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

ManofLeisure_2

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Sorry, what do you object to with that?

It depends upon the way in which you read the comment. It could be perceived as either helpful or there again patronising - despite the .
Having read some of your previous comments on that particulat thread I guess it would be the latter.

ManofLeisure_2

saver861 wrote: »

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!!!

Couldn't agree more.

saver861

zagfles wrote: »

No, you misinterpret my point.

On the contrary - not at all - I believe I fully understand your point

zagfles wrote: »

The 59% who didn't know were likely to be those who weren't making plans based on a particular SPA,

Therein is the difference - you are making an assumption that those 59% were likely to made up of those who had not made any plans.

That might be the case - or it might not. I would say not entirely, if I were offering an opinion, but you or I have no information to make your assumption credible.

My point is simple - the survey says 59% said they were unaware. That is fact - whatever the reason. Thus, if that is correct, then the government failed to inform sufficiently.

zagfles wrote: »

It's a bit different

Not in concept in relation to the current discussion.

I am not a specialist in any matters financial. I do however have more than a passing interest and I would consider myself to be more up todate on such matters than the average man or woman.

Even so, when the information first came out about the new state pension, I was initially under the impression I would qualify for the full £155 amount - given that I had the full qualifying pension years etc. It seems, many were under a similar impression.

It was only later that terms like 'contracted out' etc started to abound that I then realised it was not as I first understood it.

zagfles wrote: »

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

There is a very valid point surrounding the 2011 changes - and as such the two issues are separate. Quite simply a certain group of women have been disadvantaged considerably.

missbiggles1

ManofLeisure wrote: »

It depends upon the way in which you read the comment. It could be perceived as either helpful or there again patronising - despite the .
Having read some of your previous comments on that particulat thread I guess it would be the latter.

Yes, I think "guess " is the operative word.:D

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

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.

But yet you are happy to believe a survey done now.

I am one of the women affected by the changes. I remember taking about it at work with other women of the same age. They all knew about it and how it would affect them. None of us were particularly into financial matters at that time and were not thinking about our retirement.

So yes I do feel I have enough knowledge in this area to decide.

Malthusian

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.

A cynic would say that it was easier to get 100,000 signatures in the day when people understood that if you wanted 100,000 people to sign something you had to knock on people's doors and thrust it in their faces until you got them. As opposed to just sticking it on Facebook and waiting for people to come to you.

I don't understand why they didn't go for broke and demand equalisation at 50. If you're going to shoot for the moon...

MoneyWorry

I look at it another way. I was born in 1960 so am affected, but took the trouble to find out about both rises in SPA at the time. I'm on my own on a fairly small wage so the rise in SPA is giving me more time to be in work and save for retirement. Also, due to being contacted out, I want to stay working till at least 64 so I can get the full flat rate. Even on my modest salary, I'm putting some aside to hopefully retire before 66 and 8 months.

MoneyWorry

Also there is a lot of dangerous emotive talk round WASPI, with thoughts that people do not want to work into their 60's and their jobs should be given to young people. So I certainly won't be signing.

Pollycat

MoneyWorry wrote: »

Also there is a lot of dangerous emotive talk round WASPI, with thoughts that people do not want to work into their 60's and their jobs should be given to young people. So I certainly won't be signing.

Emotive talk from who?

Who thinks that women don't want to work into their 60's?

Pollycat

MoneyWorry wrote: »

Also there is a lot of dangerous emotive talk round WASPI, with thoughts that people do not want to work into their 60's and their jobs should be given to young people. So I certainly won't be signing.

So you'll get your pension aged 66 & 8 months (depending on your dob), in 2026.

If you were told in 2020 that you'd not be getting your pension until age 67 and 11months, would you sign a petition to ask the government to reconsider?

Because this is what's happened to me and a lot of women around my age.

Or would you just shrug and say 'well I'll just have to lump it because there's a lot of dangerous emotive talk and people will think that women don't want to work into their late 60's'?