Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

saver861

p00hsticks wrote: »

, distracting from the case of that small subsection of their sisters born in 1953-54 who are in real financial hardship and have a genuine grievance.

Unfortunately, as has been said many times, there was no case prior to WASPI bringing it to the forefront. Lots now saying the 2011 changes unfair etc. which is true, but what were they doing about it prior to WASPI? Zilch is the answer to that one.

Thus, if any of those who are most affected do get anything out of this, it will be down to the fact that WASPI brought it to the fore. If they don't, then their position is nothing worse than it was prior to WASPI - they get what they were gonna get.

jamesd wrote: »

There clearly has been and still is discrimination in many areas.

Sure there is. And will be for a long time to come. It ain't gonna go away anytime soon.

jamesd wrote: »

The solution to that is to eliminate discrimination, not to add more of it

Sure ... thats true. However, how does it then be fair that some women had less than 10 years notice and had the longest extension to their pension age, i.e. 18 months.

Sooooo .... we ain't gonna discriminate .... great news! We just gonna hit some harder than others. Not so great news for those taking the punch ... but ... as long as it don't impact on me or any of my nearest and dearest then we will just turn the blind eye ...

Yeah .... got your logic. We don't think the same bro.

nicknameless

Christ enough already. Boring and irrational.

jamesd

saver861 wrote: »

Unfortunately, as has been said many times, there was no case prior to WASPI bringing it to the forefront. Lots now saying the 2011 changes unfair etc. which is true, but what were they doing about it prior to WASPI? Zilch is the answer to that one. ... if any of those who are most affected do get anything out of this, it will be down to the fact that WASPI brought it to the fore

Please cut down the level of false claims in your posts:

• The 2011 Pensions Act started out being submitted to the Commons as HL 37 2010-11 Pensions Bill on 31-1-2011.
• On 13 October 2011 the government announced that the bill would be changed so that instead of a maximum three year change for women the maximum change would be 18 months.
• WASPI's home page says it was founded in May 2015.
• No changes have happened since then except for a lot of noise.

saver861 wrote: »

Sure there is. And will be for a long time to come. It ain't gonna go away anytime soon.

Indeed not, though it was interesting to hear in recent discussion in parliament that the income levels had finally equalised for men and women aged up to 30. Sadly that does imply that they haven't yet above that age.

saver861 wrote: »

Sure ... thats true. However, how does it then be fair that some women had less than 10 years notice and had the longest extension to their pension age, i.e. 18 months.

The longest recent extension was five years when the minimum normal age for taking a pension increased from age 50 to age 55 on 6 April 2010 with three years notice. Many workplace defined benefit pensions were protected but personal pensions weren't. How does three years notice of a five year delay before taking a pension strike you?

saver861 wrote: »

Sooooo .... we ain't gonna discriminate .... great news! We just gonna hit some harder than others. ... We don't think the same bro.

It appears not, since I recognise that those who have been benefiting from discrimination are going to be hit by reducing it. It should be no surprise to anyone that some people who've been benefiting from discrimination will fight to keep the discrimination and claim to be hard done by when they get hit with the change that reduces it. Not all, though, just some.

It's just more of the same old "discrimination benefits me so I want to keep it" argument that we've seen many times in the past.

towag

Has it happened yet?....
http://www.ftadviser.com/2016/05/04/opinion/tony-hazell/altmann-on-a-collision-course-with-osborne-rQjvZYueioKyWCuqXJVhbN/article.html

Pollycat

nicknameless wrote: »

Christ enough already. Boring and irrational.

What part do you consider irrational?
Are you one of the people affected?

If you find the discussion boring you could always unsubcribe from the thread.

jem16

bmm78 wrote: »

The striking thing from the costings is how relatively cheap a means-tested safety net is.

Which of course the majority of WASPI, and especially the 5 co-founders, do not want as they will get nothing.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

Unfortunately, as has been said many times, there was no case prior to WASPI bringing it to the forefront.

That's not true at all.

