Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

Figgerty

Al. wrote: »

I didn't have a mortgage then. You don't need to be sold a duff investment though, to put your hand up and ask for some simple facts. MAre you financially affected by the events surrounding this WASPI allegation and claim?

Do you think I needed to pay a financial adviser to manage a little savings and 3 credit cards? I didn't and I don't know how a FI could have helped as I did not realise the extent of the SPA increase until it was too late to do anything about it. I paid into an occupational pension as soon as I was allowed to at 21. With window replacement and other home maintenance costs I did not have much spare money. Back then I didn't pay utility bills by direct debit but each month I decided which bill I could pay and it was often the 'red' reminder.

I accept the 1995 Act changes as I knew equalisation to age 65 was planned but it was much later when I found out my SPA of 63¾. I found out because a work colleague was planning her eventual Shirley Valentine escape. I don't ask for this change to be reverse]ed.

The 2011 Act though added an additional 1½ years to my SPA and that I am unwilling to accept. That is why I signed the petition and why I am posting on here and sometimes on Twitter. I have also written three times to my MP. I support #Waspi as they are the only ones campaigning. I don't plan to go to the debate but if #Waspi decide to take legal action then I will donate to a further fighting fund.

xylophone

I'm not completely convinced I'm wrong,

Trust me on this - if by

An IFA would have appraised them (twenty years ago) of the facts.

you mean "An IFA would have informed them of the facts." the word you want is "apprised".:)

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/words/appraise-or-apprise

Some additional information here about "apprize"

http://grammarist.com/usage/appraise-apprise/

dunstonh

The only time I got financial advise was when I applied for a mortgage. Apart from that I took out a TESSA/ISA for my savings and did not have any other money to worry about. At one time I had 3 credit cards but when money allowed I paid them all off. I cancelled two cards and still have one. As fair as I knew, I did not need any financial advise.

So, you probably didnt get financial advice but saw a mortgage adviser (most IFAs dont do mortgages but employ mortgage advisers or pass to mortgage advisers)

I thought Financial Advisers had a chequered history and were involved in mis-selling endowment mortgages back in the 80's. Is that not the case? If not, then I apologise.

You specifically mentioned IFAs previously. Now just FAs. In the past, there were over 200,000 FAs, IFAs, sales reps, insurance agents etc. Now there are just over 20,000. In the past the sales side did have a chequered history. But you cannot compare a modern IFA with an insurance company agent of 20-30 years ago. Worlds apart.

If you are an IFA or worked in Pensions then of course you would know. It was your job to know. If you do not have that type of background and left education since 2000ish they you would have had benefit of the internet and known how to use it.

I was an adviser in 1995. Distribution channels were different then. Nearly all sales of pensions were done through intermediaries. Advisers were telling people as part of the advice process or sales process (if it was a sales agent). Indeed, the sales side saw it as an opportunity and the advertising and promotions reflected that.

Daniel54

Figgerty wrote: »

Those of you doubting that women of 60 may not have been aware of the state pension age changes should declare their age and the general type of job you do.

........

Most of them started work at age 16 and have worked over 45 years. A lot are in menial jobs at meagre wages.

This is an open forum and no one needs to present their credentials before posting.In my case the user name gives you a clue,but that's bye the bye.i assume you are focussing on the 1995 act and will do the same.

Yes,there are clearly women who remained unaware of these changes.If you read the report which you found too long,one of the findings ,back in 2004 ,was that lack of awareness was highest in the lowest socio-economic groups ( D &E ).The report also showed that awareness increased as people ( men and women) approach retirement age so it is logical to extrapolate that the awareness rate in 50s women rose post 2004 from the 73% identified in that report.If you or anyone else has information that helps pin down SPA knowledge at a later point,that would be interesting.

But yes ,a comparatively small percentage of the 3.7 million odd 50s women ( still translates to a high number) will have remained unaware of the change.In retrospect,certainly more should have been done to reach out to those least likely to be aware.

But,and it is a very big but,there is no way to identify who those women are ,nor the financial impact on them ( self certification is not an option ).Alleviation of their situation is very simply not a pension issue but a benefits issue .A later SPA in the pension may have been the cause,but reversing or changing the 1995 act is not their solution.

For your last point,starting work at 15 or 16 and working into your 60s is a ( maybe unwelcome) price of gender equality.

p00hsticks

Figgerty wrote: »

Those of you doubting that women of 60 may not have been aware of the state pension age changes should declare their age and the general type of job you do. If you are an IFA or worked in Pensions then of course you would know. It was your job to know. If you do not have that type of background and left education since 2000ish they you would have had benefit of the internet and known how to use it.

Lastly, if you went to University or Polytechnic, then you benefited from a longer education and Government funding of this education. So why then are you begrudging the 1950's women fairness in their pension. Most of them started work at age 16 and have worked over 45 years. A lot are in menial jobs at meagre wages.

I'm 56 in a couple of weeks so have been affected by the rise in my SPA from 60 to 66 (although having been born six weeks into 1960, WASPI seem to think I can go hang..). I've spent most of my life working in the IT industry - I went to University (as did plenty of women of my age) with funding provided as grants instead of loans, so considerably better off in that respect than the young people who will be paying for my State Pension when I get it.

