Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

Daniel54

jem16 wrote: »

Out of interest and following on from the discussion on evidence for the WPSC enquiry on early drawing of the state pension, another piece of evidence has been published. Many WASPI supporters are posting it in numerous places as a great submission and that it basically proves they should all have their pensions as the money is in the NI Fund.

My first thoughts are that it is advocating not using the NI Fund for the NHS and instead increasing taxation to pay for the NHS instead.

My second thoughts surround the actual surplus figures quoted as it seems to mix up inflows with outflows.

Any thoughts?

As with any actuarial projections,the outcomes are dependent to the assumptions and highly sensitive to any changes/variations to those assumptions.The GAD is clear on this in their report ( which is also referenced in the submission you attached) herewith the link

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/494930/53430_GA_UpRating_Report_2016_Accessible.pdf


The author writes that the fund will have a balance of £58bn (my bolding).As this is an actuarial projection,it is only the case that the fund might have such a surplus .The report includes 3 other projections which demonstrate that a relatively small change in the assumptions could lead to a higher surplus, if positive ,or a lower surplus or deficit ,if negative.These are summarised in Table1.4 (page 6) of the report and set out in full in Appendix 6 -the author has simply chosen to ignore the three other projections

To find more money,the writer would increase general taxation in order to compensate for the re-direction of NI contributions away from the NHS .

Together with spending the surplus,this would allow men and women who had received less than 10 years notice ( not defined) to take state pension at 65/60.This last bit is nonsense.

Credit to her that she has sought to construct a reasoned argument but it fails on too many levels to be credible,other than to the WASPI's whose pensions have been stolen as per the following

http://madammiaow.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/waspi-womens-pensions-were-in-surplus.html?m=1

Those who prefer more reasoned and reasonable argument might like to read the following well written and well argued blog ,if they have not already seen it.

http://www.cashquestions.com/entries/181-In-Government-matters-of-principle-give-way-to-matters-of-cash-as-Waspi-is-learning

Thrugelmir

JezR wrote: »

Gordon Brown increased NI by a percentage point to fund specifically the NHS. It could be argued that it would have been more appropriate to have increased the basic rate of income tax instead, but nobody does that these days.

Brown gave a pledge not to raise income tax. He didn't. Every budget he simply buried a rise in NI in the small print to take effect from the following tax year. Being over a year away the matter was commented on.

bmm78

Not much to add to what Daniel54 has covered, other than that this highlights what happens when people with a strong bias attempt to interpret isolated data that they have little understanding of.

It's a step up from the majority of other submissions in that it at least starts from a factual base, but it distorts the actual purpose of a NI fund surplus, and treats actuarial projections based on highly elastic assumptions as fact.

For context, the corresponding report for 2015 projected a dwindling fund that would be close to exhaustion by 2020. This report was then used by some sections of the media for hysterical "the NI fund is bankrupt!" stories.

jem16

Daniel54 wrote: »

Those who prefer more reasoned and reasonable argument might like to read the following well written and well argued blog ,if they have not already seen it.

http://www.cashquestions.com/entries/181-In-Government-matters-of-principle-give-way-to-matters-of-cash-as-Waspi-is-learning

Would agree Daniel - Annie Shaw's blog is well written. Of course Waspi don't agree and see it as derogatory and personal comments being written.

Daniel54

jem16 wrote: »

Would agree Daniel - Annie Shaw's blog is well written. Of course Waspi don't agree and see it as derogatory and personal comments being written.

The Waspi campaign has now ended ,to all intents and purposes.This was always likely due to their refusal to abandon restitution for 1995 or to embrace any form of means tested improvement for those in hardship and/or to address the harshness for those most affected by 2011.

To elaborate,they have have reported on Facebook that they are unable to support any of Labour's proposals to move the debate forward .

"We discussed the various options that Owen Smith put forward at the last debate and the DWP and raised our concerns as none of them met our demand for transitional arrangements. In view of this, we are unable to support any of the options put forward so far and will therefore continue to press Labour for alternative options."

As a reminder for those not following the issue,these proposals were :

"The Government could delay the pension age increase until 2020 so that the pension age reached 66 by 2021. That option is favoured by the Pensions Minister in the House of Lords.

The Government could cap the maximum state pension age increase from the 2011 Act at 12 months, which the predecessor of the Pensions Minister advocated.

