Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

Goldiegirl

jem16 wrote: »

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.

If the WASPI campaign results in help for the women born between '53 to '56 who've had to suffer steep rises in their State pension age with relatively short notice - this would be a massive achievement and something to be proud of


However, the WASPI ask is bigger than this - wanting women born in the 50's ( or in their 50's now, depending on which version of their ask is the current one) to be returned to the same financial position if they'd been born before April 51. This clearly will never happen


There's still an awful lot of people on the WASPI Facebook page who want the SPA reverted to 60, and nothing else will do.


There's also a lot of confusion - they don't seem to be able to distinguish between the 1995 act and the 2011 act, they don't understand the advantages of being contracted out of SERPS, and get confused between state and private pension.


Facebook would be an ideal tool to educate - but posts giving information often get deleted, and if, by any chance, the posts are allowed to stay - the majority disregard them, as the posts don't tell them what they want to hear.


If help is provided for the '53 - '56 women, that WASPI should pat themselves on the back. But the changes that the mass membership want will never happen, and ultimately, I think the Waspette's will turn on WASPI, for selling them short, and not achieving the return to a SPA of 60

MoneyWorry

Figgerty wrote: »

I asked all the 30-50 year olds I know about this when I was trying to whip up interest and they told me either they had not heard or mostly they were not interested as it did not effect them and oldies had their own houses & were wealthy. So typical of the post baby boomers!!

So if people aged 50 are not interested, what difference does 10 years notice make......nothing at all. I don't have a problem if people are not interested or can't be bothered, but they have to take the consequences. You've basically illustrated a problem with a lot of Waspis....only interested in the here and now.

colsten

Goldiegirl wrote: »

However, the WASPI ask is bigger than this - wanting women born in the 50's ( or in their 50's now, depending on which version of their ask is the current one)

They appear to have updated their 'ask' again today:

WASPI_Facebook wrote:

"WASPI ask the Government to put all women born in the 50s, or after 6 April 1951 and affected by the state pension age in the same finacial position they would have been in had they been born on or before 5th April 1950".

It's quite farcical, really, that they are unable to clearly articulate what they want even though the campaign has been running for months. So is it:

1. all women born in the 50s ?
2. only those 50s women born after 6 April 1951?
3. all woman born after 6 April 1951?
4. all women born either in the 50s or after 6 April 1951?
5. some other group of women?

Answers on a postcard please.

And never mind the "finacial position". Could be something to do with a facial?

The inability of the WASPI campaign to clearly define what they want obviously raises questions about the validity of the petition. What did those people who have signed it think the campaign is about?

colsten

MoneyWorry wrote: »

You've basically illustrated a problem with a lot of Waspis....only interested in the here and now.

....and only interested in themselves.

Their demands would create an overnight jump of some 6 years in state pension age for women born after 31/12/1959. No transitional arrangements, as the WASPIs claim for themselves.

Their demands would also widen the gap between male and female pension age to some 7 years in some case.

Where's there any equality in all this?

saver861

Nick_C wrote: »

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

Errrrrrr .... so what was the outcome? What proactive activity took place to have them changed?

Missed it myself ......

Figgerty

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.

I was aware of the equalisation of SPA to 65 but did not know the detail. It was only when my health deteriorated and I thought about early retirement that I found out my SPA was 63¾. That was ok by me as I expected an increase but did not know by how much. I had many worries at the time of the 2011 Act and would never have expected that my SPA would change again as it had already changed once.

It really does not matter to me whither you believe me or not because you will not be effecting my financial future. So doubt away.

Figgerty

MoneyWorry wrote: »

So if people aged 50 are not interested, what difference does 10 years notice make......nothing at all. I don't have a problem if people are not interested or can't be bothered, but they have to take the consequences. You've basically illustrated a problem with a lot of Waspis....only interested in the here and now.

Many people are just not interested until they start planning retirement. My neighbour is 38, she believes she will get her state pension at 65. DWP must try harder to get the increases past 65 to be publicised. Perhaps a public information announcement during the football and Corrie/Eastenders would reach those not reading newspapers.

Figgerty

As the 2011 Act is fresh in everyone's mind, perhaps you could tell me how anybody thought it fair that women badly effected by the 1995 Act should again be effected by the 2011 Act. Perhaps all you in the know should have spoken out at the time. A double hit for some women was a disgrace bearing in mind the SPA had not changed since 1940.

At least the #WASPI women are doing something and this Government may regret the politicisation of these women

colsten

Figgerty wrote: »

As the 2011 Act is fresh in everyone's mind, perhaps you could tell me how anybody thought it fair that women badly effected by the 1995 Act should again be effected by the 2011 Act. Perhaps all you in the know should have spoken out at the time. A double hit for some women was a disgrace bearing in mind the SPA had not changed since 1940.

Something was done in the 2011 Pensions Act. Look at the amendments made in the final stages: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IffsOehqpWEJ:researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN06082/SN06082.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Figgerty wrote: »

At least the #WASPI women are doing something and this Government may regret the politicisation of these women

I fear that any consideration for any genuine needs (as opposed to wanton wants) will just be drowned by the massive noise created by the entirely unreasonable demands of the WASPI campaigners.

Goldiegirl

Figgerty wrote: »

As the 2011 Act is fresh in everyone's mind, perhaps you could tell me how anybody thought it fair that women badly effected by the 1995 Act should again be effected by the 2011 Act. Perhaps all you in the know should have spoken out at the time. A double hit for some women was a disgrace bearing in mind the SPA had not changed since 1940.

At least the #WASPI women are doing something and this Government may regret the politicisation of these women

My pension age was changed to 65 due to the 1995 act and then went up to 66 after the 2011 act.

Yet WASPI aren't interested in my situation, as I was born in 1960, and they are only campaigning for 1950's women.

If they got their way, women born up to 31/12/59 would have their effective pension age restored to 60, yet a woman born 1/1/60 would wait until 66.

If you are talking about what's fair or not, how would you explain that scenario as being fair?