Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

p00hsticks

Pollycat wrote: »

And?
I paid NI contributions for 33 years.
I paid tax for the 33 years that I worked and have continued to pay tax on my occupational pension for the 12 years that I have been retired.
Don't try to tell me receiving the state pension is a privilege in my case!

So at the point you decided to retire, you presumably wouldn't have been expecting to receive a full state pension, as I believe that it was only in 2010 that the number of years required for one dropped from 39 (for women) and 44 (for men) down to 30.

This change will have benefitted a number of both men and women who were due to retire after 2010 and had less than 39 years NI - I wonder if this is one that WASPI also think should be "undone" and how they'd propose unwinding it ?

Goldiegirl

Layny wrote: »

Hi Goldiegirl, Paul Lewis wasn't fudging the facts about when the SPA for women reaches 66 as I have just had a forecast from the DWP. I was born in Oct 1955 and don't get my pension until aged 66. :mad: I truly wish you were right!

Hi, I maybe didn't make my point clearly.


Everyone with a birthdate 6th October 1954 to 5th April 1960 has a state pension age of 66


Yet according to Paul Lewis, the people who've had their pension age changed to 66 is 6th October 1954 to 5th April 1959


This may be a genuine mistake on his part


On the other hand, by being selective with what information he gives, he's backing up the WASPI view that only women born in the 1950's have been affected by this issue.


As far as I can see WASPI's have no interest in those born from 1960 and later, so it wouldn't serve the purpose of a WASPI supportive blog to mention the people born from 1960 onwards.


So yes, a possible fudging of the issue by Mr P Lewis

saver861

Well, regardless of whatever various views are, its down to the MP's now. Slightly ironic that the youngest member of parliament is leading for the generation before her!!

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/pensions/pensions-changes-unfair-to-women-to-be-debated-by-mps-a6793586.html#commentsDiv

RickyB2000

saver861 wrote: »

Well, regardless of whatever various views are, its down to the MP's now. Slightly ironic that the youngest member of parliament is leading for the generation before her!!

http://www.independent.co.uk/money/pensions/pensions-changes-unfair-to-women-to-be-debated-by-mps-a6793586.html#commentsDiv

There is one point in that article that concerns me - i am too ill to work beyond 60. Ignoring the impact Of these specific changes, it does make me wonder what the impact of increasing the SPA has if many people become too ill to work. I know some people in manual jobs who are struggling to work past 60 - and they are men.

Interesting to see the outcome of the debate. Feels quite soon, 7th Jan, is there enough time to consider the arguments?

EDIT: I also note that the MP is focusing on finacial hardship, as the main way of quantifying the correct notice period.

bmm78

Can anyone shed light on what the likely process is from here?

There is already a backbench debate scheduled for the 7th January, which is separate from the petition.

The petition has now reached 100,000 signatures, which means that it will be considered for a debate in parliament. However, it does not automatically trigger a debate, and one of the potential reasons given for refusing a debate is where a debate has already taken place in the house on the same subject.

What is the format and scope of the (first?) debate scheduled for a few days time? What are the potential outcomes of this?

missbiggles1

p00hsticks wrote: »

So at the point you decided to retire, you presumably wouldn't have been expecting to receive a full state pension, as I believe that it was only in 2010 that the number of years required for one dropped from 39 (for women) and 44 (for men) down to 30.

This change will have benefitted a number of both men and women who were due to retire after 2010 and had less than 39 years NI - I wonder if this is one that WASPI also think should be "undone" and how they'd propose unwinding it ?

WASPI have been keeping very quiet on the subject of the fewer number of years now needed for a full pension (for both men and women). It seems to be an aspect of the issue they've chosen to ignore.

BobQ

bmm78 wrote: »

Can anyone shed light on what the likely process is from here?

There is already a backbench debate scheduled for the 7th January, which is separate from the petition.

The petition has now reached 100,000 signatures, which means that it will be considered for a debate in parliament. However, it does not automatically trigger a debate, and one of the potential reasons given for refusing a debate is where a debate has already taken place in the house on the same subject.

What is the format and scope of the (first?) debate scheduled for a few days time? What are the potential outcomes of this?

These are debates approved by the Backbench Select Committee as topical. Usually they are general debates of an issue without necessarily any further action.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/backbench-business-committee/news-parliament-2015/mps-debate-the-equalisation-of-the-state-pension-age-on-women/

It was probably stimulated by an Early Day Motion that she signed.

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2015-16/810

It appears that Ms Black is making quite a contribution to debates already.

tinter

On the reasonableness of the 10 year limit, it seems a reasonable limit now would actually be better served as 10 years and 3-6 months.

With the plans to track the age at which people can access their private pensions to ten years before their state pension age, this would presumably avoid the main source of loss. I can't think of any other clear rational for choosing a figure of around 10 years.

BobQ

tinter wrote: »

On the reasonableness of the 10 year limit, it seems a reasonable limit now would actually be better served as 10 years and 3-6 months.

With the plans to track the age at which people can access their private pensions to ten years before their state pension age, this would presumably avoid the main source of loss. I can't think of any other clear rational for choosing a figure of around 10 years.

Why do you assume there must be a reason? 10 years is a nice round number.

Actually the figure of 10 years for notice of change to SPA was arrived at very "scientifically". They asked people and concluded:

The majority of respondents, both individuals and organisations, including Age UK, the ABI, the NAPF and Saga, told us that they thought that a 10 year notice period would be appropriate for any future change to State Pension age.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/190100/state-pension-21st-century-response.pdf.pdf

Malthusian

There is one point in that article that concerns me - i am too ill to work beyond 60. Ignoring the impact Of these specific changes, it does make me wonder what the impact of increasing the SPA has if many people become too ill to work. I know some people in manual jobs who are struggling to work past 60 - and they are men.

If you are a League Two footballer you will struggle to work past 30. (And the average salary is £40,000 a year so you're not going to be set up for life.) When the State Pension was introduced there were a lot of people working down mines, I would be surprised if any man managed to keep doing that job into their 50s after a few decades of inhaling coal dust. The State Pension has never worked on an "own occupation" basis.

If you work in a job that requires physical strength then you have two options as you become less good at it, either retrain into a less physical role (or different career altogether) or accept that your earning potential is going to go down and eventually disappear. (I.e. you will have to survive on unemployment / incapacity benefits). The government cannot stop the aging process.