Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

hugheskevi

I will disagree, it should have been done sooner / quicker.
Nobody said life is fair. They've had a skewed advantage for many decades, they campaigned like blazes for equality, now they whinge and don't like it. Tough. The 2011 changes are AIUI a maximum of 18 months longer working, hardly earth-shattering.

I agree with this view. I would say that the 2011 changes would ideally have been with more notice, but the circumstances of 2010 and 2011 led to many 'unfair' policy changes.

For most of those affected the policy change can be summarised as saying that they had 5+ years notice that they would not receive up to about £10,000 compared to their expectations at the time. Not ideal, but hardly outrageous in the context of all the other changes (tuition fees, VAT, RPI/CPI changes to pensions, etc).

Unsurprising to see that they do not seem to be arguing to be fully treated under the 1995 system - I cannot find any reference to removing all the above RPI increases made during the Labour years, which are not part of a 1995 system, nor changes to be treated under 44 qualifying years. Just a campaign to be treated under a best-of-both-worlds.

p00hsticks

Goldiegirl wrote: »

This £8 a week pension thing - does anybody know where they got this idea from?

As it's in a paragraph whcih appears to be addressing the statement that the nSP can be more generous than the existing rules, I suspect that they meant to say that on average the affected WASPI women are predicted to get £8 a week MORE when the nSP comes in than they could previously have expected.

Some of Paul Lewis's blogs had FOI data from the DWP which indicated how many people would get the full new nSP and how many wouldn't but would still be better off under the new rules than they would under the current rules, broken down by men and women and year of retirement.

However the data didn't take into account the accompanying rise in pension age, and I'm not aware that there were any figures to say exactly how much better off a week people would be.

As an example, as a woman born in early 1960 who's been contracted out most of my working life I can now expect my pension to be around £155 a week instead of £120 if I continue to work for another eight years (or buy the relevant NI contributions).

jem16

mgdavid wrote: »

<sticks head above parapet>

I will disagree, it should have been done sooner / quicker.

Fair enough - I'm not complaining that much but I did have just under 10 years notice of an extra year.

The main complaints I can see come from those born late 1953 and 1954 - much less notice.

jem16

p00hsticks wrote: »

As it's in a paragraph whcih appears to be addressing the statement that the nSP can be more generous than the existing rules, I suspect that they meant to say that on average the affected WASPI women are predicted to get £8 a week MORE when the nSP comes in than they could previously have expected.

Yes I think you're right on that. I heard it mentioned during the debate too.

As an example, as a woman born in early 1960 who's been contracted out most of my working life I can now expect my pension to be around £155 a week instead of £120 if I continue to work for another eight years (or buy the relevant NI contributions).

You're correct of course as you've bothered to find out. Most WASPI Facebook posts simply say they'll lose out by being contracted out, they'll lose out as you NEED 35 years and you'll lose out if you retire before April 2016.

Goldiegirl

p00hsticks wrote: »

As it's in a paragraph whcih appears to be addressing the statement that the nSP can be more generous than the existing rules, I suspect that they meant to say that on average the affected WASPI women are predicted to get £8 a week MORE when the nSP comes in than they could previously have expected.

Some of Paul Lewis's blogs had FOI data from the DWP which indicated how many people would get the full new nSP and how many wouldn't but would still be better off under the new rules than they would under the current rules, broken down by men and women and year of retirement.

However the data didn't take into account the accompanying rise in pension age, and I'm not aware that there were any figures to say exactly how much better off a week people would be.

As an example, as a woman born in early 1960 who's been contracted out most of my working life I can now expect my pension to be around £155 a week instead of £120 if I continue to work for another eight years (or buy the relevant NI contributions).

Yes, that makes more sense - their guidelines for approaching MP's weren't worded very well at all.

Incidentally, my situation is almost identical to yours. I was born in March 1960, and was contracted out for many years, although my current starting amount is £126. Even though I've stopped working already, I'll make voluntary NIC's to bring me up to the full single tier amount.

jem16 wrote: »

You're correct of course as you've bothered to find out. Most WASPI Facebook posts simply say they'll lose out by being contracted out, they'll lose out as you NEED 35 years and you'll lose out if you retire before April 2016.

This is one of the things that bugs me about WASPI - they want everything their own way. They want to reinstate the SPA of 60,which would mean many would retire before April 2016, yet still have the benefits of the new state pension.

Talk about wanting your cake and eating it!

jem16

Apparently a new debate has been granted - 1st Feb at 4:30pm in Westminster Hall.

Meanwhile on Facebook WASPI leaders being accused of bullying and harassment with the tone of their posts to get women to meet with MPs.

Initial post by WASPI now edited and all dissenting comments have been deleted - more being added and deleted right away.

Can't say I'm surprised.

greenglide

They seem a bit "odd" - berating people and telling them not to email their MP and to make an appointment to see them.

Which assumes that everyone can actually get to see their MP - the practicalities around getting there seem to be ignored and the tone of their announcements is very annoying. I saw a comment posted that one of their supporters was leaving because of the way they were addressed and were treat as 5 year olds!

jem16

greenglide wrote: »

I saw a comment posted that one of their supporters was leaving because of the way they were addressed and were treat as 5 year olds!

There's been quite a few saying they were leaving and really very unhappy at the treatment.

bmm78

Isn't a Westminster Hall debate a bit of a backward step?

audigex

I completely don't see how this is unfair. In fact this is making it fair.

The fact it's going up 3 years at once is silly, but this is making things fairer: why can women retire earlier than men?

Anyway excuse me for not having much sympathy for those retiring at 65 when my own retirement age is currently 68 and will almost certainly be be somewhere between 70 and 80 by the time I get there. At least you know when you're retiring, eh?