Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

jem16

bmm78 wrote: »

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

There is none.

WASPI still appear to be under the misconception that they are in some kind of negotiating position with the government.

Leaders certainly are although Owen Smith MP feels that we should be nice to them.

The supportive MPs for their part seem to be indulging this, giving the impression that the WASPI founders somehow speak for 2.6m women.

For their own political gain.

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.

Waspi and its core support will never understand that. To them their pension at age 60 is simply their "entitlement" and they've worked for 50+ years for it.

jamesd

jem16 wrote: »

Waspi and its core support will never understand that. To them their pension at age 60 is simply their "entitlement" and they've worked for 50+ years for it.

I suppose we could deal with the cost issue by letting anyone who wants to to roll back to both state pension expectation at birth and life expectancy at birth. I'd be happy to pay any WASPI member who wants to an amount equal to their state pension starting at age 60 if they just transfer their increased life expectancy to me. Of course there's no way to do that and it's not acceptable to just take away a life expectancy increase even if it was practical.

Small hints to anyone who thinks rolling back to state pension expectations at birth or even age 16 would be good for them:

1. Graduated Retirement Benefit didn't start until 1961, SERPS not until 1978. Which means that at most only the basic state pension is what would be receivable by all affected by the WASPI campaign date ranges.
2. Home Responsibilities Protection to reduce the required number of years to get a full basic state pension was introduced in 1978 and could reduce the number of years needed to qualify down to 20. This provides credits for looking after children or disabled adults, except when the married woman's reduced stamp was being paid.
3. Until the Pensions Act 2007 reduced it to 30 the number of years to get a full basic state pension started out (ignoring some non-relevant transitional time) at five years less than the working life. Say 60 - 16 years or 39 years for a woman expected to start work at 16 and reach state pension age at 60.
4. Credits for time unemployed started with the Social Security (Credits) Regulations 1975.
5. The minimum number of years to get a state pension was 20 and the HRP years didn't count towards this requirement.
6. The Old Age Pensions Act 1936 pensions and National Assistance from 1948 to 1966 was far from generous in the means tested payments provided from age 70 to those who were in financial need. Last payments under this started for those who reached 70 until 20 September 1961. Supplementary Benefits replaced this from 1966 to 1988, then Income Support until 2003 and on to the substantially more generous Pension Credit from October 2003.

Of course WASPI doesn't want what was expected when people were paying the NI to get their state pensions, if they ever paid any and didn't rely just on credits. They want all of the improvements and none of the detriments. Not entitlement and means tested benefits worked out for the rules applying to the year each contribution was made, say.

Not that this stops WASPI from claiming that all they want is what they expected when they paid in (and why wouldn't men get the same expectation applied to them if WASPI gets it?).

jem16

jamesd wrote: »

5. The minimum number of years to get a state pension was 20 and the HRP years didn't count towards this requirement.

I believe it was a quarter, not half so would have been 10 years.

Of course WASPI doesn't want what was expected when people were paying the NI to get their state pensions, if they ever paid any and didn't rely just on credits. They want all of the improvements and none of the detriments. Not entitlement and means tested benefits worked out for the rules applying to the year each contribution was made, say.

I have had this type of conversation many times. They don't "get" it. For many it's low educational achievement and numbers baffle them. Facts and reasoning doesn't come into it - just me, me, me and want, want, want.

I just don't fit this 1950s stereotype at all and have never met anyone that does. I must have lived in a parallel world.

Caketh

I was fully aware when the two changes to state pension age came in. I felt that when the age changes (over time - still going on) from 60 to 65 that the equalisation should have been for men to take their pension (eventually) at 60 as it seems far better to pay benefits to older people rather than younger people with families. I had no particular problem with this change, however, as I had almost 20 years notice. This is not how I felt about the 2011 change. I don't believe that 6 or 7 years notice is sufficient as indeed the government themselves do not! All future changes (I believe) will have a minimum of 10 years notice. The 2011 Act affects men and women.

