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

zagfles

saver861 wrote: »

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.

The information was available to those to whom it was important to have the correct information, ie those who were making plans around a particular retirement age.

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.

The 59% figure is totally irrelavent. It doesn't matter how many knew or didn't know. It matters how many were adversely affected by not knowing.

There's lots of stuff people don't know, because they don't need to know it, or don't need to know it yet. So they don't take any interest, they don't bother finding out.

To make any sort of point, you need a survey showing how many were adversely affected through not knowing. Not just how many didn't know.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

Now I don't know if that is the same DWP survey referred to earlier but there is considerable difference is the findings. This suggests that 73% were aware. That would be more inline with what I would expect. Thus, instead of 59% being unaware, it would seem only 27% were unaware.

Those figures would seem more sensible in the absence of clarification of the 59% figure.

It would seem my faith in my fellow citizens is a little stronger than many on this thread. Instead of 59% being liars or unscrupulous it might be that only 27% are!

So back in 2004 when the 1995 changes were more recent, 73% were happy to agree that they knew about the changes.

Fast forward to 2015 and only 59% are now aware.

So 14% have now forgotten what they knew 11 years ago.

Which is pretty much what I said many posts ago about people who manage to "forget" something or claim they don't know about somethingwhen it suits them.

missbiggles1

saver861 wrote: »

But ... isn't that why they have revision, exam preparation, continuing professional development, training, etc etc.

For teenagers?

DaveMcG

Definitely nonsense about letters, I had my age put back to 66 and didn't get a letter.

missbiggles1

ManofLeisure wrote: »

Depends on the 'clarity' of the information presented as to whether it will be assimilated or not.

No, it depends whether they can be bothered or think it relevant, just like this current issue.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

So back in 2004 when the 1995 changes were more recent, 73% were happy to agree that they knew about the changes.

Fast forward to 2015 and only 59% are now aware.

So 14% have now forgotten what they knew 11 years ago.

No - you have not got this correct. There is no 2015 survey. An earlier post in the thread referred to a DWP survey in 2004 which suggested 59% were unaware of the pension age increases.

The article I have linked to refers to a DWP survey in 2004 in which it states 27% were unaware. Clearly both of these are referring to the same survey but the figures of one or the other are incorrect.

My assumption is that this is the same survey. The 59% that said they were unaware were referring to being unaware of their new actual retirement date and were not saying that they were unaware of the changes.

So only 27% of the people actually said they were unaware of the changes.

jem16 wrote: »

Which is pretty much what I said many posts ago about people who manage to "forget" something or claim they don't know about somethingwhen it suits them.

No. My point all along was that I did not believe 59% would lie, or conveniently forget etc. As it turns out it seems I was correct. It was only 27% who said they were unaware for whatever reason, whether they conveniently 'forgot' or whatever reason.

Its disappointing that many on the thread were so ready so believe that 59% of the population would lie or be deceitful.

saver861

Goldiegirl wrote: »

I did say that I'd consider signing the petition if it was solely about 2011. Some people have been much more adversely affected than others, and they are extremely unfortunate. They have my sympathy.

Well, I'm sure in many cases the loss of extra 6 months pension will not be significantly detrimental to them, and your sympathy will be of little consequence. There are many others who are on or near the breadline, which will make a difference. Your sympathy will still be of little consequence.

Sorry, but sympathy don't cut it for me. My instinct is that if you were born in 1953 or 1954 you would have signed it.

Still, its a free world .....

saver861

zagfles wrote: »

The information was available to those to whom it was important to have the correct information, ie those who were making plans around a particular retirement age. The 59% figure is totally irrelavent. It doesn't matter how many knew or didn't know. It matters how many were adversely affected by not knowing.

Update: It now transpires that it seems 59% have not said they were unaware and it was only actually 27% that said they were unaware.

But your point is a little bit nonsensical from your own volition. Your view was that those who said they were unaware were likely to be those not making any plans for pension in any case.

zagfles wrote: »

To make any sort of point, you need a survey showing how many were adversely affected through not knowing. Not just how many didn't know.

As above - by your references, 0% would have been adversely affected. Don't need no survey.

Goldiegirl

saver861 wrote: »

Well, I'm sure in many cases the loss of extra 6 months pension will not be significantly detrimental to them, and your sympathy will be of little consequence. There are many others who are on or near the breadline, which will make a difference. Your sympathy will still be of little consequence.

Sorry, but sympathy don't cut it for me. My instinct is that if you were born in 1953 or 1954 you would have signed it.

Still, its a free world .....

Seriously, I have no interest in what does or doesn't cut it for you.

And your instincts are 100% wrong.

missbiggles1

saver861 wrote: »

Well, I'm sure in many cases the loss of extra 6 months pension will not be significantly detrimental to them, and your sympathy will be of little consequence. There are many others who are on or near the breadline, which will make a difference. Your sympathy will still be of little consequence.

Sorry, but sympathy don't cut it for me. My instinct is that if you were born in 1953 or 1954 you would have signed it.

Still, its a free world .....

Surely, if you were near the breadline you'd just carry on working? I appreciate that might not be what you want to do but it doesn't mean that you'll starve.