Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

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

Paul Lewis says;

So far so, almost, simple. But the really obscure rule that people object to is that the entitlement under the new state pension takes account of time when they were contracted out of SERPS or S2P and paying into a company or personal pension. That is done, roughly, by working out how much SERPS or S2P they would have got and deducting it from the new State Pension. Given that the standard amount is £155.65 and SERPS/S2P can be a maximum of more than £160 a week it is clear that some massive deductions will be made, in many cases reducing the new pension to below the old. So in 2016/17 many people will get just their old entitlement. Those retiring in future years will usually be earning a bit more new state pension by extra years of National Insurance contributions from 2016/17.

Note the words "object to". Yes it's factually correct but why would you object to a rule that means you don't get any less than you always were going to get but you don't get any more.

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 you wanted your cake and to eat it?

As it is if you continue to work after April 2016 , or make voluntary contributions, that is exactly what you're going to get.

However what you're seriously expecting is that you paid less NI, you get more in your public sector pension than you would from the state pension and you still want exactly the same as someone who didn't.

But yet you feel you were missold?

JezR

Altmann never actually said that the single tier flat pension was mis-sold. Her words were: “there is so much misconception about this £150 (sic) a week. £150 is the maximum and it’s not something everyone will get at the beginning.”

It was the interviewer that in reply to this used the term 'mis-sold'. By then generally agreeing with her, the words have been transferred subsequently and reported in some places as if they came from Altmann's mouth. A standard media trick that an experienced politician would have been less likely to have fallen for maybe.

Mind you, she did say: 'Hats off to BBC Woman's Hour and Jeff Prestridge Mail on Sunday who've been clamouring for u-turn on women & new state pension'. In 2013.

rosehip

I am a 1950s born woman affected by the rise in SPA and I feel I have been kicked in the teeth four times over on this issue by various governments. Firstly, I remember when the 1995 Act was passed it talked about equalising pensions by 2020 giving the impression that anyone reaching pensionable age before then would come under the old rules, ie 60 for women. I sent for a pension forecast circa 2007 and it came back that I would be entitled to a full state pension with no mention of it not starting until after age 60. In about 2009 I did find out I wouldn't get a pension until age 64 but only through reading an article in my company pension magazine. The woman who wrote the article, a qualified accountant whose whole job was to update members of the pension scheme on changes to state benefits and was also affected by the changes, had only just found out about this herself, so the ordinary lay person hardly stood a hope in hell of finding out the full implications of the 1995 Act!


Then the coalition in 2010 immediately raised the state pension age again and the starting date for my SPA was delayed by another 20 months. When the new flat rate for all was touted with a great fanfare, I thought at least I would get that, having easily over 35 years of NI contributions, but of course having been contracted out for a number of years and being penalised for it, I'm not going to get anything close to the new flat rate pension of £155 a week.


The last straw is that I have recently been told by my company pension scheme that approximately a sixth of my final salary pension will not get any further inflation increases at all as under the old rules the government paid the inflation on this but under the new rules the government have reneged - my words - on this pledge. So having been told I'm getting less state pension due to having been contracted out and building up entitlements elsewhere, the government has the nerve to mess with my company pension entitlements too.


I am lucky compared to others in my age group as I'm able to keep working. But there are financial decisions I would have made differently had I known 20 years ago I wouldn't get my state pension at 60 and I do now feel very aggrieved. Despite the changes I'm still not too badly off, but that's more due to luck than anything else, and I know other women in my age group will be suffering real financial hardship through no fault of their own but just through believing they could trust their own government. There is a real injustice here and I would like to thank Martin for highlighting this issue and for his support.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

Paul Lewis says;

Note the words "object to". Yes it's factually correct but why would you object to a rule that means you don't get any less than you always were going to get but you don't get any more.

So you wanted your cake and to eat it?

The pension I will be getting is what I expected to be getting from day one. The amount is entirely correct - as I have said many times before.

The issue is that the sitting government mis-led just about everyone that was contracted out into thinking they would have a bigger pension for their years service.

So, I don't like any government providing mis-leading information whether it be this or anything else. Nor would I like my employer to mis-lead me, or anybody else in a position of trust and responsibility.