My work involves working with the public sector, and many of the people I work with there are women in their 50's with good full time careers and final salary pensions that they'll be able to take without deductions at the age of 60.

So please don't stereotype all women born in the 1950s all either as ignorant people on minimum wage who just spend our lives watching Corrie and talking about shoes, and/or selfless Florence Nightingales who were so busy raising perfect children and caring for the elderly that we never had time to read a newspaper....

I was perfectly aware of the changes and how they affected me when they came in from watching the news on TV. I have some sympathy for the 1953-54 women and would like to see something in place to ensure that those put in hardship by the acellerated 2011 changes are helped, but I believe that the rise in SPA is the correct thing to do and don't support WASPI's demands. And I've written to my MP to say so.

Pollycat

Figgerty wrote: »

Those of you doubting that women of 60 may not have been aware of the state pension age changes should declare their age and the general type of job you do. If you are an IFA or worked in Pensions then of course you would know. It was your job to know. If you do not have that type of background and left education since 2000ish they you would have had benefit of the internet and known how to use it.

You make it sound as if people are hiding this information.
I've shared my age and circumstances on this thread and all the others on the same subject.
I posted this on another thread over 2 weeks ago:

Pollycat wrote: »

The goalposts were first moved in 1995 because of a move towards equality with men's SPA.

I'm not sure how many woman can honestly - hand on heart - say they weren't aware of these changes.

As a woman born late 1953, I'd known for more than 16 years that my SPA would be 63 years and 6 months.
However, the 2011 changes put back my SPA by a further 15 months to 64 years and 9 months.

It's that (2011) change that a lot of women - me included - think should be addressed.

Lots of other posters have also shared this information.

I can't remember how I knew about the 1995 changes but I definitely did.
I worked for a very large national company and my guess is that the information was disseminated by our HR departments.
I remember telling other friends of a similar age about it too.

Figgerty wrote: »

I accept the 1995 Act changes as I knew equalisation to age 65 was planned but it was much later when I found out my SPA of 63¾. I found out because a work colleague was planning her eventual Shirley Valentine escape. I don't ask for this change to be reverse]ed.

If you knew of the plans, why didn't you check if they impacted on you much earlier?

Nick_C

p00hsticks wrote: »

I went to University with funding provided as grants instead of loans, so considerably better off in that respect than the young people who will be paying for my State Pension when I get it.

My work involves working with the public sector, and many of the people I work with there are women in their 50's with good full time careers and final salary pensions that they'll be able to take without deductions at the age of 60.

Excellent points, and again an illustration of how us oldies (I'm in my late fifties) are pretty lucky. The LGPS pensionable age is being aligned with SRP pensionable age, so many younger people will not get their employer's pensions or their SRP until they are 68. They will be looking enviously at women who will get their SRP at 65¼ - as indeed am I as I shan't get mine until I'm 66.

It's the young we should be sorry for. Encouraged to go to Uni to get (in many cases) a worthless degree. Starting life with colossal debts. Trapped in expensive rented housing because of unaffordable house prices. Paying the pensions of the ungrateful old who can retire at 66. And facing the prospect of working until at least 68. I'm glad I'm old.

jem16

Figgerty wrote: »

Those of you doubting that women of 60 may not have been aware of the state pension age changes should declare their age and the general type of job you do.

As with others I've mentioned this ages ago. With a 1956 birthdate I'm a 1950s woman and affected by both changes.

I was in teaching at the time of the 1995 Act and it was widely discussed at work. Working in a school we had teachers, classroom assistants, cleaners, support staff, kitchen staff and a janitor so very much a mixed bunch. We all knew about it.

At that time I wasn't particularly interested in pensions - I was only 39. I certainly didn't read financial ( or serious ) newspapers but I did watch the news on TV and the Budget was always widely covered. They would soon have latched onto something as big as the state pension age for women going from 60 to 65.

There are a small number of 1950s women who genuinely have managed to miss all of this and are suffering financial hardship. However there are a great many who have simply stuck their head in the sand and want someone else to now take responsibility for that. There are also some who knew all about it but just smell the whiff of compensation and have jumped on the bandwagon.

As to the MPs who are "supporting" WASPI, well anything for a bit of press coverage especially as they won't have to find the cash to fund it. I'm afraid this is very true of Mhairi Black as the SNP will find any way to have a go at bad Westminster. She is also very good at ignoring any attempt to clarify exactly what her aim is.

2011 stood a bit of a chance of getting some concessions for the worst affected but that's getting lost in the quagmire to the detriment of those who really need the help.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

2011 stood a bit of a chance of getting some concessions for the worst affected but that's getting lost in the quagmire to the detriment of those who really need the help.

But is that not up to those who think there should be changes to the 2011 policy to do something to try to get those concessions?

Nick_C

saver861 wrote: »

But is that not up to those who think there should be changes to the 2011 policy to do something to try to get those concessions?

The time to campaign against the 2011 changes was 2011.