The Government could keep the qualifying age for pension credit on the previous timetable, which would help out some of the poorest women in that category, as Labour suggested in 2011.

The Government could allow those affected to take a reduced state pension at an earlier age during the transition, as Alan Higham has suggested.

The Government could extend the timetable for increasing the overall state pension age by 18 months so that it reaches 66 by April 2022, as John Ralfe has suggested.

Finally, the Government could simply pay a lower state pension for a longer period throughout the pensionable age of the women affected. "


In doing so,they reveal they have given false hope to ( and misrepresented) many of those whose support they claimed.

Shame on them

jamesd

jem16 wrote: »

http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/committeeevidence.svc/evidencedocument/work-and-pensions-committee/early-drawing-of-state-pension/written/31539.pdf

My first thoughts are that it is advocating not using the NI Fund for the NHS and instead increasing taxation to pay for the NHS instead.

As you recognised, it's smoke and mirrors because what it really says is pay for it out of general taxation not the NI fund, by redirecting NI money from health benefits. Naturally enough some want to just say NI fund is paying. A few issues with that:

1. The NI is being paid for by other people so even if it was a proposal to pay just out of NI, it'd just be making other people pay via NI instead of income tax.
2. The writer appears to have forgotten or ignored that National Insurance was first established to pay for medical benefits as well as working age benefits, by the National Insurance Act 1911. It's not just happenstance that some NI money goes to the NHS, it's at the core of what NI has been paying for from the day it started. A contributory state pension system was a latecomer, not arriving until 1925, though a means tested state scheme started back in 1908.
3. Somewhat amusing that in proposing ceasing to fund part of the NHS bill from NI she's proposing shifting the burden from NI paid by only those of working age to all of us including WASPI and others who have retired.

Cute that she says men who didn't receive ten years notice should be included, presumably knowing that because men started out with a state pension age five years further in the future that broadly eliminates men from being considered.

I do wonder how she's planning to determine who got notification when evidence submitted has shown that some who got personal notification claimed in the same submission that they hadn't received personal notification. With a presumably straight face.

greenglide

The Government could delay the pension age increase until 2020 so that the pension age reached 66 by 2021. That option is favoured by the Pensions Minister in the House of Lords.

But the first impact of the 2011 changes come in in May this year with people born between between 06/04/53 and 05/05/53 having their SPa dates moving from 06/05/2016 to 06/07/2016.

So really it is a done deal, isnt it?

jem16

Daniel54 wrote: »

To elaborate,they have have reported on Facebook that they are unable to support any of Labour's proposals to move the debate forward .

"We discussed the various options that Owen Smith put forward at the last debate and the DWP and raised our concerns as none of them met our demand for transitional arrangements. In view of this, we are unable to support any of the options put forward so far and will therefore continue to press Labour for alternative options."

This post has now been removed from Waspi FB page along with all the comments. It seems that it has caused quite a lot of anger on various other groups as well as Twitter.

I have no doubt that we will see a rejigged post from Waspi telling everyone that they have been "misunderstood".

jem16

jamesd wrote: »

3. Somewhat amusing that in proposing ceasing to fund part of the NHS bill from NI she's proposing shifting the burden from NI paid by only those of working age to all of us including WASPI and others who have retired.

Perhaps we could just give them £130pw state pension and charge them £130pw for health care instead?

I do wonder how she's planning to determine who got notification when evidence submitted has shown that some who got personal notification claimed in the same submission that they hadn't received personal notification. With a presumably straight face.

Just in the same way that the government cannot prove that they did send personal notification to everyone, no Waspi can prove that they did not. Of course there is no legal obligation to personally notify anyone of any law change in the UK.

bmm78

Bearing in mind that...

• WASPI have stated that they wish to focus on political solutions to the issue
  
• During a motion by put forward by the opposition to provide fair transitional arrangements, the six potential solutions were suggested
  
• The motion was defeated in the commons, implying that none of the solutions are acceptable to the government

...where is the logic in demanding measures of a greater cost and scope than those that have already been rejected?

WASPI still appear to be under the misconception that they are in some kind of negotiating position with the government. The supportive MPs for their part seem to be indulging this, giving the impression that the WASPI founders somehow speak for 2.6m women.

The issue of the women affected is far broader than WASPI, and the state pension issue is far broader than the women affected. Until those pushing for change understand and acknowledge that, they are doomed to failure.