Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

dunstonh

However, it does demonstrate the effectiveness of the WASPI campaign. For those who said it was ineffective, useless and they did not know what they were talking about etc etc etc ...if all that were true this thing would have died a death a long long time ago.... in fact there would only have been a handful or less that might have ever heard of WASPI. A few comments on some rarely seen blogs would have been about the total of it.

It doesnt demonstrate it's effectiveness at all.

For example, if they had put the same focus on the real disadvantaged group of women (those with upto 18 months increase at very short notice), that would have had greater support, a lower liability to the treasury and an easier pill to swallow than the billions of pounds that WASPI are asking for. They may well have had an outcome with that.

Loudmouth campaigns that drag on but have no chance of success are not effective. Some groups have been campaigning loudly for decades and got nowhere.

The issue was not over their ability to campaign but the message they were campaigning about.

saver861

dunstonh wrote: »

It doesnt demonstrate it's effectiveness at all.

But.... why is it still being discussed then? Effectiveness of raising awareness is a different matter to achieving the desired outcome - which they may well not do.

dunstonh wrote: »

For example, if they had put the same focus on the real disadvantaged group of women (those with upto 18 months increase at very short notice), that would have had greater support, a lower liability to the treasury and an easier pill to swallow than the billions of pounds that WASPI are asking for. They may well have had an outcome with that.

But ... if there is any outcome, i.e. any change in policy, it is likely to be only in relation to the 2011 policy. There will be no change to the 1995 policy. So, by your own desire, if anything at all changes, WASPI may have achieved an alteration to the 2011 policy, which is what you say should happen!! So, you should be happy it that comes about!!

Even if they get the cost neutral early access, then at least some of those worst affected would have some degree of choice as to whether to take it or not.

jamesd

saver861 wrote: »

But.... why is it still being discussed then?

Because it is preposterous to propose deliberately introducing laws to increase gender discrimination and preposterous proposals can generate noise from those pointing out how outrageous they are.

saver861 wrote: »

it is likely to be only in relation to the 2011 policy.

There should be no change that will increase either gender or age discrimination. Which effectively rules out changes to the 2011 policy other than changes which help people to claim the working age benefits that they people are entitled to, change in that area being something that I'd probably welcome.

Though something like loans at student loan rates to all within say three years of state pension age only to those who will be above benefit levels while repaying the loan would be largely non-discriminatory so might be doable.

saver861 wrote: »

Even if they get the cost neutral early access, then at least some of those worst affected would have some degree of choice as to whether to take it or not.

Cost neutral early access for the worst affected is essentially a mythical thing due to the constraints. Cost neutral means that all of the costs of the policy have to be borne by the recipients and the worst affected effectively constrains it to those with low financial means for whom the reduction for taking the money early would have to include the whole cost of the future means tested benefits that they would be entitled to.

Only essentially mythical because there actually are some where its possible. For example, a person with a life expectancy of say five years who would spend four of those years after their current state pension age who wants to receive the money a year earlier. Before taking into account other things that means that a 25% reduction would cover the cost of paying for 5 years. So it could be viable to have a policy that would allow those who will receive say £220 a week to have that cut to £155 a week and taken a year early, before allowing for the costs of the program and their effect. But at £200 it wouldn't be viable for a year because that would take their income below Pension Credit level and result in an increased cost and hence deduction for means tested benefits. Which would constrain the duration to whatever period less than a year it takes to cover that extra cost.

To get something that can be claimed to be cost neutral it effectively has to include making those who don't get it pay the cost. Which isn't cost neutral for them.

So for example an official analysis into a "cost neutral" proposition included all women reaching SPA within a certain age range even though most of them would not be taking the money early.

Of course you may want something that is actually cost neutral for all and which really does pass on all of the costs to those who take the money early. Meaning no cross-subsidy at all from anyone who doesn't take it early. But that's not what has been sought so far by those claiming to want something cost neutral, what they really mean is other women or other people more broadly paying for it so the state doesn't have to cover the cost from general taxation.

I do support actually cost neutral approaches like loans to those who want to take the money early, at reasonable rates like those offered to students, repaid out of their state pension, and only available to those who won't be taken into means tested benefits by the repayments.

atush

p00hsticks wrote: »

That would be the third change then ?
The first in 1995 moved women's SPA from 60 to 65, the second then accelerated that change for women to enable the third - to move the SPA for both males and females from 65 to 66 - to take place earlier.

Well second change for him anyway lol. Luckily we had already made plans, but still. It was darned inconvenient.

Not as disadvantageous as having twins so having to put an extra child thru university, but not far off it lol.

Malthusian

Ah, that old trick - you can justify any waste of time and money in the name of some disadvantaged group by saying it "raised awareness". No-one can disagree with this because by arguing about the issue they demonstrate that they're aware of it. Whether this awareness has done any good or not is a question you're not supposed to ask.

dunstonh wrote: »

For example, if they had put the same focus on the real disadvantaged group of women (those with upto 18 months increase at very short notice), that would have had greater support, a lower liability to the treasury and an easier pill to swallow than the billions of pounds that WASPI are asking for. They may well have had an outcome with that.

But most of the people behind WASPI couldn't care less about them because they weren't in that affected group. They wanted their six extra years State Pension backdated to age 60.

jem16

Malthusian wrote: »

But most of the people behind WASPI couldn't care less about them because they weren't in that affected group. They wanted their six extra years State Pension backdated to age 60.

Well we all know that, don't we despite may attempts by Waspi to conceal and deny that fact.

mumps

I think most of us in the most affected group, late 1953 and 1954 I think, wouldn't say it should be back dated to 60. I think, talking to people my age, that alot feel the 2011 change didn't give us time to adjust plans. Speaking personally if they limited the change to say an additional 12 months instead of 18 I would think that was reasonable or staggered it more e.g. If I had been born a day earlier I could retire 3 months earlier, that sort of jump seems a bit harsh.

bigfreddiel

mumps wrote: »

I think most of us in the most affected group, late 1953 and 1954 I think, wouldn't say it should be back dated to 60. I think, talking to people my age, that alot feel the 2011 change didn't give us time to adjust plans. Speaking personally if they limited the change to say an additional 12 months instead of 18 I would think that was reasonable or staggered it more e.g. If I had been born a day earlier I could retire 3 months earlier, that sort of jump seems a bit harsh.

Three months will just fly by - don't stress!

mumps

bigfreddiel wrote: »

Three months will just fly by - don't stress!

Well it is 3 months on the back of 4 years six months after my original state pension age so it is a small amount but the gesture would mean something. In my case I am a carer so they aren't saving that much anyway, well about 50% I suppose. It still seems strange to me that the SRP age increased by 1 yr and meant my retirement date increased by 18 months. Just seems wrong.

Just thought as I am a tax payer they are saving even less. Not sure it is great PR for the sum involved.

jamesd

mumps wrote: »

Not sure it is great PR for the sum involved.

What will it cost?

The PR is very bad, contemplating increasing gender and age discrimination after reducing it. But that's PR in the opposite direction from the one you're thinking of.