Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

atush

agent69 wrote: »

I'm curious what you mean by 'led to believe'?

Either way I don't see that having 5 years notice that you need to work for another 15 months should ruin your life. I assume the simple answer is to work a bit longer?

Irked yes, but still in a better position than a man of equal age.

Or you coudl save into a personal pension so retire early while waiting for your SPA?

Pollycat

atush wrote: »

Or you coudl save into a personal pension so retire early while waiting for your SPA?

I'm not sure if your post is adressed to me (agent69 quoted my post) or agent69.
If me, that boat sailed over 12 years ago - when I was still expecting my SPA to be paid at 63 years and 6 months.

Pollycat wrote: »

As you can see from my post above, I am actually losing 15 months of state pension.
I also have no chance of 'earning more pension' as I retired before the government put back my SPA.

PensionTech

So if a woman started working in 1980 and had 15 years NIC's in 1995, all those years were paid on the understanding that pension would be paid at 60.

Yes but what would they have done otherwise - not paid them??

I do understand your point, but if this had happened it would have taken 45 years to work through the change with everyone in between having some kind of transitional arrangement - and then when do you stop paying NICs, when does your occupational scheme's bridging pension stop, etc? It would both be a) monstrously complicated and b) ineffective in responding to the very real issue of increases in life expectancy and the burden on the state of the aging baby boomer population. By the time the change had bedded in, life expectancy would have moved on again, and the whole mess would never end. I'm not saying transitional protection is a ludicrous idea but I do believe there are strong arguments against it.

The issue is that the state pension is not a savings scheme. It is a state benefit. Like all state benefits, you pay for them via tax and NICs (and NICs don't only go towards the state pension); and like all state benefits, what (if anything) you get back out, and what conditions apply to that, does depend on the whims of the government. This wasn't always obvious but it certainly is now.

saver861

PensionTech wrote: »

Yes but what would they have done otherwise - not paid them??

I do understand your point,

Simply really. Those who had not paid any up to 1995 would have no entitlement to pension at 60 in any case. Those that had paid NIC's before 1995 on the understanding the pension would be paid at 60 for those years, might feel short changed that it was removed.

PensionTech wrote: »

It would both be a) monstrously complicated

Not really, its just a mathematically calculation for those with pre 1995 years. No different to the work place pensions where some people have years pre 2008, pre 2014 etc. Their pension is calculated given the data involved. Hardly rocket science!

PensionTech wrote: »

I'm not saying transitional protection is a ludicrous idea but I do believe there are strong arguments against it.

Soooooo, they could have set a date and moved everyone onto 66 on that date. Simpler I guess ....... buttttt .....

PensionTech wrote: »

conditions apply to that, does depend on the whims of the government. This wasn't always obvious but it certainly is now.

I think it was always obvious - the public are at the mercy of the whims of the government - that's the case for everything, not just this pension scenario. In turn, the government is at the mercy of the public, who tend to have the final say on whether said government is welcomed back or not. However, that is a whole different debate.

PensionTech

Those that had paid NIC's before 1995 on the understanding the pension would be paid at 60 for those years, might feel short changed that it was removed.

You're not saying anything new. I understand that they might feel short-changed; I don't know what you're hoping to achieve by repeating it. The point is that this isn't like a contract where you choose to pay for a product and can then complain when the product doesn't turn out to be what you thought it was. In that situation you can claim that you wouldn't have paid for it if you had known what you were paying for. In this case you are required to pay NICs and you would be required to pay NICs whatever the case. It's therefore hard to claim an entitlement to what you thought you had been paying for, as you didn't really have a choice in the matter. To illustrate the point: let's say that between 2010 and 2015 I had a Labour council who promised to put money into fixing the roads. In 2015 that was replaced with a Conservative council who decided to put the money elsewhere. Do I get to say that I have an entitlement to the part of the road repairs that I paid for because I paid council tax with the understanding that the roads would be fixed?

The state pension is more complicated than occupational pensions for many reasons, such as a) its interaction with GMP, b) its interaction with bridging pensions, c) its interaction with other state benefits, d) its vulnerability to change (e.g. the single-tier pension) etc. - and the state pension age is important for more than just the state pension itself (such as paying NICs). You don't seem to have considered the impact that an effectively split SPA would have on all of these things. Nor have you answered the point that transitional protection would mean a much more delayed response to the issue at hand. And what of the precedent - since the 1995 changes, further changes were announced to raise SPA to 66, 67, 68. It will undoubtedly rise above 70 in years to come. Should people have five or six tranches of state pension, all payable at different ages, according to the state pension age decided by the government at the time that they were paying NICs? And what if you have more than the full qualifying number of years of NICs? Do they give you the SPA based on the first 35 years, or a weighted average of all years paid, or the last 35 years, or whatever combination of 35 years works out best/worst in your particular case...

Not knowing the answers to these questions is one thing; refusing to acknowledge that they exist is another.

Goldiegirl

saver861 wrote: »

So if a woman started working in 1980 and had 15 years NIC's in 1995, all those years were paid on the understanding that pension would be paid at 60. They may feel shortchanged.

I've never met any woman who has commented that they should get some of their pension, based on pre 1995 NIC contributions.


Personally, the thought has never crossed my mind. It was only right that the male and female SPA age should be harmonised at some point. Back in 1995, I might have rolled my eyes, and moaned a bit initially, but, as soon as I could, started making AVC's to my company scheme to make up for the fact that my state pension would start five years later.


