Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

colsten

Goldiegirl wrote: »

What an utter shambles.

They are suddenly representing me, as a woman in my 50's, albeit one born in March 1960.

Yet the women who have been worst affected, those born around 53-54, thus being already in the 60's, are suddenly excluded from their 'ask'

Maths or logical thinking don't appear to be their strengths.

I'm glad to see they are no longer representing me (1954)....although the words on their FB are probably not what the women actually mean.

colsten

I made a mistake and originally posted this in another thread, from which I have now deleted it. I still want to say it though:

I am one of those women directly affected (born 1954) but I can't see what the fuss is all about. The big change was announced in 1995, and it wasn't a shock to me then. All my life I have asked for equal treatment of genders (and ethnicities, religions etc) so it was little surprise that women's state pension age had to become the same as men's.

Whilst there are always people (male as well as females) who suffer hardship and need to be helped, I don't see why women need more than 15 years to realise that change in state pension age is afoot. Do they read papers, watch TV, talk to neighbours / friends / colleagues, google, request a pensions forecast etc etc etc etc?

Some women complain that they did not receive a letter (or two) telling them about the changes. What I find interesting that none of them ever got any letter, either, telling them they would receive state pension payments from age 60. How did they pick 60? Why not 50,55, 65, or any other random number?

Pollycat

colsten wrote: »

I made a mistake and originally posted this in another thread, from which I have now deleted it. I still want to say it though:

I am one of those women directly affected (born 1954) but I can't see what the fuss is all about. The big change was announced in 1995, and it wasn't a shock to me then. All my life I have asked for equal treatment of genders (and ethnicities, religions etc) so it was little surprise that women's state pension age had to become the same as men's.

Whilst there are always people (male as well as females) who suffer hardship and need to be helped, I don't see why women need more than 15 years to realise that change in state pension age is afoot. Do they read papers, watch TV, talk to neighbours / friends / colleagues, google, request a pensions forecast etc etc etc etc?

Some women complain that they did not receive a letter (or two) telling them about the changes. What I find interesting that none of them ever got any letter, either, telling them they would receive state pension payments from age 60. How did they pick 60? Why not 50,55, 65, or any other random number?

But surely you realise - as a woman born in 1954 - that you weren't given 15 years notice of the extra up to 18 months added on to your SPA that happened as a result of the 2011 changes?

If you've read this thread - or any of the others that have also been started - you will know that most women are not against the 1995 changes that did indeed give many years notice but they do disagree with the 2011 changes that didn't give that degree of notice.

I guess that's what 'all this fuss is about',

Nick_C

Well as a man I wasn't given 15 years notice of the year added to my state pension age either, but it had to happen. Move on.

Pollycat

Nick_C wrote: »

Well as a man I wasn't given 15 years notice of the year added to my state pension age either, but it had to happen. Move on.

But you hadn't had an extra 3 years and 6 months added on to your SPA either.

I guess we'll move on when we're ready.

missbiggles1

Pollycat wrote: »

But surely you realise - as a woman born in 1954 - that you weren't given 15 years notice of the extra up to 18 months added on to your SPA that happened as a result of the 2011 changes?

If you've read this thread - or any of the others that have also been started - you will know that most women are not against the 1995 changes that did indeed give many years notice but they do disagree with the 2011 changes that didn't give that degree of notice.

I guess that's what 'all this fuss is about',

That's what the fuss is about on here (and it's a fuss I agree with) because MSE members tend to be reasonably well informed. On another forum I use, most people are still up in arms about the 1995 changes and the fact that none of them knew about it, nobody received a letter, there was nothing in the press, yada yada yada.

Unfortunately MSE isn't always representative of society as a whole.

dunstonh

missbiggles1 wrote: »

That's what the fuss is about on here (and it's a fuss I agree with) because MSE members tend to be reasonably well informed. On another forum I use, most people are still up in arms about the 1995 changes and the fact that none of them knew about it, nobody received a letter, there was nothing in the press, yada yada yada.

Unfortunately MSE isn't always representative of society as a whole.

But you would wish the MPs to be able to ascertain the facts and not be swayed by emotional bandwagons with inaccurate information.

Those on that other forum should be asked
1 - what letter did you get to say it was 60?
2 - As you would have been in your 30s or possibly early 40s at the time, how much interest did you take in financial matters that were 30 or so years away?
3 - What retirement planning have they done since 1995?

If people do not take an interest and do no planning then its their own fault.

missbiggles1

dunstonh wrote: »

But you would wish the MPs to be able to ascertain the facts and not be swayed by emotional bandwagons with inaccurate information.

Those on that other forum should be asked
1 - what letter did you get to say it was 60?
2 - As you would have been in your 30s or possibly early 40s at the time, how much interest did you take in financial matters that were 30 or so years away?
3 - What retirement planning have they done since 1995?

If people do not take an interest and do no planning then its their own fault.

I agree completely and argue the same on there. Just pointing out that MSE members may be better informed than most.

jazzyjustlaw

I am 44 my view is that anyone who paid into the scheme expecting to retire at a certain age and now won't has been unfairly treated. Not fair to change the rules once you started paying in. I was to retire at 60 now 67.

The fairest way would have been to have make it from when the new ones started paying in the year they changed it but doubt the government could afford it. I have a friend who goats state pension at 60 but her sister 18 months younger has to wait that sucks!

I know loads of people who have died in their 60s before getting state pension I think all men and women should be able to retire at 60.

dunstonh

I am 44 my view is that anyone who paid into the scheme expecting to retire at a certain age and now won't has been unfairly treated. Not fair to change the rules once you started paying in. I was to retire at 60 now 67.

You are 44. It changed 21 years ago. So, you were 23 when it went from 60 to 65. So, at age 23 what retirement planning had you carried out? and do you feel that 40 odd years is not enough notice?

In 1995, the basic rate of income tax was 25%. It is currently 20%. So, perhaps you should be paying 25% tax as it is unfair to make changes once you start paying.

I know loads of people who have died in their 60s before getting state pension I think all men and women should be able to retire at 60.

You may have known loads that died in their 60s but most will die in their 80s. When the state pension was first introduced, the life expectancy was just 2 years later.

Things change. Some for better, some for worse. You are likely to live for 20 more years than those that retired when you were born. That isnt fair, when you were born, it was not expected you will live that long. So, perhaps mandatory euthanasia should exist to kill all those that live longer than they were meant to when they were born.