Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

Pollycat

audigex wrote: »

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?

So how much notice did you have of your SPA of 68?
For a SPA of 68 years you must have been born around early 1980s so that gives you probably 35 or so years notice of the change.

As for 'knowing when you're retiring', a lot of women - me included did know when their SPA was.
I knew at age 42 or so that I wouldn't be receiving my SP at age 60 but instead at age 63 years and 6 months.
Fine by me - that's what equality is all about.

Then in 2011, aged 58, I was advised that my SPA wouldn't be 63 years and 6 months but 64 years and 9 months.
It's this later change that many women think was too short notice.

OldBeanz

So how will it adversely affect you apart from having to wait another 15 months? I am sure the vast majority of women, in the spirit of equality, just got on with it and surely the time to complain would have been 2011?

Pollycat

OldBeanz wrote: »

So how will it adersely affect you apart from having to wait another 15 months? I am sure the vast majority of women, in the spirit of equality, just got on with it and surely the time to complain would have been 2011?

Is that why almost 118,000 women have signed the pettion that is the subect of this thread?

The point I was making to the poster I repled to (audigex) is the amount of notice for the 2011 changes.

Seabee42

The only injustice is that women ever had a lower state pension age. People sign the petition because they are greedy they want more for them that is all.

GibbsRule_No3

Pollycat wrote: »

The point I was making to the poster I repled to (audigex) is the amount of notice for the 2011 changes.

From reading the complaints about the WASPI take on women's state pension, most seem to be against the 1995 change and if they had gone for just the 2011 change more people, men included, would have supported a change to that advanced phase in. So is there any reason, other than muddying the waters, not to set up a campaign for the 2011 change to be looked at as a single item, removed from the 1995 change?

I have been surprised when talking about it to people at work how many are saying, my wife or sister or sister-in-law are affected by this change and most have birth dates between 53 - 55.

I always knew my retirement date was more than 60 but I could supplement my outgoings for three years but not nearly six.

Malthusian

Whilst even 1 would be unfortunate, WASPI would have us believe that pretty much every woman born in the 1950s has given up work prematurely either because they are caring or in poor health, and are on the breadline.

There do seem to be a curiously large number of these women who have selflessly sacrificed their work and their lives on the altar of their doddery parents, if you believe campaigns of this nature. I have never met any of them, or heard of a colleague who did so.

If I suggested to my parents that I - or my sister - should give up my career so I can look after them as they can't, the result would not be printable. They would kill me.

jem16

GibbsRule_No3 wrote: »

So is there any reason, other than muddying the waters, not to set up a campaign for the 2011 change to be looked at as a single item, removed from the 1995 change?

It probably wouldn't get the same support. The current campaign is being run on the premise that women are victims of 5 and 6 year rises at just 2/3 years notice as they didn't get personal notification. Many women are jumping on the bandwagon of up to 6 years compensation. According to some of the comments in the News sections on here, they want what was promised to them when they started work and they want it now!

There were many protests back in 2010 when the acceleration was first debated. Due to those protests planned increase of 2 years were pegged back to a maximum of 18 months. So it's very unlikely that this current campaign is going to change anything. WASPI don't want anything less that 6 years restitution.

I have been surprised when talking about it to people at work how many are saying, my wife or sister or sister-in-law are affected by this change and most have birth dates between 53 - 55.

I've been talking about this again and I've yet to find one woman who couldn't tell me that their state pension age wasn't 60 and that they've known for a long time. Yes some are very annoyed at the extra bit now added on but they're not going on about a year rise.

I always knew my retirement date was more than 60 but I could supplement my outgoings for three years but not nearly six.

If you were planning on supplementing your outgoings to your new retirement age anyway it would be an extra 18 months at most, not 3 years.

missbiggles1

Seabee42 wrote: »

The only injustice is that women ever had a lower state pension age. People sign the petition because they are greedy they want more for them that is all.

You might want to think about who put this injustice in place (I'll give you a clue, it wasn't women) and why.

Seabee42

So because "men" did it that makes discrimination okay? Or was it only okay because YOU gained.

Malthusian

You might want to think about who put this injustice in place (I'll give you a clue, it wasn't women) and why.

Ok, I thought about it and I don't remember women chaining themselves to railings to protest against the top-hatted moustache-twirling chauvinists who decided the fairer sex should get their state pension earlier, and demanding that they get theirs at 65 as well.

When the State Pension was brought in women had had full suffrage for decades. Regardless of the proportion of MPs and ministers that were male, we were living in a democracy and the "injustice" was put in place by men and women equally.