I think the majority of women I know have resigned them selves and accepted the 1995 changes. There was no point in brooding about it and feeling shortchanged.


Anyway, it wouldn't have been realistic for transitional arrangements to last until every last woman had got a pension for pre 1995 NI contributions - it'd just take too long

hyubh

saver861 wrote: »

Simply really. Those who had not paid any up to 1995 would have no entitlement to pension at 60 in any case. Those that had paid NIC's before 1995 on the understanding the pension would be paid at 60 for those years, might feel short changed that it was removed.

A protected SPA of 60 (or 65) for anyone paying NICs before 1995 would be unfair on anyone younger, who would actually be paying for these extended retirements.

its just a mathematically calculation for those with pre 1995 years. No different to the work place pensions where some people have years pre 2008, pre 2014 etc. Their pension is calculated given the data involved. Hardly rocket science!

The LGPS transitional arrangements that you allude to are far too generous and are a burden on the council taxpayer. They are also administratively complex, relative to what they are transitioning from and to (see the guides labelled '85 Year Rule', 'Aggregation' and 'The Underpin' here: http://www.lgpsregs.org/index.php/guides/administration-guides-to-the-2014-scheme).

Soooooo, they could have set a date and moved everyone onto 66 on that date. Simpler I guess ....... buttttt .....

There are funding problems *now*. Your analogies to occupational DB schemes are frankly rather silly, since if the state pension were a private sector DB plan of some sort, it would have been closed years ago.

saver861

PensionTech wrote: »

You're not saying anything new.

Nothing new there then!!!

PensionTech wrote: »

The point is that this isn't like a contract where you choose to pay for a product and can then complain when the product doesn't turn out to be what you thought it was.

Correct. I did not say it was any form of contract. My point was in the context of an earlier post that, in my opinion, most people agree that pensions should be equalised and should not continue to be paid at 60. I was making the point that those who had paid NIC's up to 1995 might feel shortchanged more so than many others. I'm not sure how I can put that differently. You may not agree but that's fine.

PensionTech wrote: »

Do I get to say that I have an entitlement to the part of the road repairs that I paid for because I paid council tax with the understanding that the roads would be fixed?

No - you had the opportunity to elect your councillor and by doing so you entrust said councillor to make such decisions. If you feel that he/she has not represented you sufficiently then you get the opportunity to change that councillor at a later stage.

Working people pay their taxes an NIC's. In the case of the NIC's up to 1995 the policy was pension at 60. The government changed that policy. They are there to manage and budget for the the masses. The individual does not have a say in direct government policy any more than you do with your council and the roads. Clearly that would be ludicrous so I'm not really sure of the purpose of your point.

PensionTech wrote: »

The state pension is more complicated than occupational pensions for many reasons, such as a) its interaction with GMP, b) its interaction with bridging pensions, c) its interaction with other state benefits, d) its vulnerability to change (e.g. the single-tier pension) etc. - and the state pension age is important for more than just the state pension itself (such as paying NICs). You don't seem to have considered the impact that an effectively split SPA would have on all of these things.

So, because something is 'complicated' then it should not happen? Were things not to happen because it was 'complicated' we would still be in the stone age. Not only that, this 'complication' is impacting a certain relative percentage of the population rather than the whole.

PensionTech wrote: »

Nor have you answered the point that transitional protection would mean a much more delayed response to the issue at hand.

Well I'm not sure why you think I should have all the answers to your questions!! However, as many have alluded to the fact that the 2011 transitional arrangements have not given enough time to those impacted, you seem to be of the view it should be hurried further. The point is they have not smoothed the transitional arrangements sufficiently hence why some are impacted more negatively than others.

PensionTech wrote: »

And what of the precedent - since the 1995 changes, further changes were announced to raise SPA to 66, 67, 68. It will undoubtedly rise above 70 in years to come. Should people have five or six tranches of state pension, all payable at different ages, according to the state pension age decided by the government at the time that they were paying NICs? And what if you have more than the full qualifying number of years of NICs? Do they give you the SPA based on the first 35 years, or a weighted average of all years paid, or the last 35 years, or whatever combination of 35 years works out best/worst in your particular case...

Not knowing the answers to these questions is one thing; refusing to acknowledge that they exist is another.

Why do I get the feeling you do know all the answers to these questions!!! Bit too 'complicated' for me really!!!

See, heres the thing. Government sets the policy. The mechanics of such policies are designed by those charged with such responsibilities. The politicians decide whether men will go to mars. The scientists will make it happen ... 'complicated' will not be an answer!

PensionTech

I was making the point that those who had paid NIC's up to 1995 might feel shortchanged more so than many others. I'm not sure how I can put that differently. You may not agree but that's fine.

-facepalm-

Firstly, I agree, people may have felt shortchanged. People "feeling shortchanged" is not an argument; it is a whinge. I am not sure what your point is.

No - you had the opportunity to elect your councillor and by doing so you entrust said councillor to make such decisions.

Much like you do with the government who decided to change the state pension age.

you seem to be of the view it should be hurried further

I haven't said that anywhere. My comments to you have only dealt with the 1995 changes. As a matter of fact I agree with the general consensus that the 2011 changes were too quick and not well thought through. That has no bearing on whether I think people should have got transitional protection in 1995 - which I don't.

The politicians decide whether men will go to mars. The scientists will make it happen ... 'complicated' will not be an answer!

Thank you for that considered contribution to this debate.

Mr_Costcutter

The petition map is interesting