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

System

Hi

My take on this is that with a retirement age of 60 for females, compared to 65 for males, the female NI stamp was slightly higher to allow for this.

Leave school at 15, work until 65, 50 year pay-in span for us chaps, and 45 years for ladies.

So historical contribution rates were not equal, and no I don't mean for a married woman's option.

zagfles

johndough wrote: »

Hi

My take on this is that with a retirement age of 60 for females, compared to 65 for males, the female NI stamp was slightly higher to allow for this.

Leave school at 15, work until 65, 50 year pay-in span for us chaps, and 45 years for ladies.

So historical contribution rates were not equal, and no I don't mean for a married woman's option.

Really? When were they different? Certainly not since the 80's.

greenglide

the female NI stamp was slightly higher to allow for this.

There gas never a different NI rate for women, certainly not since the late 60s.

What there was, in the days of real stamps and cards, reduced rates for part time staff who worked less than a specified number of hours which would have had a similar effect as part time staff, specially in those days, would have been almost exclusively female.

gadgetmind

Put in less, ask for more, demand equality. Nice.

mjm3346

Women Against State Pension Inequality, presumably they want a unified retirement age faster than planned followed by an additional increase in the retirement age for women so that on average both men and women will draw a pension for the same number of years.

grey_gym_sock

gadgetmind wrote: »

Out of interest, how much notice were we given regards the age at which you could access private pensions moving from 50 to 55?

too little, IIRC. which is indeed a similar argument to the main 1 that this campaign is making, that too little notice was given for the SPA changes (the 1s made in 2011). both points are valid.

of course, if we're broadening the question out, from SPA, which has favoured women in the past (though that doesn't justify speeding up the equalization of SPAs with excessively short notice), to pensions generally, then we could mention tax relief on pensions, a colossally expensive tax relief, costing about £50bn a year, most of which goes to higher earners, most of whom are men. might that be indirect sexual discrimination?

what about the "married woman's stamp" (abolished decades ago), which encouraged married women to reduce up their own pension rights (for a short-term NI reduction) on the theory that their husbands' pensions would look after them?

we could go into the entire history of how men and women have been treated differently in pensions and work.

or we could just accept that the point that too little notice was given about accelerating SPA equalization - and about raising it to 66 for everybody - is valid.

missbiggles1

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

too little, IIRC. which is indeed a similar argument to the main 1 that this campaign is making, that too little notice was given for the SPA changes (the 1s made in 2011). both points are valid.

of course, if we're broadening the question out, from SPA, which has favoured women in the past (though that doesn't justify speeding up the equalization of SPAs with excessively short notice), to pensions generally, then we could mention tax relief on pensions, a colossally expensive tax relief, costing about £50bn a year, most of which goes to higher earners, most of whom are men. might that be indirect sexual discrimination?

what about the "married woman's stamp" (abolished decades ago), which encouraged married women to reduce up their own pension rights (for a short-term NI reduction) on the theory that their husbands' pensions would look after them?

we could go into the entire history of how men and women have been treated differently in pensions and work.

or we could just accept that the point that too little notice was given about accelerating SPA equalization - and about raising it to 66 for everybody - is valid.

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the main thrust of the petition, or I'd have more sympathy with it. Many WASPI supporters are arguing that they didn't know anything about the changes until they retired and that every single woman should have received a personal letter notifying them, a view I have no sympathy with.

monkeyspanner

mumps wrote: »

The second change didn't give enough notice to women, it has always mystified me that a 12 month increase in the pension age resulted in some women having their SRP delayed by 18 months.

Essentially it was due to two changes the first was as you say the increase of the pension age from 65 to 66 the second was an acceleration of the original timescale to equalise the state pension age. This meant that some women had their pension age both increased and the schedule accelerated so their pension age was incresed by more than 12months.

atush

gadgetmind wrote: »

We demand the right the be treated differently to men, as long as different = better!

Out of interest, how much notice were we given regards the age at which you could access private pensions moving from 50 to 55?

long enough to know that even if my OH qualified, he wasnt going to take it as was still working. Good thing he didnt really. Worth quite a bit more now plus the rule change

monkeyspanner

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

too little, IIRC. which is indeed a similar argument to the main 1 that this campaign is making, that too little notice was given for the SPA changes (the 1s made in 2011). both points are valid.

of course, if we're broadening the question out, from SPA, which has favoured women in the past (though that doesn't justify speeding up the equalization of SPAs with excessively short notice), to pensions generally, then we could mention tax relief on pensions, a colossally expensive tax relief, costing about £50bn a year, most of which goes to higher earners, most of whom are men. might that be indirect sexual discrimination?

what about the "married woman's stamp" (abolished decades ago), which encouraged married women to reduce up their own pension rights (for a short-term NI reduction) on the theory that their husbands' pensions would look after them?

we could go into the entire history of how men and women have been treated differently in pensions and work.

or we could just accept that the point that too little notice was given about accelerating SPA equalization - and about raising it to 66 for everybody - is valid.

The notice provided for both men and women following the decision to accerate equalisation and increase the pension age by a year in 2011was inadequate. Plus due to the overlaping effect of these measures many women were more affected than the equivalent age man. Waspi is not disagreeing that equalisation was necessary but that the process was mismanaged.
This has been admitted by the then pensions minister Steve Webb who described it as a bad decision http://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/webb-we-made-a-bad-decision-on-state-pension-age-rises/a866283

Compare the introduction of these measures to the alteration to public service pensions which protected those workers from any changes to pensions within a 10year period.

As regards the notification of the changes originally proposed in 1995. Some (but not all) women affected received individual letters informing them of a change to their retirement age. These letters started to be sent out in 2009 and the process continued until 2011 BUT this was discontinued in 2011 when the 65-66 and accelerated equalisation were proposed. It is not clear how many women were informed.