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

Seabee42

Life is unfair. Was it ever reasonable that women had a lower retirement age than men? Is it fair that the baby boomers got to retire at a younger age than todays youth? Is it fair that people who are past state pension age do not pay NI if employed?


There is no pot of money tree other people have to pay for your benefits and the fact that it is being equalised makes complete sense.

Pollycat

Seabee42 wrote: »

Life is unfair. Was it ever reasonable that women had a lower retirement age than men? Is it fair that the baby boomers got to retire at a younger age than todays youth? Is it fair that people who are past state pension age do not pay NI if employed?


There is no pot of money tree other people have to pay for your benefits and the fact that it is being equalised makes complete sense.

I don't think that many people would argue with you about that - but it's not the issue that's being discussed here.

Pollycat wrote: »

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.

^^^^ This is the issue for me - and many women like me of a similar age.

SallyG

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/403477/Recent_trends_in_life_expectancy_at_older_ages.pdf

"within England, although female life expectancy at age 65, 75, 85 and 95 fell in
2012, and for males it fell at ages 85 and 95 and remained static at ages 65 and 75, it is too early to say whether this represents a slowing down in the upward trend or the start of a downward trend"
Presumably - given that the main justification for raising the State Pension Age is increased life expectancy and given that from now on the SPA will be reviewed regularly - the SPA can go down as well as up?

patanne

It is fair that those after SPA do not pay NI (although their employer does) this is because they do not get the benefits that that NI pays for. They do get the benefits the employers NI pays for, so that still needs to be paid.

molerat

Why are WASPI not also campaigning for the men that have been affected by the 2011 changes ? Thought not !

WFSPI not WASPI

I retired at 55 in 2009, MrsM was 54 at the time. Too late to do anything about it but our plans had a "!!!! happens" factor in them. Yes we will both "lose money" but it will not affect our retirement, the pay rise will just come a bit later.

mumps

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.

That was what I did, I was told in 1995 that I wouldn't be getting my SRP in 2013, I would have to wait 3 more years so I worked out what I needed to save to still retire in 2013. Great. Then in 2011 I was told I wasnt getting my pension till 2018 and in two years I needed to keep saving my original plan and add in enough for an extra 18 months. I didn't have time and that is the point lots of us are making, not the people who say they didn't know but the ones who did know, made plans and had the plans blow away.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

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.

Nope - I don't believe I'm conflating the changes at all. You may have missed some of my posts but in summary, I have said on a number of occasions that I fully agree with the equalisation of men and women spa. I have also said I do not think there is enough merit in any argument against the 1995 changes. I have also said that I think 20 years should be long enough for people to make alternatives.

Someone on this thread referred to a DWP survey in 2003 that suggested 59% of women were unaware of the new changes at that time. Taking that at face value, my point is, if those figures are correct, then the message was not made clear sufficiently by the government. A figure of 59% suggests the message was unclear.

jem16 wrote: »

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.

Agreed. You said you were affected by the changes, and all I did was say I was unaware of your personal circumstances regarding how you are impacted. Some are losing 18 months, some 12 months some less etc. I referred to the case of those losing 18 months and some are prepared to accept this - others are not.

However, some have said on here that though they agree that the 2011 changes are unfair, nonetheless, they will not support the campaign because they don't agree with objection about the 1995 changes!!!

jem16 wrote: »

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.

Again, I'm agreeing with you that there has been plenty of notice. However, the basis of many posts on this thread was regarding the DWP's own survey that 59% were unaware.

*IF* that is the case then it raises the questions *why*. I have pointed out that in 1995 the means of information propagation was nothing like it is today. I have pointed out that *if* the survey figures are correct there may be reasons why many women were unaware. However, many on here have pre-concluded that all women must have known about the changes. Contempt prior to investigation. One post even suggested that unless a woman had learning disabilities, they would otherwise have to been aware of the changes. All I'm doing is exploring the possibilities of why so many women were unaware 'on the basis of the survey' - I choose not to take the presumption of many that the 59% are lying or otherwise conveniently having a lapse of memory.

The general gist from this thread is that 'they must have been aware' and the 59% are lying. That might be true. What I'm saying is that 59% appears too high a figure to represent unreliable people in the general public. So either the DWP survey figures are incorrect or the message about the changes were not sufficiently received by the intended audience.

Regardless of the 1995 issues - the 2011 changes are unfair to many women. Why, why, why should they have a lesser deal than many others when everyone has paid into the same system under the same rules.

Seabee42

Sadly NI does not pay for a benefit it is just a tax on income.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

So either the DWP survey figures are incorrect or the message about the changes were not sufficiently received by the intended audience.

One also has to consider why the changes were not received by their intended audience - was it because a large majority of the intended audience weren't interested enough or was it because there the message wasn't put across properly?

Now I know it was widely reported in newspapers, TV and radio at the time so all that is missing are personal letters.

However if those same people missed the TV, newspapers and radio because they weren't interested enough then there is a very high chance that they weren't interested enough to take notice of any personal letter that was telling them something 20 years in the future.

Regardless of the 1995 issues - the 2011 changes are unfair to many women. Why, why, why should they have a lesser deal than many others when everyone has paid into the same system under the same rules.

Yes but then you will get many men who can argue that the equalisation from 60 to 65 should have been done much sooner or quicker. Then the rise from 65 to 66 may not have caused the issue that it has done with some women having an 18 months rise as opposed to a 12 months rise. After all men paid into the same scheme with the same rules too.

missbiggles1

patanne wrote: »

It is fair that those after SPA do not pay NI (although their employer does) this is because they do not get the benefits that that NI pays for. They do get the benefits the employers NI pays for, so that still needs to be paid.

Actually, I think that those of us over SPA should have to pay NIC (or equivalent) out of any income we have - we tend to use NHS and social care services more than most.