Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

No .... I'll just refer you back to re-read my post!

I have done and your last statement is still wrong.

If you want the 10 year minimum to be applied retrospectively to the 2011 changes, you have to allow the 1995 changes to be applied retrospectively too.

If you want the 1995 changes not to be applied retrospectively then the 10 year minimum cannot be applied retrospectively either.

BobQ

While I appreciate that the Government has not given the notice that was previously given for changes, I cannot see why the OP thinks that there is a right to such notice. Whatever the rights and wrongs of it, some sacrifices need to be made to control public expenditure.

Surely one of the things this petition ignores is that you either believe in gender equality or you do not. If you do then it is fundamentally unfair that men have had to work longer for their pension while women on average live longer.

The word retrospectively keeps being used by the OP, yet I fail to see how these changes are retrospective. Providing less notice of a change is not a retrospective change. If those affected were losing pension I could understand their objections, but they are effectively being given more time to earn more pension.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

I have done and your last statement is still wrong.

If you want the 10 year minimum to be applied retrospectively to the 2011 changes, you have to allow the 1995 changes to be applied retrospectively too.

If you want the 1995 changes not to be applied retrospectively then the 10 year minimum cannot be applied retrospectively either.

Jem - it is not about what I want - it is about what is actually happening as it stands.

The situation is:
The 1995 changes were applied retrospectively to all accrued years before 1995.

The 2013 policy changes on the 10 year rule were not applied to the 2011 changes.

So, in one case, the changes have been applied retrospectively. In the other case, the changes have not been applied retrospectively.

Your point is that that should not be the case.... but you seem to be missing it. Precisely what you are saying should not happen *is* actually happening in reality, in relation to those two examples.

If you still can't see the flawed logic then I'm not going to try to explain it further.

jem16

BobQ wrote: »

If those affected were losing pension I could understand their objections, but they are effectively being given more time to earn more pension.

I don't agree with the petition but I cannot agree with your statement above either.

I still have another 6.5 years to go till I reach state pension age of 66. I currently have 41 years contributions so if I work another 6.5 years I will have 47.5 years, way more than the 30/35 years that I need.

If I was to get my state pension at age 60 then I would be getting £115pw ( as I have been contracted out all my working life ) in todays' money so for 6 years I will not get that - total = £35,880.

Being in a DB scheme I could earn more pension by continuing to work so an extra £24pw roughly.

If I hadn't been contracted out I would be due around £148pw so a total of £46,176 whilst I wait an extra 6 years and I couldn't increase this as I already have way more than the maximum.

It's not like private pension pots where the money is still there in your pot and growing.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

Your point is that that should not be the case.... but you seem to be missing it. Precisely what you are saying should not happen *is* actually happening in reality, in relation to those two examples.

My point is that you cannot complain about something that is happening when your answer is to do exactly the same thing in reverse but which suits you better.

You cannot have one "more wrong" than the other when both are technically wrong.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

My point is that you cannot complain about something that is happening when your answer is to do exactly the same thing in reverse but which suits you better.

You cannot have one "more wrong" than the other when both are technically wrong.

ok - lets go with that then.

It's totally a hypothetically argument in any case as the two issues are not connected. If this was 1996, I, and many others, could still make the statement that the 1995 changes should not have been applied retrospectively.

In 2013 the government agreed that changes to spa should be given at least 10 years notice. However, this policy does not apply to the changes made just two years earlier in 2011. So, even if the changes in 1995 never happened, I and many others, could still take the view that those impacted by changes in 2011 should have had at least 10 years notice given that is the official current policy.

Nothing happened between 2011 and 2013 that makes it such that 10 years notice was not needed in 2011 but is needed from 2013 onwards.

BobQ

jem16 wrote: »

I don't agree with the petition but I cannot agree with your statement above either......

.

Thanks Jem, I can now see why people are using the word retrospective if you are counting the cash loss in moving back the age. I was thinking in terms that the value of a past contribution year was not changing.

I am still of the view that the gender harmonisation of SPA needs to done sooner rather than later and using the word "inequality" in the petition does not recognise the point.

POPPYOSCAR

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Signed.


Over 96,000 signatures so should soon reach the 100,000
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/110776

Nearly 98,000 now.

hyubh

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Nearly 98,000 now.

That's nothing. Justice for Chunky (a far better cause IMO) is currently on 389,664:

https://www.change.org/p/david-cameron-mp-justice-for-chunky?source_location=petition_footer&algorithm=curated_trending&grid_position=6

patanne

Just wonder how many are signing having assumed that they are talking about the recent changes and not the 1995 changes. We've wanted equality for SO long why on earth are we whinging about getting it. Frankly 'they' are an embarrassment.