Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

JezR

There has been tinkering around with the format of pension statements perpetually for about 15 years ever since the SERPS inheritance issue cost over £12 Bn. The ones before that had been basically the same for decades.

Since then there has been avoidance of implying that the statements give a cast in stone entitlement which is just as well with all the upheavals over the years. They will never satisfy everyone as it seems impossible to strike a universal balance of presentation of detail. Maybe two levels ought to be offered which may be easier with an online system.

mgdavid

saver861 wrote: »

...........
Just about everyone was mis-led by the new pension amounts - .........

utter rubbish, do you really expect to improve your already dubious credibility by making stuff up so blatantly?

mgdavid

saver861 wrote: »

......
When? I missed that.........

2011
see post #241.

saver861

mgdavid wrote: »

utter rubbish, do you really exepct to improve your already dubious credibility by making stuff up so blatantly?

Obviously I won't improve my 'credibility' with you so I won't even try!

Rayling

Didnt women fight for equality.... Well welcome to our world 😊

Carnival789

I won't be signing any such petition - surely pension ages should be equal in this day and age.

I could even play devils advocate and suggest that women's pension age should be higher than men's given their increased life expectancy!!

dunstonh

I won't be signing any such petition - surely pension ages should be equal in this day and age.

It should be and that is why in 1995, the decision was made to equalise the pension age. Note the date. 20 years ago. That is why so many on this thread think the WASPI campaign is flawed and that the focus should have been on the far more recent acceleration to 66

jem16

How to influence your MP, WASPI style;

Counter Arguments when meeting MPs

WASPI - Women Against State Pension Inequality Campaign·Sunday, 10 January 2016


Equalisation - I agree with equalisation, it’s the implementation that has severe consequences for women born in the 1950’s, as a result of no/insufficient/inappropriate notification from DWP.
The EU directive to equalise didn’t set a timetable. The Conservative Government did, then accelerated the changes (Pension Act 1995/2011) much faster than promised
Are you aware DWP didn’t write to anyone for 14 years? (Pensions Act 1995) many women only had 2 years notice of a six year increase (Pensions Act 1995/2011) many finding out about both age rises at the same time, when it was too late to re plan, many had already made irreversible decisions, such as finishing work, e.g. to become a carer, on the legitimate expectation, of eligibility to a state pension at 60. Wouldn’t you agree, time is of the essence when planning for retirement? It’s impossible to plan financially for retirement at short notice, DWP have denied us this opportunity.

Longevity – If independent research has come to the conclusion that people are living longer, then I wouldn’t argue that the age should rise, again this isn’t in dispute, it’s how the changes have been implemented that affect me (explain how you have been affected)

Review 2017 – I understand so, the review is not about the changes to the state pension age, Pension Act 1995/2011 - it is considering other factors, such as occupations suitable for an older person, life expectancy in different parts of the country, further increases to the state pension age. Of course no such considerations have or will be applied for the 1950’s women.

The Flat Rate Pension (April 2016) will be more generous to pensioners – it’s been reported people have been mislead into thinking £155? will be awarded, very few will receive that figure; most (depending on circumstances) will receive £8. This is little comfort to women, who have no pension or work, for up to six years; even so it would take years to make up lost pension with £8 a week. The losses are substantial.

Work – As acknowledged by the Pensions Minister, ageism in the workplace still exists, it will take time to change the mindset or employers, promoting the value of older people in the workplace, won’t help the 1950’s women, it’s too late. There has been no provision made for this one decade of women. Many are out of the labour market and can’t secure work; others have had to accept low paid work, zero hours/temporary contracts, which offer no financial security. Debts mounting.

Labour held office – not in 1995 when the law was passed they didn’t.

Successive Government failed to address the implication of the cost of pensions, now people are living longer, state pension age should have been addressed sooner, nothing has been done for 70 years.

Reducing the deficit by piling the burden on one decade of women, is unjust, cuts should be shared equally, across the board, by Ministers and MPs too.

