Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

Figgerty

Goldiegirl wrote: »

I've made no secret of my age on this thread
But I'll repeat it here, just so you know.

I was born in March 1960. I'm in the group whose pension age is rising to 66 ( although WASPI can't quite grasp that it's not only women born in the 1950's who are affected)

I started work at 16, so no further education for me.

But, age, educational background and lack of internet access is not an excuse not to know

Thanks for sharing your age and working history. Perhaps working in the financial sector made you more aware.

I knew about the equalisation to age 65 but I did not know how it effected me for quite some time after the 1995 Act. When I found out I was not happy with working another 3¾ years but I accepted it. I hoped that when I got closer to the time I would be able to retire at 62 or 63 as I had a reasonable sized company pension. I accepted and still accept the changes in the 1995 Act.

As far as the changes in the 2011 Act, I was unaware or perhaps ignorant as some would call me of the changes at the time and for some time after. I still thought my SPA was 63¾ at that time and would not have expected my SPA to be changed yet again. Remember the change in 1995 Act was the first change in SPA since 1940. Why would I think it would be changed again so soon.

My lack of awareness may have been due to my brother being diagnosed with leukaemia in 2011 and following unsuccessful treatment he died in 2012. We were just recovering from that when my sister was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. She had major surgery where her pancreas and other bits were removed. She had months of chemotherapy and is now a class 1 diabetic and has several appointments each month with various specialists.

This is to demonstrate how personal matters can interfere with living life, not to elicit sympathy.

I don't accept the 2011 Act changes, not because of the above but because I believe the same group of women should not have been effected by another SPA change. Also, because we did not get get reasonable notice of the additional change.

saver861

colsten wrote: »

even though I am one of those "hardest hit", I don't actually agree that the 2011 changes were unfair. Damned annoying may be, but not unfair. The changes apply equally to men and women, nobody had more than 18 months added to their SPA, and everyone had at least 6 years notice.

Ah right. So that's fine if you don't agree the 2011 changes were unfair. Everyone had at least 6 years notice but the current recommendation is 10. So those with less than 10, be they man or woman had less than the current recommendation.

Once again though, my question is to those who feel the 2011 policy was unfair - what can those people do to try to effect concessions from the 2011 policy?

colsten wrote: »

That's one of the inconsistent things about the WASPI campaign.

Yeah but my question is not at all related to the WASPI campaign.

missbiggles1

Figgerty wrote: »

Thanks for sharing your age and working history. Perhaps working in the financial sector made you more aware.

I knew about the equalisation to age 65 but I did not know how it effected me for quite some time after the 1995 Act. When I found out I was not happy with working another 3¾ years but I accepted it. I hoped that when I got closer to the time I would be able to retire at 62 or 63 as I had a reasonable sized company pension. I accepted and still accept the changes in the 1995 Act.

As far as the changes in the 2011 Act, I was unaware or perhaps ignorant as some would call me of the changes at the time and for some time after. I still thought my SPA was 63¾ at that time and would not have expected my SPA to be changed yet again. Remember the change in 1995 Act was the first change in SPA since 1940. Why would I think it would be changed again so soon.

My lack of awareness may have been due to my brother being diagnosed with leukaemia in 2011 and following unsuccessful treatment he died in 2012. We were just recovering from that when my sister was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. She had major surgery where her pancreas and other bits were removed. She had months of chemotherapy and is now a class 1 diabetic and has several appointments each month with various specialists.

This is to demonstrate how personal matters can interfere with living life, not to elicit sympathy.

I don't accept the 2011 Act changes, not because of the above but because I believe the same group of women should not have been effected by another SPA change. Also, because we did not get get reasonable notice of the additional change.

If you stuck to this line of argument rather than going on about all women born in the 50s being uneducated and in low paid jobs, many people would be pretty well in agreement with you. Just as if WASPI ditched their ridiculous demands regarding the 1995 changes, most people would be in agreement with them.

Nick_C

Figgerty wrote: »

I don't accept the 2011 Act changes ... because I believe the same group of women should not have been effected by another SPA change. Also, because we did not get get reasonable notice of the additional change.

But what do you think should have happened? Do you think the Government should have raised SPA for men to 66 while protecting some women, introducing a further inequality? Or do you think the implementation of 66 should have been delayed for both men and women?

