Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

Nick_C

atush wrote: »

Sorry, but not true. Even in public service, men earn more than women doing the same (or equivalent) job.

That depends on how you construe equivalent jobs. If you try to compare dustmen with dinner ladies, as the courts and unions have done, then yes there are discrepancies. I know the courts don't agree with me, but I think claiming an equivalence on such disparate jobs is ridiculous.

Within public service, jobs are graded. You salary depends on your length of service and experience. I woman new to the job will be paid less than a man who has been doing the job five years. A man new to the job will be paid less than a woman who has been doing it for five years.

bmm78

Figgerty wrote: »

I don't suppose many of these women were educated past 15/16 years old and many carried out menial jobs with little or no access to computers until recently. Not many would have bought the Telegraph or the Guardian to 'keep up' and would have spent all their time bringing up a family and trying to survive.

The notion that the only references to the changes were in the broadsheets has been completely refuted.

Figgerty wrote: »

The #Waspi group may have asked for the 1995 Act changes to be reversed and if so, they could teach our Prime Minister how to negotiate on remaining in the EU. Demands are rarely met but if you ask for little you are likely to get even less.

The approach has clearly backfired. The negotiation principle only makes sense if the demands are in any way realistic, and that negotiations are actually taking place. They are not in a position where they are playing offer/counter-off with the government. It's either extremely naive of the founders, or complete incompetence from the guy that's supposed to be helping them run the campaign.

It has given the government an easy out, as shown when Altmann gave evidence to the W&P Committee. Making unreasonable and unrealistic demands leaves them open to being dismissed on that basis.

Much of the anti-WASPI sentiment is due to people taking exception to their demands, and their evasive approach to any criticism of them. It leaves them open to easy attack and detracts from what should be the main focus of the campaign.

Even Martin Lewis told them in no uncertain terms that they should scale down their demands as they were unachievable.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

Thats a good calculator then ... given that there is no data in relation to the petition on gender or date of birth for signatories.

131k signed. 3.7 million 1950s women.

That makes it less than 4% as I said.

jem16

Figgerty wrote: »

To give me 10 years notice of SPA change would mean reverting to the age quoted in the 1995 Act.

You have had at least 15 years notice for 1995 Act. 2011 Act gave you less than 10 years so you have a point for reverting back to age 63.75 but not 60.

Sticking your head in the sand is not planning your retirement.

Figgerty

jem16 wrote: »

That's a shame. Next you'll be telling me that you don't read the newspapers, listen to the radio or watch TV.

Of course maybe you did actually get a letter and you didn't understand it because they sent you a 3 page letter with the date you had to wear a seatbelt hidden in Page 2, rather than your age in numbers clearly written in a one page letter?

Or perhaps you're not good with numbers?

Or perhaps the letter was publicising the new state pension and it's introduction in April 1917 or 1916 and you thought that was your new state pension age. Then you check further and you discover the new flat rate state pension is not a flat rate and everyone will not be receiving the much heralded £144. What a shambolic way to communicate the most important change in a pension that many older people rely on receiving because they paid National Insurance for 40 - 50 years.

Figgerty

patanne wrote: »

Just wonder how many are signing having assumed that they are talking about the recent changes and not the 1995 changes. We've wanted equality for SO long why on earth are we whinging about getting it. Frankly 'they' are an embarrassment.

Most of the #Waspi women have worked 40 to 50 years and did not enjoy equal pay for many of the years worked. The escalation of the changes & including the increase to 66 was unfair. How did we not notice the detail at the time it was being discussed?

missbiggles1

Figgerty wrote: »

I don't suppose many of these women were educated past 15/16 years old and many carried out menial jobs with little or no access to computers until recently. Not many would have bought the Telegraph or the Guardian to 'keep up' and would have spent all their time bringing up a family and trying to survive.

The #Waspi group may have asked for the 1995 Act changes to be reversed and if so, they could teach our Prime Minister how to negotiate on remaining in the EU. Demands are rarely met but if you ask for little you are likely to get even less.

I think the #Waspi women have done amazingly well to get the country talking about them and their campaign.

Good luck to them. :T

You win the award for the most pompous, patronising post on the thread!:mad:

Figgerty

PensionTech wrote: »

The issue is that the state pension is not a savings scheme. It is a state benefit. Like all state benefits, you pay for them via tax and NICs (and NICs don't only go towards the state pension); and like all state benefits, what (if anything) you get back out, and what conditions apply to that, does depend on the whims of the government. This wasn't always obvious but it certainly is now.

Your state pension is calculated on the number of years National Insurance contributions you make. Not a tax nor a benefit. Many of the #Waspi women have 40-50 years contributions and their pension today is calculated on just 30 years contributions and from April on 35 years. They have overpaid and will not receive any "benefit" for that.

dunstonh

Figgerty wrote: »

You are forgetting that the Coalition Government escalated the changes of the 1995 Act in the 2011 Act. My original SPA was the historical 60, unchanged from 1940, then it was changed to 63¾, then to 65½. To give me 10 years notice of SPA change would mean reverting to the age quoted in the 1995 Act.

I'm not forgetting anything. The 1995 changes were fair and gave a reasonable timescale. The 2011 changes were too fast.

The WASPI campaign should have focused on the 2011 changes. Not the 1995 changes. Campaigning for a return to age 60 deflects from the real issue which is the 2011 changes.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

131k signed. 3.7 million 1950s women.

That makes it less than 4% as I said.

ahh right ..... soo, it seems only only 3,569,000 to go then - give or take .... or 3,569,001 if you exclude my vote!!

Oh .... while you have your calculator out .... the women pension population is 7,060,000.

What percentage does the 1950's women make up of this total?