Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

saver861

Malthusian wrote: »

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.

But that is the reason why different professions have different retirement ages for their occupational pension. Many in the NHS for instance have a retirement age of 55. So, retirements are planned accordingly.

jem16

Goldiegirl wrote: »

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.

There was some interesting activity yesterday on Facebook, especially around the new state pension with many WASPI supporters having totally the wrong idea of how it will work. According to one of the posts, Paul Lewis has been advising them on the new state pension and how most women are going to be seriously disadvantaged.

It seemed to be a common theme around that their posts that 35 years are now needed and that anyone with less will lose out. The contracted out issue seemed to be big with many complaining that they won't get the full state pension because of it, even though they won't get any less than they were always going to get under current rules.

One poster who was trying to point out what would really happen was told to stop posting inaccuracies and told she didn't know the "facts".

The whole thread has now been removed - WASPI don't appear to like negative comments on their Facebook page and there were quite a few people disagreeing with them yesterday.

Now if Paul Lewis is advising them and leading them to believe that WASPI women with less than £155pw are losing out with the new state pension, I really wonder exactly what his agenda is.

There is one main group who will lose out and that is the group who have less than 10 years NO contributions of their own. For the rest of these 1950s women they will get no less than they always were going to get under current rules - some of them may actually get more if they were not contracted out. However they all seem to be under the misapprehension that the £155pw is an entitlement and flat-rate as opposed to single tier.

Reading Paul Lewis' blog and written evidence to the pensions committee he does appear to see the £155 as an entitlement.

http://paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/2015/11/women-will-get-less-than-men-from-new.html

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/work-and-pensions-committee/understanding-the-new-state-pension/written/25274.html

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

Many in the NHS for instance have a retirement age of 55.

Special Class status was part of the 1995 section. This was removed for new joiners from 2008.

tinter

BobQ wrote: »

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

Naturally I'm aware the actual reason for the choice was peoples predilection for round numbers. I'm just pointing out that it requires only the most marginal change in order for the 10 year notice period to serve a useful and practical purpose in relation to retirement planning.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

Special Class status was part of the 1995 section. This was removed for new joiners from 2008.

Yes but different professions still have different retirement ages. Police, Fire etc is different to others at 65.

The example of the earlier post of the division two footballer will be different again. I don'k know anything about footballers pension but they will have an earlier age still.

Not many professional footballers still on the pitch in their early 60's - though some in their early 30's could be mistaken for early 60's at times!!!!

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

It seemed to be a common theme around that their posts that 35 years are now needed and that anyone with less will lose out. The contracted out issue seemed to be big with many complaining that they won't get the full state pension because of it, even though they won't get any less than they were always going to get under current rules.

There is widespread confusion about the new pension that is without doubt. To think not is naive and there is no defence to the shambles.

The Pensions minister herself states that it was 'mis-sold'. Extract from article on link.

Jane Garvey, Woman’s Hour presenter, then said: “In that case, to be honest with you, it’s (the new state pension) is being mis-sold”.

The Baroness replied: “I agree with you and I am trying to correct that.”

This was put out there in an underhand political manner - the usual 'we have good news which is the new pension will be single tier at around £155 per week'. Many people read that as being the amount they would get for 35 years service. I and everyone I discussed it with were under that impression.

That confusion still exists and is impacting men and women of all ages. The statements they then put out with 'starting amounts' etc increased the confusion and there are already a number of revisions to these statements.

So, while it is true that people do not actually lose anything they would have gotten, the political saga of mis-selling the facts to gain popularity is unacceptable and clearly misleading.

If a supermarket highlights a new 50% lower price of cornflakes, shoppers will be pleased. If the shoppers get home and find the amount of cornflakes has also been reduced by 50% then most will feel mis-led. There is no actual loss but shoppers would feel cheated nonetheless and will develop mistrust.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/480eb06e-8866-11e5-90de-f44762bf9896.html#axzz3wHCLfe79

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

This was put out there in an underhand political manner - the usual 'we have good news which is the new pension will be single tier at around £155 per week'. Many people read that as being the amount they would get for 35 years service. I and everyone I discussed it with were under that impression.

Who put it out there though - the media?

It certainly wasn't what was written in the actual green paper.

Malthusian

The example of the earlier post of the division two footballer will be different again. I don'k know anything about footballers pension but they will have an earlier age still.

Nope, not since 2006. Footballers can now only draw their pensions from age 55 like everyone else. And your average League One / Two journeyman would never be able to save enough to live on from 30-35 even if they could draw it. Once they become unable to play football they find a different career. Someone who has a job that he becomes unable to do from 60 faces exactly the same decision, just later.

But that is the reason why different professions have different retirement ages for their occupational pension.

We're talking about the State Pension, not occupational and private pensions. If you save your own money or receive a pension as part of the terms of your employment then you can retire whenever you like.

The State Pension begins, in theory, at the point at which we can't reasonably expect someone to do any work. It has never worked on an "own occupation" basis. Why should one man who can no longer work on a dockside but is still perfectly capable of manning a checkout retire at 60 at the taxpayer's expense, when another man who has manned checkouts all his life has to keep working until 67?

JezR

Explaining complexity is never easy. Which is why many reports tended to concentrate on the simple long term aspect for people starting a working life now. There has been sloppy use of the term 'flat rate' though.

Although to be fair to Steve Webb he did say when launching the whole thing that in the transition the single tier would be delivered some pensioners would receive less than full amount 'directly from the state pension' - the rest coming from existing top-ups from contracted out pension schemes.

Most of those with an actual shortfall overall taking all pension pillars into account will come from lack of contribution years, as is the case now.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

Who put it out there though - the media?

It certainly wasn't what was written in the actual green paper.

The actual amount was not established until the Autumn statement last November. The purpose of the change was to bring in the single tier system which would equate to around the equivalent of the current two tier amounts. So everyone with 35 years gets the same.

Malthusian wrote: »

We're talking about the State Pension, not occupational and private pensions. If you save your own money or receive a pension as part of the terms of your employment then you can retire whenever you like.

I'm not sure if we are talking cross purposes here. However, the posts earlier are referring to the fairness or otherwise of 10 years notice to changes to spa.

To that end, people then plan their retirement on the basis of their own personal circumstances, when they can access their occupational pension etc. As stated above, various agencies etc were consulted on what might be a reasonable timescale and thus 10 years was the agreed amount. The wider debate is, given 10 years as the accepted minimum, then those who had less than 10 years notice in the 2011 changes were put at an unfair disadvantage.

Malthusian wrote: »

The State Pension begins, in theory, at the point at which we can't reasonably expect someone to do any work. It has never worked on an "own occupation" basis. Why should one man who can no longer work on a dockside but is still perfectly capable of manning a checkout retire at 60 at the taxpayer's expense, when another man who has manned checkouts all his life has to keep working until 67?

As above, there is no disagreement that a miner or a cash till attendant should get their state pension at the same age. The difference will be in the occupational retirement ages from these professions and the planning etc that the individuals put in to make up the difference between their own selected retirement date and having sufficient finances to take them to state pension age.