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

zagfles

saver861 wrote: »

I don't think there is any expectation that the 1995 rule will be changed.

However, I don't see why you would object to those women born in the 1950's who have been adversely affected by the 2011 changes. Someone who thought they were getting their pension at 64 now has to wait until nearly 66 which is almost two years in many cases.

Some women who are 63 are able to pick up their pension at that age. A woman a year or so younger has to wait until almost 66.

It's not just a case of comparing men versus women. There are a certain selection of women who are being impacted much more negatively than others, just simply because they fall into a certain birthdate bracket.

That's simply unfair to these women.

Yes there is an an issue about the notice given in 2011, though this applies to men as well as women.

But the comparison shouldn't be between what a woman gets compared with a woman a year older. That's irrelavent, it should be between what was proposed in 1995 and the change in 2011.

If "WASPI" concentrated on that instead of whinging about the 1995 changes, they might get somewhere.

Pollycat

missbiggles1 wrote: »

The main change was legislated for in 1995 and announced earlier which seems plenty long enough to me. The later change (s) were shorter notice so I feel that's where any campaign should put its efforts.

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.

I agree with the points in bold.

I think most people understand why state pension age is being put back and I certainly agree that the state pension age for men and women should be the same.

I think the petition should have concentrated on the 2011 change which didn't give much notice for those planning for retirement, women who'd know for 20 years about their revised SPA.

I've long known - as a result of the 1995 changes that I wouldn't get my state pension at age 60 but I'd get it in April 2017 (aged 63.5 years).
At very short notice it was changed to July 2018 - an extra 15 months for me.

missbiggles1

I'm in the first group, women who were affected by the 1995 changes but weren't by the later ones, and it makes me so cross when women argue that they never read anything in the news about the raising of SPA - it makes all women look like air heads and weakens the arguments surrounding the unfairness of the later changes.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

However, I don't see why you would object to those women born in the 1950's who have been adversely affected by the 2011 changes. Someone who thought they were getting their pension at 64 now has to wait until nearly 66 which is almost two years in many cases.

No-one has to wait for almost two years longer as the maximum wait is 18 months.

When the changes were first announced there was a huge outcry that some women, mainly those born in 1953 and 1954, would have to wait two years longer for their pension. After a review this was changed and it was announced that it would be a maximum of 18 months.

Still not good enough really but at least something was done so the petition really should be focusing on this extra wait rather than going on about something which has been known for 20 years.

Harping on about every woman not being sent a personal letter in 1995 is nonsense. I can almost guarantee that if letters had actually been sent, most would have been binned as it was too far away to think about and we would still have many complaining that they didn't know about it.

I knew all about it as did my two close friends who were born in 1953 and 1954. I have absolutely no idea if I got a letter 20 years ago though but I did manage to listen to the news and read a newspaper.

JezR

The other changes made to state pensions over this period makes the issue of 'fairness' overall not so straightforward. For example those before the 2009 Act started to take force would have needed 39 years for a full basic SP whereas afterwards they would only need 30. Women in general tend to have a spottier NI contribution record than men and would have gained more out of the reduction - indeed it was aimed at this. How this increased rate of pension interacts over the full period of retirement with starting receiving the pension later would be an interesting calculation.

Similarly those that have had their start delayed and now retire under the new SP regime instead of the old may have larger rates. However, their deferral is less generous.

There have been so many changes relating to pensions for those retiring over the 2010- decade that the overall effect is complex.

dunstonh

When you look at past threads and this one, you see that the general consensus is that the increase from 60 to 65 was given plenty of time and arguing about it 25 years later makes you look silly. A consensus also seems to exist when it comes to the 65 to 66 increase as being too short.

WASPI would have far more support if they had focused on the 65-66 increase and not made themselves look silly by bring the 60-65 increase into it.

Pollycat

dunstonh wrote: »

When you look at past threads and this one, you see that the general consensus is that the increase from 60 to 65 was given plenty of time and arguing about it 25 years later makes you look silly. A consensus also seems to exist when it comes to the 65 to 66 increase as being too short.

WASPI would have far more support if they had focused on the 65-66 increase and not made themselves look silly by bring the 60-65 increase into it.

I think it's really annoying that this petition is so poorly thought out and worded, although I disagree about your 60-65 comment.

As I've posted previously, I've known about the move to 65 for many years so am OK with the 1995 changes.
It's the 2010 change that has put my SPA back by 15 months although I'll still get my pension before I'm 65.

JezR

I see that the discus comments under the main article includes comments from those indicating they never knew about the 1995 changes. Steve Webb of course has noted that the sending out of direct letters relating to the recent changes has also revealed that many did not know.

However, it was not the normal action of the DWP and predecessor departments to individually directly notify people about each individual change. Culture today seems to expect this action much more (an example in another area is notification of interest rate changes on bank accounts) where formally everyone was expected to keep themselves informed about developments affecting themselves. If they didn't it wasn't the system that was considered to be at fault.

One pension example where the DHSS as was did get into trouble over pension changes was the change to SERPS inheritance rates - and that was because they did keep sending incorrect information for some years to people that requested pension statements relating to it. My mother directly got compensation because of this.

jem16

Pollycat wrote: »

I think it's really annoying that this petition is so poorly thought out and worded, although I disagree about your 60-65 comment.

I thought he was agreeing with you - what are you disagreeing with?

LHW99

There is also the aspect that if SPA had been raised in line with life expectancies since it was first brought in, no one would be getting it now until at least their late 70's (not sure of the exact number!)