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

JezR

The original pension age was 70 but that was for a very different thing - it was a non contributory handout paid to those of good character with an income under 12/- .

Women were the overwhelming recipients. Average life expectancy at the time was 51.

mumps

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?

I think the difference with changing the age for access to private pensions is that you don't actually lose the money. My pension forecast is £150 on the old system, pension plus S2P, so delaying my pension date by an additional 18 months means I lose over £11,000. I wouldn't mind so much if they delayed it by 18 months and then gave me a cheque for £11,000. I agree it would change plans though.

mumps

jem16 wrote: »

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.

I knew about it and I was born in 1953 but to be honest in 1995 I had two under fives, two at uni a disabled husband to look after and a fulltime job and I think much of the mid 90s passed me by.

greenglide

mumps wrote: »

I think the difference with changing the age for access to private pensions is that you don't actually lose the money. My pension forecast is £150 on the old system, pension plus S2P, so delaying my pension date by an additional 18 months means I lose over £11,000. I wouldn't mind so much if they delayed it by 18 months and then gave me a cheque for £11,000. I agree it would change plans though.

But the whole point of this change, ultimately, is to save money.

Pollycat

jem16 wrote: »

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

Maybe I didn't word it very well.

dunstonh wrote: »

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.

In my situation my SPA has moved from age 63 & 6 months to 64 & 9 months so I'm in the 60-65 year old affected, not by the move from 65 to 66.
I agree that the petition should have concentrated on the 2010 changes.

Goldiegirl

jem16 wrote: »

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 agree, letters would have made no difference whatsoever. The ones who kept themselves up to date with current affairs and saw the news reports and read about it, were the ones who were more likely to think how this affected them, and would have been the ones who took action back in the nineties. The ones who seem to have had their heads buried in the sand would have been the ones to put the letter in a drawer and forget about it. The 1995 changes would still have been a surprise to them, letter or not

dunstonh wrote: »

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 was born in March 1960, so I've been affected by the increase in the pension age to 66, so have some sympathy with this point. But they seem to be ignoring the next group of women (and men) born from April 1960, when the pension age starts increasing again. If I had been born just a year later, I wouldn't be getting my pension until I was 67, which would be quite a jump from the age of 60, which was the age when I started my working life. These WASPI women couldn't even argue that people born from 1961 have time to sort out their pensions, as they are saying that 20 years notice wasn't even enough!


These WASPI's don't say on their petition page what 'fair transitional arrangements' they want, but if they were given some sort of concession, then that would make it more unfair for people born from 1960 onwards.


The line has to be drawn somewhere - some will win and some will lose. But these WASPI's should bear in mind, if they got a victory, someone else would feel aggrieved.




The petition page also mentions ' retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences'. That sounds like pure drama queen talk to me.

Pollycat

Goldiegirl wrote: »

The petition page also mentions ' retirement plans have been shattered with devastating consequences'. That sounds like pure drama queen talk to me.

I agree - the word 'hyperbole' popped into my mind.

jem16

Pollycat wrote: »

In my situation my SPA has moved from age 63 & 6 months to 64 & 9 months so I'm in the 60-65 year old affected, not by the move from 65 to 66.
I agree that the petition should have concentrated on the 2010 changes.

I'm with you now.

However technically you are affected by the move from 65 to 66 ( as that was really what the 2011 changes were about ) but in your case that move meant you moved closer to age 65 than the 1995 changes intended.

So Dunstonh is actually agreeing with you in that the 1995 changes from 60 to 65 had plenty of notice but that the 2011 changes from 65 to 66 had not given enough notice.

Pollycat

jem16 wrote: »

I'm with you now.

However technically you are affected by the move from 65 to 66 ( as that was really what the 2011 changes were about ) but in your case that move meant you moved closer to age 65 than the 1995 changes intended.

So Dunstonh is actually agreeing with you in that the 1995 changes from 60 to 65 had plenty of notice but that the 2011 changes from 65 to 66 had not given enough notice.

Yes, I did get that from his post.

I think anyone with any sense would have to admit that 20 years notice about a SPA date is plenty of notice.

mumps

greenglide wrote: »

But the whole point of this change, ultimately, is to save money.

I do realise that but I was replying to a poster who was comparing it to change in when you could access a private pension and I was pointing out that it isn't really the same situation because that change might delay when you can get your hands on the money but you aren't actually losing any of the money.