Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

atush

k6chris wrote: »

and on very many things relating to children, one specific example being that still in 2018 unmarried men still have no UK wide automatic parental rights. I would love sex equality in all aspects in the UK, but it needs to be in all aspects.

I agree with this, but conversely there is no automatic system to pay child maintenance married or unmarried.

Sure there is a department, and there can be judgments awarding same. But HMRC dont deduct it at source for payment to the custodial parent. like some other countires do.


I'd love to see unmarried men and women and their children to get what is due to them in both financial and visitation terms.

k6chris

atush wrote: »

I agree with this, but conversely there is no automatic system to pay child maintenance married or unmarried. .

Nothing to do with Child Maintenance, an unmarried father, even when they are part of a fully functioning family, still has no automatic Parental Resposibility. If the woman decides they don't want to marry (for whatever reason) the father has no automatic right to the child across the UK. Bring on genuine equality and base it on facts.

https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-parental-responsibility

zagfles

GibbsRule_No3 wrote: »

But Mr S knew when he signed up that he would get it at 65 his twin sister would have been told 60, then had it moved to 63 and 3 months and then both would be told now 66, so lucky him he only factor in 1 extra year not suddenly have it changed by 6. So both would have benefitted if his extra year had been phased in.

"Suddenly" meaning being told over 20 years ago about most of that 6 year change.

Equality doesn't happen suddenly, because there's too many vested interests trying to preserve their privilege. And hypocrites who pretend to want equality except when they benefit from inequality.

Pollycat

GibbsRule_No3 wrote: »

But Mr S knew when he signed up that he would get it at 65 his twin sister would have been told 60, then had it moved to 63 and 3 months and then both would be told now 66, so lucky him he only factor in 1 extra year not suddenly have it changed by 6. So both would have benefitted if his extra year had been phased in.

No they wouldn't both be told now 66.

I'm a late 1953 woman so affected by both Pension Acts (1995 & 2011).
When I started work aged 17, women's state pensions were paid at age 60.
Way back in 1995, I was aware that my state pension would be payable at age 63 years and 6 months (3 months later than the woman in your example).
I was then told in 2010 that my state pension date had been pushed back by 1 year and 3 months to age 64 and 9 months.
So Mr S's twin sister would still get her pension before her brother.
And he would get his pension age 65, not 66.

GibbsRule_No3

Idly curious why isn’t there a “MASPI” to get the 66 increase phased in? BTW I agree the SP age should have been phased in from 1975 easier all round. The 2011 increase is the raise I have a problem with, the 95 was acceptable and workable.

Pollycat

GibbsRule_No3 wrote: »

Idly curious why isn’t there a “MASPI” to get the 66 increase phased in? BTW I agree the SP age should have been phased in from 1975 easier all round. The 2011 increase is the raise I have a problem with, the 95 was acceptable and workable.

I think we all feel that way about the short notice of the 2011 Act.
And is WASPI hadn't been so GRASPI and had focused on that instead of wanting payment of women's pensions rolled back to pre-1995, they may have had more success.

Silvertabby

Pollycat wrote: »

I think we all feel that way about the short notice of the 2011 Act.
And is WASPI hadn't been so GRASPI and had focused on that instead of wanting payment of women's pensions rolled back to pre-1995, they may have had more success.

I'm a little younger than you, Polly, so the 2011 changes gave me 10 years notice of the change of my SPA from 2021 to 2022 (65 to 66).

Not an unreasonable amount of notice - for me - but I do sympathise with ladies of your age. I would have supported any moves to ease the transition for you and the other 1953/1954 ladies - but GRASPI put the kibosh on all that with their ridiculous demands.

LHW99

As I have said before, it needed doing, but I would have preferred there to have been one (maybe larger overall) change for any given age group. It left a bit of a taste to have a second shift thrown in in 2011.
Having said that, that's the way the cookie crumbled and it certainly doesn't justify the WASPE hoohah

Pollycat

Silvertabby wrote: »

I'm a little younger than you, Polly, so the 2011 changes gave me 10 years notice of the change of my SPA from 2021 to 2022 (65 to 66).

Not an unreasonable amount of notice - for me - but I do sympathise with ladies of your age. I would have supported any moves to ease the transition for you and the other 1953/1954 ladies - but GRASPI put the kibosh on all that with their ridiculous demands.

Silvertabby
Fortunately for me, the additional 15 months hasn't caused me personally any financial hardship but I know it has done so for some women (not the champagne-swilling, first-class-travelling face of WASPI though) & I too would have supported any financial help for those women in financial need. Even though I would not have benefited myself.

Triumph13

Pollycat wrote: »

I think we all feel that way about the short notice of the 2011 Act.
And is WASPI hadn't been so GRASPI and had focused on that instead of wanting payment of women's pensions rolled back to pre-1995, they may have had more success.

Anyone fancy a conspiracy theory that GRASPI are actually being paid (in champagne) in order to head off any possibility of the 2011 act getting amended? Now where did I put my tin foil hat?