Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

patanne

I have to say that if it really was a negative (I know it wasn't) it was a negative that I rather wish I had been involved in!

zagfles

Goldiegirl wrote: »

But in the context of an article called 'why women will lose out under the new state pension', the implication is that being contracted out is somehow a negative.

Yes, having been contracted out is massively benifical for the new state pension, as we've discussed here before. It's pretty clueless to use that as an argument as to why women lose out in the new state pension, they gain! Doesn't really suit the agenda though.

jem16

zagfles wrote: »

Yes, having been contracted out is massively benifical for the new state pension, as we've discussed here before. It's pretty clueless to use that as an argument as to why women lose out in the new state pension, they gain! Doesn't really suit the agenda though.

WASPI are being advised by Paul Lewis who had this to say on contracting out.

First, in its early years the new state pension will be reduced for people who were 'contracted out' of State Second Pension and SERPS and paid instead into a private or company pension. Contracting out ended in April 2016. For those who were contracted out an amount is deducted from their entitlement to new State Pension. If that reduces the amount of the new State Pension to less than they would have got under the old system then they get that old pension amount instead. Hence the large number who will get the same or little more than the old pension.

In the first five years of the new scheme 1,020,000 will reach state pension age but get less than the full new pension and 830,000 (81%) will do so partly because of a contracted out deduction. Among men 85% of those getting less are affected by a contracted out deduction. For women - the WASPI group - the figure is 73%.

Is it any wonder then that this group of women are feeling hard done to as they are being told they will get less than a full state pension.

Another of his comments say;

Second, the new state pension requires 35 years of National Insurance contributions to get a full pension. Since 2010 the old pension only needed 30 years. It will be harder for women than men to achieve this higher number. Missing the 35 year target is at least part of the reason for the reduced pension for one in five men (21%) and more than a third of women (37%) in the first five years of the new state pension - the WASPI women.

No mention of the fact that if the WASPI women still got their pension at age 60 they would have needed 39 years of NI. Many of the WASPI supporters keep telling us that they have over 40 years NI contributions, have worked since they were 15 etc. Most that took time out to have children will have earned HRP. So what is the problem?

patanne

They are being TOLD they have a problem - there is no other problem. Unfortunately, with equality we earned the right to be equally stupid. Makes you wonder what the Pankhurst's would have done. It's enough to make them swirl in their graves.

RickyB2000

One of the few articles I have seen that explains why contracting in was actually a bad thing for new state pension. I also like the photo of David Cameron - cheers

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/feb/10/poorer-state-pension-contracted-in

saver861

Goldiegirl wrote: »

But in the context of an article called 'why women will lose out under the new state pension', the implication is that being contracted out is somehow a negative.

Well in terms of the numbers its factual. There is no debate about that. If you wish to see it as implicitly misleading then I'm not anything will change your mind on that.

The difficulty in these arguments are that there is an opinion that savvywoman, Paul Lewis, Jeff Prestridge etc have agendas and are somehow providing incorrect and misleading information. Now I have not read all the articles so I'm not in a position to judge. However these are experienced commentators, have they suddenly dropped their standards or become inept with facts?

Equally I don't see anything in the Frances Coppolla article that has anything deliberately misleading. Again, it is another commentator expressing an alternative opinion. Indeed, I've said many times I'm of the view that there is insufficient argument to get the 1995 changes reversed.

If you look at everything through one perspective then its likely you will only every see one view.

zagfles

saver861 wrote: »

Well in terms of the numbers its factual. There is no debate about that. If you wish to see it as implicitly misleading then I'm not anything will change your mind on that.

The difficulty in these arguments are that there is an opinion that savvywoman, Paul Lewis, Jeff Prestridge etc have agendas and are somehow providing incorrect and misleading information. Now I have not read all the articles so I'm not in a position to judge. However these are experienced commentators, have they suddenly dropped their standards or become inept with facts?

They are presenting a skewed picture. They are just looking at the state pension, not the pension they've contracted out into!! The whole point of contracting out is that instead of part of the state pension, you got NI rebates towards another pension! So it's completely disingenuous to imply contracting out means people lose out. They don't, they get less state pension but more of another pension.

But as well as that, those who have a lower state pension due to contracting out have the opportunity to build their state pension up after 2016! Those who never contracted out don't, if they already have 35 years. Any further NI contributions are totally wasted.

I know - I'm one who was contracted out, the new state pension is massively beneficial to me. As it is to virtually everyone who was contracted out and who will have a few years working after 2016.

hyubh

saver861 wrote: »

That is factual. It may even be a shade more than two thirds women in public sector.

The current level of female participation in public sector schemes is something that came into being during 60-something women's working lives - when they were born there were marriage bars all over the public sector, yet by the mid 90s the end of discrimination against part timers (and scheme auto-enrolment) had led to a mass influx of low earning, frequently female members in the LGPS and NHS schemes in particular. This wasn't a symptom of women having it bad as the article speciously tries to insinuate, but a clearly positive set of developments - much better to have 15 or so years LGPS or NHS scheme membership than 15 years contracted into SERPs/S2P.

saver861

zagfles wrote: »

They are presenting a skewed picture. They are just looking at the state pension, not the pension they've contracted out into!! The whole point of contracting out is that instead of part of the state pension, you got NI rebates towards another pension! So it's completely disingenuous to imply contracting out means people lose out. They don't, they get less state pension but more of another pension.

That's not how I'm seeing the articles. There is no debate that the new pension will benefit many. The article referred to on Savvywoman refers to a number of changes that come in with the new pension, such as women not being able to claim on husbands NIC's etc. So some of the options they had previously will no longer be available.

Two thirds of women work in public sector and so more women will be contracted out than men. Not that they 'lose out'.

However, as stated earlier, the minister admits the new pensions were mis-sold. So, those who were led to believe they would get the full single tier pension found out later they would not if they were contracted out. I'm one of them.

So, in that sense, I'm not getting what I was initially led to believe I would get and thats by the governments own admission. That mis information was not an oversight but an attempt to gain political advantage. In that sense I lose out.

There is any amount of articles written about this and they are all referring to the same thing. There is no implication as such that its all down to contracted out being less beneficial.

The government admit they got it wrong and they themselves are investigating the quality of the communication on this.

I remember when I found out about this - I was actually on the phone to DWP about something else and it came up accidentally. The woman I was speaking to explained it to me because she was affected by it herself. She did not fully understand it herself and she was working in the DWP!! In any case, at that point I realised I had been sold a pup!

hyubh

saver861 wrote: »

So, in that sense, I'm not getting what I was initially led to believe I would get and thats by the governments own admission. That mis information was not an oversight but an attempt to gain political advantage. In that sense I lose out.

My commiserations - it must be hard struggling by on a taxpayer funded final salary pension, drawn early without reductions, and learning you will not be getting extra state pension you were never entitled to in the first place. My heart weeps