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

jem16

Pollycat wrote: »

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

Unfortunately it seems that WASPI is not about sense but about "blame anyone else but yourself".

mumps

bowlhead99 wrote: »

There's only so much money in the pot. If the petition were to somehow succeed where others have failed and pension ages were re-calibrated yet again, presumably everyone who wasn't a woman in that particular age bracket could petition for it to be re-done yet again - on the grounds that they were losing out by having to budget to pay more tax or reduce public services in order to fund what the 0.1% of the population who so far signed the WASPI petition had demanded.

The amount of money isn't a huge amount in the grand scheme of things but the same could be said for the requests of any special interest group. I'm not entirely devoid of sympathy for those affected by the most recent goalpost-changes but it happened long enough ago now (2011, and we are just about to go into 2016) that the arguments have been floating around for ages and so there is nothing 'new' which requires debate?

But don't you think it would be fair if the 2011 changes, which increased SRA by 12 months, shouldn't mean some women have to wait an extra 18 months. Personally I would accept the 12 months as reasonable even with the short notice but the additional 6 months really does seem unreasonable.

mumps

Pollycat wrote: »

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.

I think if the 2011 SPA changes were coming into force in 2031 there wouldn't be much of an argument.

mumps

Pollycat wrote: »

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

Perhaps but for some of us that 18 months can be quite important. My husband is severely disabled and his quality of life is rapidly deteriorating. I wanted to stick to my original retirement age of 60, I made financial plans to make that possible but the changes announced in 2011 gave me two years to my 60th birthday to make up a shortfall of 18 months. I compromised and retired 15 months later than planned but in that 15 months the situation had changed and some of the things we had planned were no longer possible. Maybe not shattered but definitely spoiled our plans.

Goldiegirl

mumps wrote: »

I think if the 2011 SPA changes were coming into force in 2031 there wouldn't be much of an argument.

But there'd still be people in 20 years time who'd complain they didn't know about the changes and it should have been made clearer

mumps

Goldiegirl wrote: »

But there'd still be people in 20 years time who'd complain they didn't know about the changes and it should have been made clearer

So does that mean it is OK to give less notice because people would object to 20 years notice? I don't see the logic in that, I was talking about not having enough notice not people saying they hadn't kept up with changes.

Pollycat

mumps wrote: »

Perhaps but for some of us that 18 months can be quite important. My husband is severely disabled and his quality of life is rapidly deteriorating. I wanted to stick to my original retirement age of 60, I made financial plans to make that possible but the changes announced in 2011 gave me two years to my 60th birthday to make up a shortfall of 18 months. I compromised and retired 15 months later than planned but in that 15 months the situation had changed and some of the things we had planned were no longer possible. Maybe not shattered but definitely spoiled our plans.

So hyperbole then?

I too took early retirment from my job (in 2003) with immediate payment of my occupational pension with the expectation of receiving my state pension on the date I'd been told I would get it - that expectation was set 8 years before I retired (1995).
7 years after my retirement, I was told that I'd have to wait an extra 15 months (that was in 2010).

I'm not disputing the fact that it has had a financial impact, not just on me and you but lots of my contemporaies too, but personally, I don't think statements like this have any place in a serious petition.
It looks unprofessional and is superfluous to the message in the petition.

Oblivion

brewerdave wrote: »

...absolutely ! There is only a finite amount of money - and there are LOTS of "special interest" groups eg what about the shameful way pre 1988 GMP has been dealt with ??

Shameful indeed. This is an issue that really deserves redress from the government.

mumps

Pollycat wrote: »

So hyperbole then?

I too took early retirment from my job (in 2003) with immediate payment of my occupational pension with the expectation of receiving my state pension on the date I'd been told I would get it - that expectation was set 8 years before I retired (1995).
7 years after my retirement, I was told that I'd have to wait an extra 15 months (that was in 2010).

I'm not disputing the fact that it has had a financial impact, not just on me and you but lots of my contemporaies too, but personally, I don't think statements like this have any place in a serious petition.
It looks unprofessional and is superfluous to the message in the petition.

I think hyperbole might depend on your point of view, in our case it wasn't just the financial cost but the opportunity costs that are gone forever. It is easy to criticize but at least this group has made the effort, other people might have worded it differently but they didn't actually do it so we are left with it as it is.

I think if you look at the government site it always says don't make financial decisions based on the information so you knew you were taking a gamble. Hopefully you have enjoyed it and it was worth the gamble. The 15 months might be tough but perhaps the extra years of retirement make up for that.

I thought the changes were 2011 not 2010?

saver861

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.

I'm not sure this is correct.

Well lets look at the specific information from the horses mouth i.e. the government website. https://www.gov.uk/calculate-state-pension/y/age

Take the case of a women born in mid June 1954. She had expected to pick up her pension at age 64 under the 1995 changes. Then in 2011 that was moved again and according to the website her new spa is now 65 yrs, 8 months and 20 days. That is 21 months after the original expected date, i.e. nearly two years.

Lets look at her sister, who happened to be born exactly one year previous, i.e. mid June 1953. Her spa is 63 yrs 8 months and 19 days. So even though she is just a year older than little sis, she grabs her spa two years sooner.

Now, lets look at big sis, who happened to be born exactly one year previous again, e.g. mid June 1952. Her spa is 62 years, 2 months and 22 days. Biggest sis is exactly two years older than little sis but gets her pension 3.5 years sooner than the little un.

The reality is this forum talks lots about planning for pension etc and all advice is towards starting early etc etc. Many of the same folk are now saying, hell they have been told in 2011 so they got plenty of time to make new arrangements.

Some women are being totally unfairly hit by this - and it is right that these women should not be burdened heavier than any others.

I'm not saying there should not be equality, of course there should, but the agreement is now that any new changes to pension should be more than 10 years before spa. These women had just 5 or 6 years in some cases.