They are investigating it themselves having admitted it was done incorrectly and needed putting right. But, if even on that basis, if you still think they have not done anything wrong, then I don't think we are going to get any further on this point!!

saver861

hyubh wrote: »

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

I never knew you cared so much ........ I'm ..... I'm ..... words fail me ....

Seabee42

There is a very long history of Governments introducing new state pension schemes and then changing them very quickly always for the worse. Pension costs are a massive unfunded burden and women have been in a very privileged and unfair position of paying less NI (less years) and yet receiving a pension for longer (Therefore a higher benefit). The sooner this is fixed the better for all. Sadly no one seems to care about anyone else this whole thread is about me me me me me "I am entitled".

patanne

Seabee42 wrote: »

There is a very long history of Governments introducing new state pension schemes and then changing them very quickly always for the worse. Pension costs are a massive unfunded burden and women have been in a very privileged and unfair position of paying less NI (less years) and yet receiving a pension for longer (Therefore a higher benefit). The sooner this is fixed the better for all. Sadly no one seems to care about anyone else this whole thread is about me me me me me "I am entitled".

We are obviously reading different threads as a large number of people on here (including women) are agreeing that the equalising is fair and the real issue is the speed of the 2011 changes which don't just affect women.

saver861

Seabee42 wrote: »

There is a very long history of Governments introducing new state pension schemes and then changing them very quickly always for the worse.

Sadly no one seems to care about anyone else this whole thread is about me me me me me "I am entitled".

I think you probably miss the point of the thread and others. Indeed you probably miss the point of this whole website.

They fact governments make changes on pensions or anything does not mean the public has to sit and accept if they don't feel these changes are correct.

It is about challenging and scrutinising decisions.

This is the same purpose of this website and many others. It is about giving individuals and groups the opportunity to challenge any decisions that they think incorrect.

If that were not allowed to happen, the alternative would be considerably less appealing.

missbiggles1

rosehip wrote: »

I am a 1950s born woman affected by the rise in SPA and I feel I have been kicked in the teeth four times over on this issue by various governments. Firstly, I remember when the 1995 Act was passed it talked about equalising pensions by 2020 giving the impression that anyone reaching pensionable age before then would come under the old rules, ie 60 for women. I sent for a pension forecast circa 2007 and it came back that I would be entitled to a full state pension with no mention of it not starting until after age 60. In about 2009 I did find out I wouldn't get a pension until age 64 but only through reading an article in my company pension magazine. The woman who wrote the article, a qualified accountant whose whole job was to update members of the pension scheme on changes to state benefits and was also affected by the changes, had only just found out about this herself, so the ordinary lay person hardly stood a hope in hell of finding out the full implications of the 1995 Act!


Then the coalition in 2010 immediately raised the state pension age again and the starting date for my SPA was delayed by another 20 months. When the new flat rate for all was touted with a great fanfare, I thought at least I would get that, having easily over 35 years of NI contributions, but of course having been contracted out for a number of years and being penalised for it, I'm not going to get anything close to the new flat rate pension of £155 a week.


The last straw is that I have recently been told by my company pension scheme that approximately a sixth of my final salary pension will not get any further inflation increases at all as under the old rules the government paid the inflation on this but under the new rules the government have reneged - my words - on this pledge. So having been told I'm getting less state pension due to having been contracted out and building up entitlements elsewhere, the government has the nerve to mess with my company pension entitlements too.


I am lucky compared to others in my age group as I'm able to keep working. But there are financial decisions I would have made differently had I known 20 years ago I wouldn't get my state pension at 60 and I do now feel very aggrieved. Despite the changes I'm still not too badly off, but that's more due to luck than anything else, and I know other women in my age group will be suffering real financial hardship through no fault of their own but just through believing they could trust their own government. There is a real injustice here and I would like to thank Martin for highlighting this issue and for his support.

I'm another 50s woman but you must have totally misunderstood to have thought that. I was made very clear that the increase of pension age would be made incrementally for those reaching SPA after April 2010, something I was very happy to hear as, at one point, I thought that everybody born post April 1950 would immediately have their pension age increased to 65.

Sometimes people believe what they want to believe rather than taking onboard the information which is actually being given out.

mgdavid

hyubh wrote: »

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

this is so well-put that I think it worth repeating :T