Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

jem16

Goldiegirl wrote: »

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.

This shows the unfairness of the ask.

saver861

colsten wrote: »

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.

Fear not - if anything comes out of it the it will be because WASPI got the ball rolling. Before then nobody was going to get anything.


WASPI's starting point is to ask for the maximum.

The Governments starting point is to give nothing.

The more observant will see these are equal opposites, with the Government holding the reins as the decision maker.

MoneyWorry

Figgerty wrote: »

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.

So using your logic, you don't plan for retirement until a year or so before retiring??? And people need a public information announcement to tell them that one day they will not be working.

MoneyWorry

colsten wrote: »

....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?

And if their demands were met, 112 billion would land on the taxpayer affecting their ability to save for their pensions. I actually think if most people saw how they present themselves on Twitter they would certainly see a truer picture.

colsten

saver861 wrote: »

WASPI's starting point is to ask for the maximum.

WASPI's starting point is utterly unreasonable

saver861 wrote: »

The Governments starting point is to give nothing.

The Government has not been presented with credible evidence as to why a change to democratically established law is required, and why it is required for a seemingly random group of the population.

I am very well versed with the art of negotiation and know that you always ask for more than you are prepared to settle for. However, if you enter a negotiation with a totally outrageous position, you won't be taken serious.

MoneyWorry

patanne wrote: »

There is no point in having an advert - even during Corrie. What they need to do is have a story line on either Corrie or Eastenders (or even better both) then maybe their audience may actually pay some attention. For some it will be the only way they will find out. How old is Gail now? Sorry folks but I am pleased to say I have not seen it for almost 30 years.

Do you actively build up credits from spending all your time in the pub, because that's all they seemed to do on Corrie when I watched it.

jem16

MoneyWorry wrote: »

I actually think if most people saw how they present themselves on Twitter they would certainly see a truer picture.

Couldn't agree more with this statement.

They have clarified today on Twitter that the biggest injustice is the 1995 Act which has ( apparently ) seen a 6 year hike.

Anyone that disagrees is subjected to a torrent of abuse. Many of their own supporters are now being blocked as they are looking to make suggestions which is less than their "ask" of effective spa at 60 for 1950s women.

It's not a campaign I could support in any shape or form because of this.

Figgerty

colsten wrote: »

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

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.

Yes, something was done but the same women ended up being hit again by the 2011 Act.

We do not all have investments, so I don't think you can comment on women who were unable to save for their future. Or those who thought they would receive a pension at a certain age and find out they were wrong.

Your posts are condescending and you have insulted me several times. You are quite off putting.

Goldiegirl

This comment from Figgerty was posted on the parliamentary thread

We should be glad that Parliament is willing to listen to a group of elderly women

I didn't comment on that thread, as I didn't want to derail it.

But, elderly? Really?

Women in their late 50's to early 60's - that's not elderly at all. It's a well known fact that 'elderly' is 20 years older than the age you are now.

In fact, I've gone back to thinking Figgerty must be a man. No woman, of any age would include herself in a group labelled elderly!:rotfl:

jem16

Figgerty wrote: »

Yes, something was done but the same women ended up being hit again by the 2011 Act.

You seem to be misunderstanding.

The original Act was going to see a 2 year hike for those born late 1953 and all of 1954. After various protests and work by Ros Altmann, that 2 year hike was lowered to 18 months when the Act eventually became law.

As far as the government is concerned, transitional arrangements were given by the reductions of 6 months at a cost of £1.1bn.

This is why they are steadfastly refusing to look at it again, especially in the face of a campaign that wants to have an effective spa of 60 but ONLY for 1950s women.