Given that NI contributions have a defined use (and the fact that 12% of thus fund used to go to the NHS which has been increased to 20% in recent years) and the NI pot has a massive annual surplus which could rectify this lack of notice I don't believe that there is a problem in doing so unless the government is poised to do a Maxwellian plunder of NI money.

Caketh

Read the following:-

http://madammiaow.blogspot.co.uk/

colsten

Caketh wrote: »

I was fully aware when the two changes to state pension age came in. I felt that when the age changes (over time - still going on) from 60 to 65 that the equalisation should have been for men to take their pension (eventually) at 60 as it seems far better to pay benefits to older people rather than younger people with families.

the younger people with the families would be those who would have to pay all those pensions at 60.

Caketh wrote: »

the NI pot has a massive annual surplus

unfortunately, this seems to be an urban myth. AFAIK, the NI Fund accounts show that the Treasury had to top up the NI Fund with grants recently as more money went out of the NI Fund than came into it. Where does your information about the massive annual surplus originate from?

colsten

Caketh wrote: »

Read the following:-

http://madammiaow.blogspot.co.uk/

This has already been posted, read and commented on in this thread.

jamesd

Caketh wrote: »

Read the following

The meat of that has already been commented on recently here, it's the usual smoke and mirrors to hide a "we want, and we want someone else to pay" that we see from WASPI and its members and supporters.

The blog post does add more inaccuracies, unsurprising from anyone involved with WASPI:

"Class 2 contributions abolished by George Osborne"

They haven't been abolished yet, all that's happened so far is an announcement of a plan to do it and a consultation. The proposal would eliminate a loophole that allows people to get NI credits for about 1/5th the voluntary class 3 NI cost (£2.80 instead of £14.10 a week) by being or claiming to be self-employed at low or no income from that self-employment. The state pension benefits for the self-employed increased dramatically with the flat rate system, previously self-employed contributions at the lowest level only counted towards the basic state pension, now those years retroactively count towards the higher flat rate.

"not only are we NOT a drain on the state, as the Tories insist, but that our state pension pot was showing a surplus year after year"

Nope, though nice try. The NI surplus projection for the future is from those who have been and are paying NI at normal rates, notably the majority of it that comes from people in paid employment and their employers.

Those who rely on credits for raising children or while unemployed weren't and aren't paying a penny into the system. For the low income women that WASPI seems to like to mention, much of their state pension will come from such nothing paid in years. Worse, the blog poster seems to have been relying on reduced rate NI at one fifth of the cost of normal voluntary NI and less than the rate for employed people, even before the missing larger employee NI is accounted for, so she's not the "we" who have been paying most of the contributions to produce that projected surplus.

Of course many women have had or will have full working lives with lots of NI contributions at the usual full rates from age 16 to age 67 (well, maybe...) and those women really are in the "we" category who have fully paid into the system and who are fully entitled to receive exactly the same benefits as men who did the same thing.

But the poster is also somewhat time-challened. You see, NI is paid only by those in employment and she seems to want to be able to retire early, so won't be paying any NI at all. And presumably nor will anyone else in the WASPI covered group once they reach the reduced state pension age that WASPI is after. Contribution to that projected surplus? Nothing at all. It's just taking money from those who will be paying in.

As usual, the WASPI we want but we don't want to pay stuff.

Still, I do agree with this:

"I hope there will be a legal challenge, perhaps some sort of class action, if we don't receive our fair pension"

I'll be happy to help fund such legal action on behalf of the men discriminated against if there is any rolling back of the move to less gender discriminatory state pension.

OldBeanz

I think any car owner understands the concept that tax from one area subsidises spending in other areas. The government only has one pot.

chris_m

OldBeanz wrote: »

I think any car owner understands the concept that tax from one area subsidises spending in other areas. The government only has one pot.

I wouldn't be so sure about that - there's still plenty who believe that VED is "road tax" and is spent on road maintenance.

That was approximately true between 1910 and 1937, although it hadn't solely been spent on road maintenance since the early-to-mid 1920's. From 1937 the pretence of it being even partially for road maintenance was abolished and it went in to the general Exchequer and has done ever since - yet many people do still think it's for roads.