Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

missbiggles1

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Anyone watch Victoria Live this morning?


Some of the journalists seem to think this has not been communicated to those affected as it should have been.


And by the way I have no personal interest in all this, I just think the way it has been implemented is all wrong.

The 2011 changes, yes, but I can't see how you can say that about 1995.

Announced and publicised by the media in the 1993 budget, legislated for and ditto in 1995, first people affected (me) 15 years later, changes introduced on a reasonable sliding scale and an excellent "sweetener" of a reduction of the maximum number of years NICs required from 39 to 30.

Short of having people going door to door with explanatory leaflets and grovelling apologies, I really can't see how things could've been implemented any better........ until 2011.

jem16

Goldiegirl wrote: »

If this happened, then there'd be the problem a huge jump in pension age between women born in 1956 and 1957 - which would seem unfair if you happened to be born in 1957.

The 1953-56 age group would go back to their 1995 Act pension age. What would be removed would be the extra 18 months for those born 1953/54 or 12 months for those 1955/56.

I suppose the fairness comes from the 10 years notice.

It'd probably be best for help to be targeted in some way to the most needy

That overall would be the best solution.

bmm78

saver861 wrote: »

Incorrect. The majority on here are lay people with some knowledge of pensions, finance etc. These are not experts.

Don't you think it is a little pretentious to declare people on here as experts that would be far above WASPI or any other group of individuals.

In my opinion, a good number of posters on this forum would qualify as experts, and I certainly wouldn't limit that to those working in the industry.

Over the years the quality of information here has often exceeded that required to pass advanced level industry examinations.

Knowledge is knowledge, regardless of whether that is backed up by letters after your name.

Expertise is highly subjective, but from personal experience it's often surprising how little some high-profile people know about what is supposedly their specialist area. I remember trying once to explain what a "Critical Yield" was to a high-profile journalist who has regularly been quoted for their "expert" opinion.


It is rather interesting though that WASPI supporters seem to make a distinction between financial experts and "financial experts". The only discernible difference seeming to be that the first group agree with them and the second don't.

bmm78

Daniel54 wrote: »

It's interesting that the 2004 DWP report identifies television as the main source of awareness of the changes to women's state pension age (52% of men and 42% of women). Charts and commentary on Page 16 of the attached

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130314010347/http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd5/rports2003-2004/rrep221.pdf

There's a lot of interesting information in there when people aren't trying to twist the findings to suit their aims

saver861

zagfles wrote: »

You've been spending the last few pages "reacting" to the comments of others. Trying to slate the posters rather than what they write.

Many of my posts are responses to those who have responded to me. You might call that politeness also. I don't recall 'trying to slate' any posters. Perhaps you could point those posts out to me?

zagfles wrote: »

Hint - nobody cares what you think of them.

Excellent - we agree on something.

zagfles wrote: »

We're interested in discussing pensions. That's why we're here.

Funnily enough ... so am I.

zagfles wrote: »

Not telling others to just because you want the last word :rotfl:

Not particularly interested in having the last word, first word or any inbetween word. Usually I post my own opinion regardless whether that is in agreement with others or not. I am of my own mind, and as you say, those who don't care what I think will either not read my posts or be totally non plussed if they do.

Winners all round ...:D

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

The 1953-56 age group would go back to their 1995 Act pension age. What would be removed would be the extra 18 months for those born 1953/54 or 12 months for those 1955/56.

I suppose the fairness comes from the 10 years notice.

That would be correct - you don't need to suppose.

If they had defined 5 years as the requisite time then it should be 5 years for everyone, or 15 or whatever.

If some have had only 5,6,7 years notice and all others had / will have 10 then that's unfair to that group. No supposing ..

missbiggles1

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

No, expecting everybody to "read serious newspapers" is though.

Even The Sun and The Mirror report the budget statement thoroughly, as do all TV and radio news programmes.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

If some have had only 5,6,7 years notice and all others had / will have 10 then that's unfair to that group. No supposing ..

The supposing came from the fact that it's a guideline to have 10 years' notice.

colsten

Malthusian wrote: »

Well if journalists think it was so it must be true. Paul Lewis is a journalist and we established several pages back that he has no idea what he's talking about. Most journalists are so drunk I would be surprised if they remembered what colour car they drove in 1995, let alone the extent to which the Budget and the State Pension age changes were reported.

Paul Lewis has written about the 1995 in the Saga Magazine in the early 2000s. I can't be certain but I don't think he told WASPI about that.

(Cue the "I wasn't old enough to read the Saga Mag", "I don't read the Saga Mag" etc brigade)

saver861

bmm78 wrote: »

In my opinion, a good number of posters on this forum would qualify as experts, and I certainly wouldn't limit that to those working in the industry.

I'm not sure if you are including me in that 'good number' but if so, I'll respectfully retreat from the position of expert!!

bmm78 wrote: »

Over the years the quality of information here has often exceeded that required to pass advanced level industry examinations.

Knowledge is knowledge, regardless of whether that is backed up by letters after your name.

Expertise is highly subjective,

Yes but if I am having brain surgery, I would like to think the surgeon has the required expertise!!!

One difference will be that the expert does not know everything but will be fully aware of what he/she does not know. The non expert is not aware of what they don't know and thus has an illusion they know much more than they actually do.

Thats why there are so many rules and regulations for setting up as any form of adviser, regardless of the field. Over the years many set themselves up as Financial Advisers etc fully believing they were sufficiently knowledgable to do so.