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

mumps

It isn't always good economics for the government to keep older people in work. When I retired my assistant got my job, she went from part-time to full-time and got a big payrise. She had been getting tax credits and was no longer entitled to them and another woman got the part-time job as her assistant. In all if the government were to be paying my pension they would still be saving over £150 per week, I can't say exactly as I don't know what benefits the new person was on but I do know the tax credits for the first woman were more than my pension.

monkeyspanner

missbiggles1 wrote: »

There was so much information about this in the media you'd've had to be sleepwalking not to have been aware of the changes introduced in 1995.

A DWP survey of 2004 showed that only 41% of women realised there was pension age equalisation by 2020. But also only around 85% of women knew that the retirement age was at that time 60. Not everyone listens and that is particularly true of politicians.

grey_gym_sock

mumps wrote: »

It isn't always good economics for the government to keep older people in work. When I retired my assistant got my job, she went from part-time to full-time and got a big payrise. She had been getting tax credits and was no longer entitled to them and another woman got the part-time job as her assistant. In all if the government were to be paying my pension they would still be saving over £150 per week, I can't say exactly as I don't know what benefits the new person was on but I do know the tax credits for the first woman were more than my pension.

this is dangerous thinking. i mean: looking at the economic consequences of government policies.

you might also ask: how many of these ppl in their 60s, whose state pension is being delayed, are in work anyway? many are out of work, and claiming JSA/ESA/etc. so part of the saving on state pension just increases expenditure on other benefits. though those benefits will be at a lower level.

but you could then ask: what happens when these ppl in their 60s have a lower income (e.g. ESA instead of state pension)? they spend less. so the government collects less in indirect taxes. and the businesses they'd be buying from have lower sales, and employ fewer ppl, and pay less tax on profits, and the ppl they're not employing pay less tax, and some of them start claiming benefits. and those ppl also have lower income, and spend less, and so on.

it's almost as if the whole idea of austerity made no sense at all! but that can't be possible, can it?

saver861

Goldiegirl wrote: »

Although my pension age didn't change by 18 months, I found out in 2011 that my SPA would go from 65 to 66, so I'm in the group of people that have been affected by these changes.

The trouble is, a line has to be drawn somewhere - and there will always be people who unfortunately fall just the wrong side of the line.

So, lets see now. You got notification of a 12 months increase to your spa in 2011. That gives you around 15 years to make alternative arrangements.

Mrs Smith down the road, got notification of an 18 months increase in her pension age at the same time in 2011, but has only around 6 years to make alternative arrangements.

Spot the difference ...... don't give up now ... keep looking .....

Goldiegirl wrote: »

How would you have made the changes - so that everybody would have been impacted the same?

Well I'm honoured that you have me in such high esteem to sort out the mangle!!

Now, I'm far too modest to declare superior intellect to those who are charged with such responsibility.

However, as a modest suggestion, I might have started by limiting the extension of the pension age to 12 months rather than the 18 months for all those within 10 years of their retirement date.

Goldiegirl

So under your scheme Mrs Smith gets a 6 year notification of a 12 month increase to her SPA age, rather than 18 months. in the great scheme of things that six months will hardly make any difference at all.

I'm not unsympathetic to Mrs Smith, and it would have been much better if more notice could have been give.

But even so, there would still have been many people who would not make provision for the themselves, no matter how much notice they got. Sad but true

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

So, lets see now. You got notification of a 12 months increase to your spa in 2011. That gives you around 15 years to make alternative arrangements.

Mrs Smith down the road, got notification of an 18 months increase in her pension age at the same time in 2011, but has only around 6 years to make alternative arrangements.

Spot the difference ...... don't give up now ... keep looking .....

Well I did go looking.......

Under the 2011 changes a woman reaching state pension age in 2017 would be born somewhere from 6th June 1953 to 5th September 1953. See this chart.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310231/spa-timetable.pdf

From the 1995 changes those same women would have had been able to draw their state pension somewhere between 6th September 2016 and 6th January 2017. See the chart here;

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1995/26/schedule/4/enacted

Looking at each of the 3 groups involved it was;

6.9.16 became 6.3.17 = 6 months extra

6.11.16 became 6.7.17 = 8 months extra

6.11.17 became 6.1.17 = 10 months extra

So Mrs Smith would not have had to wait another 18 months but either 6, 8 or 10 months extra depending on when in 1953 she was born.

saver861

Goldiegirl wrote: »

So under your scheme Mrs Smith gets a 6 year notification of a 12 month increase to her SPA age, rather than 18 months. in the great scheme of things that six months will hardly make any difference at all.

Well you did ask me how I would do it to make it fairer ..... I think that would have been a starting point. It will make significant difference to some, less so to other perhaps but at least it would have been fairer.

Goldiegirl wrote: »

I'm not unsympathetic to Mrs Smith, and it would have been much better if more notice could have been give.

Excellent Goldie .... I shall inform Mrs Smith who will no doubt be pleased. Now all you have to do is support the move to try to make it better for Mrs Smith

Goldiegirl wrote: »

But even so, there would still have been many people who would not make provision for the themselves, no matter how much notice they got. Sad but true

Goldie girl ... this ain't what this is about. The fact that some wont have made provision does not mean the opportunity should be removed from all. Get past this one ....

missbiggles1

monkeyspanner wrote: »

A DWP survey of 2004 showed that only 41% of women realised there was pension age equalisation by 2020. But also only around 85% of women knew that the retirement age was at that time 60. Not everyone listens and that is particularly true of politicians.

Then, I'm afraid I have to say that's their problem.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

Well you did ask me how I would do it to make it fairer ..... I think that would have been a starting point. It will make significant difference to some, less so to other perhaps but at least it would have been fairer.

The only group of women who have an increase of more than 12 months are those born between 6.10.53 and 5.10.54 so let's get that group changed to 12 months.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

The only group of women who have an increase of more than 12 months are those born between 6.10.53 and 5.10.54 so let's get that group changed to 12 months.

That is correct. This group has had a considerably different deal to even those women born just a few months previous.

This is one of the quirks of this - why is there such a distinction for this group as opposed to others.