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

patanne

Sorry but minor vent to follow. How can people who seem to be so desperate to retire not find out how much their pension is going to be? I knew once divorced (no pension sharing back then) that it was very unlikely that I would be able to retire at my SPA of 60. Retirement is very long term planning. This is why I have such sympathy for those affected by the 2011 changes. I had a good 15 years knowing that I had to do somthing, they have not had this luxury - which I consider a basic necessity.

jem16

patanne wrote: »

Sorry but minor vent to follow. How can people who seem to be so desperate to retire not find out how much their pension is going to be? I knew once divorced (no pension sharing back then) that it was very unlikely that I would be able to retire at my SPA of 60. Retirement is very long term planning.

Well exactly but WASPI don't seem to think so. They've all got to the tender age of 58 to suddenly find they're not getting their pension at age 60.

This is why I have such sympathy for those affected by the 2011 changes. I had a good 15 years knowing that I had to do somthing, they have not had this luxury - which I consider a basic necessity.

Don't expect WASPI to be sympathetic then - they're only interested in those who didn't know about the 1995 changes and have supposedly now been hit with a "double whammy" of two increases that they only found out about recently.

patanne

I am glad WASPI won't be sympathetic. They are extremists and ANY extremists are bad news for everybody else. I suspect they may have ruined the chance of any help for those affected by the 2011 changes by their extremism and that really is bad news.

Teaandscones

I have no sympathy for those complaining about the 1995 changes in state pension ages, 20 years is perfectly long enough notice.

I do however have some sympathy for those affected by the 2011 changes as the notice period was relatively brief.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the woman who was previously relying on her husband's contributions which no longer count. If someone relies on the rules for 40 years and then has her benefits taken away retrospectively that can't be right.

jem16

patanne wrote: »

I suspect they may have ruined the chance of any help for those affected by the 2011 changes by their extremism and that really is bad news.

Yes I think so too. The 2011 changes were at short notice with no/little time to replan for those that had actually made some effort over the years.

There is no way the government is going to agree to pay all 1950s women something in the region of £36k each as it's just not financially viable. They may well have looked again at the 2011 changes and reduced the impact but I fear that may now not happen.

hyubh

Malthusian wrote: »

Leaving taxes and student loans to one side - the reason for the state pension age increase and the increase in retirement ages is because the young people will live longer than people retiring today.

No it isn't - the NI (and taxes) paid today pays for the state pensions paid today. The reason the state pension age needs to rise is because current pensioners are living, on average, rather longer than their grandparents did.

Mr_Costcutter

patanne wrote: »

I am glad WASPI won't be sympathetic. They are extremists and ANY extremists are bad news for everybody else. I suspect they may have ruined the chance of any help for those affected by the 2011 changes by their extremism and that really is bad news.

Goodness me, the thought of WASPI supporters being 'extremists' really did make me smile. It certainly isn't a term I would use for this group - extreme to say the least.

monkeyspanner

patanne wrote: »

I am glad WASPI won't be sympathetic. They are extremists and ANY extremists are bad news for everybody else. I suspect they may have ruined the chance of any help for those affected by the 2011 changes by their extremism and that really is bad news.

Hardly extremists, I don't see any bombs, fires, beheadings or even chaining themselves to railings. There is no realistic prospect of reversing these changes as was made clear by Ian Duncan Smith in 2011 when this subject was raised during the 2nd reading of the 2011 Bill. There was however an assurance from IDS that the government would look at transitional arrangements. A far as I know there are no transitional arrangements.

saver861

RickyB2000 wrote: »

For example, apparently someone aged 65 today is likely to have a life expectancy of ~83 years (pretty similar to someone born today). When they were born in 1950 their life expectancy was 65 years.

I wouldn't say people are not living longer (but are they in good health when they finally retire?)

One of those quirks

Someone born in 1950 was expected to kick it around 2015 with a life expectancy of 65. Then they get to 65 and they are told ... nooopeee .... you gonna be hanging around for another 17 or so years!!!!

Actually, what is often overlooked during discussions on life expectancy is the distinction between actual life expectancy and healthy life expectancy.

The healthy life expectancy is around 63 so in reality, for many, the additional years of growing life expectancy will be spent in poorer health. Not all quite as rosy at it might sound then!!

bmm78

Transcript from question asked to the WASPI founders at the oral evidence session:

Q64 Craig Mackinlay:If you had been fully aware at a very early stage, you might still have been annoyed, I would have thought, but do you think you would have had time to have a transition? What would you have done differently?

Anne Keen: That is a difficult question, Craig, because in hindsight you can always say, “I would have invested in a private pension, I would have done this” and I daresay I would have done. I think most women would have. We definitely would have done that, but we were denied that opportunity.

Lin Phillips: You might choose not to go on holiday and save more money, if you like. We have savings, but those savings are for when we retire to supplement the state pension.


Not exactly anything life-changing there - save a bit more, skip a holiday or two. The response is feeble when the campaign is supposedly based on the impact of the lack of notice, rather than the impact of the changes.

When you are considering the principle of redress, the general concept is that you put the person in the position they would have been in had the "error" not occurred. If this was a case with the Financial Ombudsman, you'd be lucky to be taking away a couple of hundred quid for inconvenience.

WASPI aren't what I'd call extremists (depends on how you apply the definition), but some of the views they hold are detached from reality.