Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

jem16

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

I am 55 and I know I have received several letters not only advising me of the changes in the 2 pension acts which have affected me so far but constantly asking me to get a valuation which I duly do every 5 years.

Were these letters from the DWP? Do you have dates if they were?

I think people need to take more responsibility for their own financial education. It is not like this is not covered in the media.

Very good point. The Budget was always fully covered on TV, radio and newspapers and the increase from 60 to 65 was covered in the Budget of 1993.

jem16

Figgerty wrote: »

NB. I do not want the 1995 Act to be reversed but I do want to have 10 years notice of the changes of the 2011 Act. This will benefit both men and women and is not an unreasonable request.

I totally agree with this too.

This will mean that only those born between April 1953 and November 1956 will be affected. Those born before April 1953 were not affected by 2011 Act and those born after November 1956 had 10 years notice.

atush

Figgerty wrote: »

I never said that I did not know about the 1995 Act increase in SPA.

Even today, not everybody buys serious newspapers.

I did eventually find my way to the internet, else I would not be writing this but I did not have the expertise or technology until it was almost too late to save extra to make up for the delayed SP, 1995 Act. With the 2011 Act changes I explained in a previous post why I was unaware of the additional delay until 2015.

Perhaps you are better educated than me or just more enlightened.

Come off it.

I was stuck at home with 3 children under 4, with twin babies, no sleep and no internet.

And I knew about it.

You'd have to have been an Ostrich.

saver861

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Because of this, they may have shot themselves in the foot re the 2011 changes, although I hope not.

I'll keep saying it ..... if WASPI had not came along there would be no discussion on anything, including the 2011 changes.

The only way the 2011 changes are getting discussed is down to WASPI - it would not be happening otherwise.

They have asked for more than they can get - the 1995 policy will not be reversed, revoked or altered in any way. There is a chance that the 2011 changes might be altered, but only, only a chance.

I may not be the most intelligent person in the world - I might not even be the most good looking in the world (though I think I come close) .......

but even I can work out that if I wanted changes to the 2011 policy and the only way it could have a chance of happening is by the WASPI campaign then I will settle for that.

All those saying how useless the WASPI campaign is has no meaning, unless they can show me how they went about getting the 2011 changes altered before WASPI come along.

Daniel54

Figgerty wrote: »

I do not want the 1995 Act to be reversed but I do want to have 10 years notice of the changes of the 2011 Act. This will benefit both men and women and is not an unreasonable request.

For those who may have missed it,this article in Saturday's Telegraph is first recent one I have come across in mainstream press which concentrates solely on this issue and simultaneously dismisses all WASPI ambitions regarding the 1995 Act

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/12105259/500000-women-deserve-a-better-state-pension-deal.html

bmm78

Daniel54 wrote: »

For those who may have missed it,this article in Saturday's Telegraph is first recent one I have come across in mainstream press which concentrates solely on this issue and simultaneously dismisses all WASPI ambitions regarding the 1995 Act

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/12105259/500000-women-deserve-a-better-state-pension-deal.html

The reaction to John Ralfe’s suggestion has been interesting. Feedback from some of the more pragmatic WASPI supporters has been positive, seeing it as a more achievable aim that would help soften the blow of the 2011 changes.

However, some are still clinging to the idea of a state pension at 60, and see anything less than that as unacceptable. Others dismissed the proposal solely on the basis that it didn’t help them personally.

If the government wants to draw a line quickly under the WASPI saga, they could probably do so with some kind of cost-effective concession at the budget in March. This would dilute the support both within the groups affected and with MPs, and the campaign falls apart without critical mass. This approach may actually be better than just digging their heels in, from a long-term political standpoint at least.

Goldiegirl

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.

I owe you an apology. I genuinely thought a woman wouldn't generalise about other women in this way, implying that it's somehow normal to have such low expectations and such a narrow life

Figgerty wrote: »

I am one of these women and realised we were many when I heard some of the #Waspi womens stories.

I didn't read serious newspapers, I watched the soaps every night and discussed TV, soap stars, pop songs, holidays etc. with the like minded woman I worked with. We were not in highly skilled jobs nor had gold plated occupational pensions.

There's nothing wrong with liking soaps and pop songs - but it not an excuse for not being in touch with current affairs as well. Watching soaps and the news aren't mutually exclusive - a person can do both!


You don't need to be highly skilled or in an occupational pension to keep up with events in the world, especially events that affect you personally.


Everyone, in every walk of life needs to take responsibility for themselves, and that involves an interest in the wider world.


It's a cop out for a soap lover on a low wage to think that this responsibility doesn't apply to them

saver861

bmm78 wrote: »

The reaction to John Ralfe’s suggestion has been interesting. Feedback from some of the more pragmatic WASPI supporters has been positive, seeing it as a more achievable aim that would help soften the blow of the 2011 changes.

Is that not what has been said many times by many people.

In effect, giving all those impacted by the 2011 changes a 10 year window equal to what everyone else got or will get for any future changes.

Had they not brought in the 10 year rule in 2013, it would be a more difficult case. However, by doing so, they are admitting a 10 year window is a reasonable time to make any adjustments - those 1950's women with just 5 or 6 years notice would, by their own definition, have been shafted, to use the technical phrase!

In addition, this has now gone too far for the government to ignore it. Altmann herself was a campaigner for these women before she too office. The size, scale and scope of the campaign means that total refusal by the government would be playing poker with a doggy hand.

Al.

atush wrote: »

Come off it.

I was stuck at home with 3 children under 4, with twin babies, no sleep and no internet.

And I knew about it.

You'd have to have been an Ostrich.

Practically the same as my circumstances. I knew about it, living in Germany, in the nineties. You'd have to be an ostrich living in a cave. On a desert island.

Nick_C

saver861 wrote: »

I'll keep saying it ..... if WASPI had not came along there would be no discussion on anything, including the 2011 changes.

The only way the 2011 changes are getting discussed is down to WASPI - it would not be happening otherwise.

Err ... people were posting about these changes on these forums back in 2011.