clue how the information was disseminated in 1995. However, at that time, very few households had a personal computer. The internet, as we know it, was in its very early stages of infancy. There was no forums etc. etc.

If we consider some practical assertions:
- women were less likely to be working, or less likely to be working full time. The workplace is often a source of information.
- women were more likely to be at home rather than down in the local etc. Again, a source of information
- some women were more likely to be living in difficult home situations etc etc.

Some of these factors may contribute to the 15% or 59%.

Raising the pension age from 60 to 65 was not exactly good news. Governments have a knack of looking for 'good ways to sneak out bad news'.

It wasn't "sneaked out". Otherwise 41% wouldn't be aware. I would wager hardly any of that 59% who didn't know have made un-changeable plans to retire at 60. That's all that matters. If they didn't know, but haven't made solid plans based around a SPA of 60, then why does it matter?

It only matters if eg someone gave up their job at 58 with the expectation of the state pension at 60, intending to live off savings for 2 years. Someone who was about to do that would surely double check the rules first.

For others it's no different to eg young women who only just discover they have to pay the same car insurance as young men, or men who now only get the same annuity rate as women.

saver861

missbiggles1 wrote: »

In 1995, internet access was less common

That's probably the understatement of the thread, if not the forum!

I would hazard a guess that 80% of people did not know what the internet was in 1995. Many may have heard the word banded about at the time but had no concept of its purpose or potential at that time.

missbiggles1 wrote: »

but there was lots about the changes in the traditional media. Unless a woman had some form of learning disability there was no reason for her not to be aware of what was happening,

Condescending?

missbiggles1 wrote: »

nor in the intervening years.

Less reason to be unawares as the sources of have grown over the years. However, contrast that to the fact that if there is do discussion about a topic then it will not appear in the current media. There would have been discussion at the time in 1995, and again in 2011. I'm not sure how much took place in the intermediate years.

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I think your comment is condescending at best

I don't

zagfles

saver861 wrote: »

What does surprise me is how women are not prepared to support their fellow women in such matters. Women don't need men to put them down - lots of women do a pretty good job of putting their peers down without any need for male intervention!!!

Perhaps because most women aren't the sort of hypocrites who say they want equality but then argue for inequality in the state pension age to be preserved as long as possible

missbiggles1

saver861 wrote: »

If we consider some practical assertions:
- women were less likely to be working, or less likely to be working full time. The workplace is often a source of information.
- women were more likely to be at home rather than down in the local etc. Again, a source of information
- some women were more likely to be living in difficult home situations etc etc.

.

Or how about -

all these women who (you say) were at home had their radios on for most of the day and sometimes even sat down and watched daytime TV?

saver861

zagfles wrote: »

How does that compare to other pensions legislation, for instance the increase in the age for personal pensions to 55? How does it compare with any other legislative change?

When the pension changes to 55 occurred in my personal pension scheme I was informed by the scheme provider with various methods, letters, leaflets etc. I could not have missed it.

zagfles wrote: »

Should people be informed of every legislative change by letter? What happened to the "ignorance of the law is no defence" principle?

But you misinterpret my point - I am merely saying that if 59% of the people affected by the change were not aware, then there was a disconnect. In that case, if those figures are true, the information provider failed to sufficiently inform. If the majority were not aware then the message was not clear.

Case in point with the current pension changes. Many people are still confused about the new pension rules. Statements have been changed etc to simplify the information. The original methods of information have failed for its target audience. The complexity of these two situations are different but the concepts are the same.

zagfles wrote: »

It only matters if eg someone gave up their job at 58 with the expectation of the state pension at 60, intending to live off savings for 2 years. Someone who was about to do that would surely double check the rules first.

I would agree 20 yrs is enough time to make alternative arrangements. My argument is that the changes in 2011 were unfair particularly to a certain group of women AND they did not have the time to make up the shortfall in many cases. This is not a case of not being aware - it is simple logistics. So, you can't then say, it does not matter - it may not to you, but it does to those being impacted.

Pollycat

zagfles wrote: »

Perhaps because most women aren't the sort of hypocrites who say they want equality but then argue for inequality in the state pension age to be preserved as long as possible

I'm not arguing for the inequality in the state pension age to be preserved as long as possible - just for the revised SPA date I was given 20 years ago (as part of the move towards equality which I fully support) to be honoured, not changed within 6 years of my revised SPA because somebody cocked up and didn't realise the implications for some women - as evidenced by the link in this thread:
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5376467

I didn't obect to the goalposts being moved and my SPA put back by over 3 years 20 years ago, it's the moving of those goalposts again that I think is unfair.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

Unfortunately many people forget when they did not know something.

Unfortunately many people also forget when they did know something when the rules won't allow them to do something they want to do.

I'm on these forums as it is a source of interest, moneysaving etc. My wife has no interest in such matters whatsoever.

That is indeed the crux of the matter. Back in 1995 when most of the women concerned were in their 40s, many weren't interested in pension matters. That was something for "old" people and didn't concern them at that point. They probably did hear about the changes but weren't interested so paid very little attention. Now they will say they "didn't know" about them.

The 1995 changes were fair and gave plenty of notice - anyone saying they didn't know about them has only themselves to blame.

The 2011 changes gave too little notice, especially to a particular group of women. This is where the focus should lie.

saver861

Goldiegirl wrote: »

At this point, I can't support this campaign, as it harps on too much about the changes in 1995, and uses over-dramatic language to make it's point.

I personally do not think there is sufficient merit in any argument in relation to the 1995 changes. If it were solely about that, I would not be particularly interested in the debate.

Goldiegirl wrote: »

If it was solely about the 2011 changes I might have considered signing the petition - but it's not.

I have signed it because this is unfair and unjust to a certain proportion of women.

Goldiegirl wrote: »

And I certainly don't support a woman, just because she's a woman!

At last - we agree on something!!

I would, however, give the benefit of the doubt - regardless of who I support.

gadgetmind

saver861 wrote: »

it says only 41% were aware, I would deduce from that the government did not get the message across sufficiently.

Go back and ask exactly the same people who said "Oh, wasn't previously aware of that!" in that survey, and I bet they'd tell you that they still aren't aware of it!