And how do you think the additional expenditure could be made up? More tax or more spending cuts?

Figgerty

Nick_C wrote: »

I'm neither a woman nor a teacher, but it was 1956.

Equal pay for women only became compulsory in 1975.

Are you saying you are 56 or born in 56?

I know I was not getting equal pay in 1975.

I changed jobs in 1975 and still have my last pay slip and redundancy notice. The job I moved to was assistant to a man and when he retired in the early eighties I applied for his job and was given it. That was the start of my equal pay journey. Prior to then I was working with women only and there was no similar job done by men in the company.

This is fact not a way of trying to elicit sympathy.

Goldiegirl

whiteslice wrote: »

I feel a bit out of my depth, and so not sure where to stand in relation to the petition.


I agree to the change itself, and think it mad to do otherwise. This issue highlights how equality is not just about getting paid more, sometimes equality can be less convenient than that, and I think it's useful. That discussion had to be had at some point.

Where I am confused is whether the transitional arrangements are fair. From what I understand, the minimum notice that anyone is going to get is 5 years. What preparations would one undertake under such circumstances? I can imagine one would pay in more AVCs, as everyone rushes to do in the last years. For that 5 years is plenty, and if there are concerns, AVCs should be paid throughout, not just when you near your retirement. But I must be missing the point, there must be something else - what is it?

To be honest, I'm not surprised that you feel a bit confused.


The WASPI petition calls for 'fair transitional arrangements', yet they are hazy on what transitional arrangements they would call fair.


However, if you look at the WASPI Facebook page, a place where you'd hope to find this information, they are actually asking for something completely different

What is our ask? "WASPI ask the Government to put all wo...men born in the 50s, or after 6th April 1951 and affected by the changes to the state pension age in the same financial position they would have been in had they been born on or before 5th April 1950". All we are asking is to give us what we are entitled to. All we are asking is for the Government to meet with us.

So their real 'ask' is nothing to do with transitional arrangements - it's effectively asking for the state pension age to be returned to 60 for women born in the 50's!


As to the question about what is fair and what isn't - I think that is something which is down to individual perception.


If you were a person who had been paying AVC's for years, 5 years notice of an 18 month change to your SPA would more than likely be manageable.


But if a person knew nothing about the changes, or, most likely, knew but did nothing - it is possible that they'd think they had a change from 60 to 66 with no notice at all.


I think the point is, the majority had the information, but didn't take any action, whatever notice period they had!


As for the petition, I'd suggest reading this thread and several like it, read the WASPI Facebook page, and try some of the blogs - Frances Coppola is particularly sensible!

Figgerty

Nick_C wrote: »

But what do you think should have happened? Do you think the Government should have raised SPA for men to 66 while protecting some women, introducing a further inequality? Or do you think the implementation of 66 should have been delayed for both men and women?

And how do you think the additional expenditure could be made up? More tax or more spending cuts?

Look back at my previous posts and you will see. I am tired repeating myself.

It is up to the Government to work out the finances. They were happy to save £billions with these additional changes and make more £billions from additional tax & NI from this group working longer, they now need to give it back.

Nick_C

Figgerty wrote: »

Are you saying you are 56 or born in 56?

You asked the question, when did woman teachers receive equal pay with their male counterparts?. The answer is 1956.

Nick_C

Figgerty wrote: »

Look back at my previous posts and you will see. I am tired repeating myself.

It is up to the Government to work out the finances. They were happy to save £billions with these additional changes and make more £billions from additional tax & NI from this group working longer, they now need to give it back.

So you would be happy if young working people saw their income tax go up? Or VAT was increased? Or social services support to the elderly was cut back? Just so you can get your pension earlier than a man? Very fair!

saver861

Figgerty wrote: »

I knew about the equalisation to age 65 but I did not know how it effected me for quite some time after the 1995 Act.

This is consistent with the findings of the 2004 DWP survey. I don't recall the exact figures but it was something in the region of 71% were aware of the equalisation changes. However, the same survey also showed that the majority were unaware of what their new spa would be.

The point being that in 2004 there was still a deal of confusion about the 1995 changes 'by the majority' of those impacted.

The common response is 'they should have known' - however, one has to ask why the majority did not know what their new spa would be?

By the way, their 'ignorance' won't be the answer ....