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

greenglide

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'?

Presumably people will, ultimately, have to lump it as the legislation has been in place some time ago and there isn't really time to legislate for any changes and to implement them.

The most I would have thought can be achieved now is to hope that they think a bit harder next time.

Paul_Herring

Pollycat wrote: »

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'?

False dichotomy. The third option is that the affected people will be indifferent to the situation until it's too late.

Then start up petitions, et alia, after that.

JezR

Malthusian wrote: »

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...

Not sure how much checking there used to be over false signatures either. This was run by a campaign group of course.

The other options offered at the green paper stage were equalisation at 63 and a sort of flexible arrangement between 60 and 70 with a sliding scale on payments.

The high percentage on deferment was introduced as a kind of watered down version of the last option. It used to be somewhat lower.

patanne

I too remember the suggestion of equalising at 63 and that seemed a good compromise. After all no-one was talking increased life expectancy back then. Unfortunately they must have realised that men's pensions were much higher than women's and it would cost a lot more for 2 extra years for men than they would get for 3 years less for women.

But this all now seems to be in the name of life expectancy going up. What is going to happen in 10/15 years when life expectancy is going back down. Do you think that SPA will come down too? Don't believe it will? Well women's is already coming down as there are more who have worked their whole life getting older. What will it be like when lower paid workers (of whom there will be more & more) just HAVE to work to 68 or so because they can't afford to retire before SPA.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

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

In terms of believing any survey, I'm merely referring to a survey mentioned earlier in the thread by another poster. The poster states it was a DWP survey. In my comments, I have said, 'if those figures are correct' ... until someone posts something to the contrary then how can we not take the figures are correct?

jem16 wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure of your particular circumstances but if you are one of those born in 1954 and have had the extra 18 months added within 6 or 7 years of your spa then you are indeed impacted.

If you are happy to accept those conditions that is definitely your prerogative. Most of the other women are less willing to accept that.

MoneyWorry

If I was told in 2020 that I would be getting my pension 7 years 11 months later rather than 6 years 8 months later, I'd work out what I would need to live on, take off my occupational pension, save the money and retire on my original date.
It wouldn't be anything like the State Pension, but I'd get by.

roddydogs

patanne wrote: »

I too remember the suggestion of equalising at 63 and that seemed a good compromise. After all no-one was talking increased life expectancy back then. Unfortunately they must have realised that men's pensions were much higher than women's and it would cost a lot more for 2 extra years for men than they would get for 3 years less for women.

But this all now seems to be in the name of life expectancy going up. What is going to happen in 10/15 years when life expectancy is going back down. Do you think that SPA will come down too? Don't believe it will? Well women's is already coming down as there are more who have worked their whole life getting older. What will it be like when lower paid workers (of whom there will be more & more) just HAVE to work to 68 or so because they can't afford to retire before SPA.

How is LE "going down" in 10/15 years?

Pollycat

MoneyWorry wrote: »

If I was told in 2020 that I would be getting my pension 7 years 11 months later rather than 6 years 8 months later, I'd work out what I would need to live on, take off my occupational pension, save the money and retire on my original date.
It wouldn't be anything like the State Pension, but I'd get by.

So you'd refuse to sign a petition asking for reconsideration?

patanne

It is already going down for women. Although they say that working longer doesn't reduce life expectancy I believe that that will change when there are people who are HAVING to work those extra years, rather than choosing to work extra years.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

I'm not sure of your particular circumstances but if you are one of those born in 1954 and have had the extra 18 months added within 6 or 7 years of your spa then you are indeed impacted.

If you are happy to accept those conditions that is definitely your prerogative. Most of the other women are less willing to accept that.

I do wish you would stop conflating the two sets of changes. I'm not sure if you're doing it on purpose or through lack of knowledge as you suggested earlier.

Your comments above are based on changes made in 2011 which I have said on more than once occasion are unfair, especially for those born in 1953/54. The increases should at least have been limited to 12 months.

My comments about there being plenty of notice given and that women had no excuse for not knowing about them were based on the 1995 changes.