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

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

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

Yes clearly many people out there will attempt to instigate such a strategy in many different situations - and to attempt to proceed formally with any claim etc on such basis would be fraudulent

jem16 wrote: »

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.

Well, this would be down to the responsibility of the government of the day. Their duty is to inform etc in such matters. If 59% are saying they were unaware then that is too high to generalise that all of them actually did know but are now 'conveniently' forgetting!

jem16 wrote: »

The 1995 changes were fair and gave plenty of notice -

I agree

jem16 wrote: »

anyone saying they didn't know about them has only themselves to blame.

I disagree. There are many factors to this, including personal circumstances etc. I don't have nearly enough information or knowledge to decide as definitively as you and others are doing.

jem16 wrote: »

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

I agree - great minds and all that .....

saver861

gadgetmind wrote: »

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!

Well if you mean, they are still trying to pull the wool then I would disagree. There are a certain percentage of unscrupulous people out there .... but not 59% of them.

gadgetmind

No, just that many people have the memory of a goldfish when it comes to anything to do with finance and pensions, and regard this as being the fault of others.

zagfles

saver861 wrote: »

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.

But it was only 7 years notice. Announced in 2003, enacted in 2010.

Pretty similar to the 2011 SPA change. And it was for an increase in 5 years in the private pension age, not 18 months.

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.

No, you misinterpret my point. The 59% who didn't know were likely to be those who weren't making plans based on a particular SPA, ie people who didn't have the incentive to look for the information. So why does it matter that they didn't know? They haven't made plans based in incorrect info.

It only matters if you arranged your affairs around a particular retirement date, and arranged them in a way that they are hard to change. Those who did would be those who were likely to seek the correct information, ie be part of the 41%

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.

It's a bit different as it's not a big negative retrospective change for anyone. Well, hardly anyone - there is the issue of GMP indexation which has been discussed to death here. Very few people understand that!

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.

There is a point surrounding the 2011 changes, but this shouldn't be buried in irrelavences around the 1995 changes.

Mr_Costcutter

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I think your comment is condescending at best and your quotation's an insult. As a woman, you should be ashamed of yourself!

Goodness me, you are a fine one to talk. I have just looked at the WASPI thread on Campaign's Corner and your last post.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5330405

Pollycat

zagfles wrote: »

There is a point surrounding the 2011 changes, but this shouldn't be buried in irrelavences around the 1995 changes.

That's why I think the petition is poorly worded......but I've still signed it.

Pollycat

Mr_Costcutter wrote: »

Goodness me, you are a fine one to talk. I have just looked at the WASPI thread on Campaign's Corner and your last post.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5330405

I thought it was intended as a helpful comment.

Paul_Herring

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.

Someone intending to do that would undoubtedly be one of the less ignorant and would be on top of any changes as and when they occurred.

missbiggles1

Mr_Costcutter wrote: »

Goodness me, you are a fine one to talk. I have just looked at the WASPI thread on Campaign's Corner and your last post.

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5330405

Sorry, what do you object to with that?

JezR

I've just taken a brief tour around some early to mid 1990 newspapers. I could easily find coverage of the pension age options initially proposed in the Green Paper in 1991, and the subsequent details in the White Paper in 1993 which included the transition tables more or less ultimately adopted in the Act of 1995. This was not only in financial pages, but political and UK news sections.

There was a 100,000+ signature petition achieved without the benefit of the internet and social media against the White Paper proposal handed in to 10 Downing Street, being in favour of equalisation at 60.