There was publicity – very little at that time, not in main stream newspapers that the majority would read, it’s the responsibility of DWP, to ensure people that are affected by changes to the state pension age, are personally notified, after all the consequences are far reaching. It shouldn’t be a lottery as to how people find out.

Everybody was written to – would you be able to evidence that please? Freedom of Information states otherwise (take the Paul Lewis blog with you)

You should have asked for a statement - why would I? For what reason? The pension age has been 60 for 70 years, with no hint of a change, there was no reason to. Please don’t put the onus back on me; it’s the responsibility of DWP, to take whatever steps are needed, to ensure the electorate are made fully aware of changes to the state pension age.

Cost too much, where would the money come from? It wouldn’t be fair to penalize other groups to fund your transition - Government could look at surpluses such as NI, Mr Cameron could also revisit his pre election pledge, to clamp down on tax avoidance. Other groups don’t need to be penalized, government have money, they have a choice how they spend ‘it’ shouldn’t fairness apply to all??

There’s no money - there is money, it’s just that government choose not to allocate any to women born in the 1950’s, despite there has been government failings, albeit unintentional

Government provide a safety net - benefits - on the face of ‘it’ not in reality, women with a work history of 40+ years, having paid a decade more, than the required amount of contributions, do not want to be forced onto benefits, we/I have avoided benefits throughout.

Job Seekers Allowance is time limited - 6 months,

Employment and Support Allowance is uncertain and not guaranteed

As an example, married women will not qualify for benefits, if their husband has a small income, or savings. Savings are fast dwindling, being spent on daily living expenses, in many cases for a six year period (that is if they last that long) years of uncertainty loom, then a miserable retirement ahead when reaching state pension age, surviving solely on the state pension, which is only a base for retirement, and will not fund any kind of lifestyle.

Women have done what’s expected throughout, worked, contributed and planned for retirement, everything government say we should, and what for? to have our plans scuppered at the last minute, all because we have been denied the opportunity to plan for retirement, by the very people who say we should, Government

People only get one chance of retirement, for this one decade of women, their plans have been truly shattered, by the very people we believed we could trust, Government

***************
What can you do as my MP, to help resolve my situation? (by this time you will have explained to your MP how you have been affected)

Write to the Pensions Minister (is not offering support) I know from previous experience, the Pensions Minister will not address any of my questions; the response will be standard, which won’t be helpful at all. I would like you to reassure me that you have taken my concerns seriously, and then explain what support/role you will play as my MP, to help bring about fairness and justice for me as a 1950’s woman.

Ask the MP (if a Conservative) to speak to Tim Loughton (if Labour) Andrew Gwynne or Barbara Keeley (if SNP) Mhairi Black

It will be necessary for people with MPs that won’t listen or engage, to ask them to give you the courtesy of listening and with an open mind, as there is little point in meeting, if you have a preconceived opinion, before hearing the facts.

If no joy – let the MP know you will be back

Make an appointment to see your MP, there will be hurdles to jump. I hope this information assists women to have an answer at the ready, to counter what the MPs are likely to say (although not exhaustive, hopefully will cover most)

We need to stay on the radar of every MP (supporting or not) Keep lobbying ladies

Good Luck - feed appointments and outcomes back to WASPI (via message)

Flat Rate Pension - most will receive £8. Well that's certainly news to me but there you go it must be correct if WASPi are saying it.

chris_m

jem16 wrote: »

How to influence your MP, WASPI style;

Flat Rate Pension - most will receive £8. Well that's certainly news to me but there you go it must be correct if WASPi are saying it.

Yeah, I wondered about that - not-very-well-planned boiler-plate.

Mind you, I would mind betting that even the most conscientious of MPs who received that would do the same as me - bung it to one side to (maybe) look at again later. It's waaaay too long and drawn out for an initial letter.

JezR

From the first para this seems to be 'lines to take' in a face to face conversation.

Most of the positions have been gone over at great length (!) but if they think that an NI surplus could be used they are well out of date as there isn't one any more. It has been steadily disappearing in recent years and the general consolidated fund is propping up the NIF. Not unusual after a recession, although there other factors at work too.