There has been a group founded in 2010 when the acceleration intentions were first talked about. That group worked with many Labour MPs and Ros Altmann, bringing in petitions etc. Due to their work, that 6 months concession was brought in in the final reading of the Act. They have continued to try to gain more in the last 6 years but unfortunately have not go any further.

When WASPI started their campaign they were delighted and were happy to join in with them and allow their own campaign to take a bit of a back seat. Unfortunately many of that group are now very disgruntled with WASPI due to their ridiculous ask and the fact that they will not communicate with women involved unless they follow the party line.

With the effects of the 2011 Act now underway, it looks likely that nothing more will happen. It could have been so different if WASPI had concentrated on the 2011 Act and those most in need but greed has got in the way.

saver861

jamesd wrote: »

Please cut down the level of false claims in your posts:

Ah right ... well ....lets see ....

• The 2011 Pensions Act started out being submitted to the Commons as HL 37 2010-11 Pensions Bill on 31-1-2011.

Agreed.

[*]On 13 October 2011 the government announced that the bill would be changed so that instead of a maximum three year change for women the maximum change would be 18 months.

Agreed.

[*]WASPI's home page says it was founded in May 2015.

Agreed.

[*]No changes have happened since then except for a lot of noise.

Agreed.

I'm confused. I'm saying the same thing but I'm making false claims!! Brilliant, that one.

The longest recent extension was five years when the minimum normal age for taking a pension increased from age 50 to age 55 on 6 April 2010 with three years notice. Many workplace defined benefit pensions were protected but personal pensions weren't. How does three years notice of a five year delay before taking a pension strike you?

Different products totally. Those that work pay compulsory NI and thus provides towards an entitlement to state pension. Those that choose, are members of DB or DC schemes. I was impacted by those changes also with three years notice etc.

The Gov themselves agree that a minimum of 10 years notice should be given to any changes in state pension. That's the current position. Just a few years previous many 1950's women were not given that same notice and much less in many cases.

jem16 wrote: »

That's not true at all.

There has been a group founded in 2010 when the acceleration intentions were first talked about. That group worked with many Labour MPs and Ros Altmann, bringing in petitions etc. Due to their work, that 6 months concession was brought in in the final reading of the Act. They have continued to try to gain more in the last 6 years but unfortunately have not go any further.

As I said before, the logic is lost on your argument. Anyone with a fraction of a brain cell will know that the original 24 months was put there to have some leeway for a 'concession'. So, the original intention might have been 18 months but they know there would be opposition so they add an extra 6 months. Then when the objection is raised the Gov reduces the extension from 24 months to 18 months!!!

See those massive reductions in Tescos etc. Except they are not so massive really - they are prices that have been raised 45% to be reduced by 50%.

With the effects of the 2011 Act now underway, it looks likely that nothing more will happen. It could have been so different if WASPI had concentrated on the 2011 Act and those most in need but greed has got in the way.

But ..... as you say yourself ... the original group got nowhere. Zilch. Why was that? Maybe if all those who are now saying that the 2011 changes are unfair and had got behind that group then something might have happened. But nothing happened and the majority of those mouthing concern about 'those most in need' etc did nothing - if they had then that group would have had a campaign and WASPI would never have been born.

So, rather than saying nothing will happen because WASPI are asking for too much, say that something might have happened if enough had supported making further changes to the 2011 act to whatever group was there at the time.

That's not as much fun though .... better to decry WASPI ..

slightlymiffed

saver861 wrote: »

Sure ... thats true. However, how does it then be fair that some women had less than 10 years notice and had the longest extension to their pension age, i.e. 18 months.

Sooooo .... we ain't gonna discriminate .... great news! We just gonna hit some harder than others. Not so great news for those taking the punch ... but ... as long as it don't impact on me or any of my nearest and dearest then we will just turn the blind eye ...

Yeah .... got your logic. We don't think the same bro.

Well said Saver861 - thank you. I am one such affected.

I have to question the motives of those of you here who have spent literally months and months just endlessly chewing over 1950's born women's state pension. It really is unbelievable.

Trawling Facebook pages to quote women out of context and make unsubstantiated claims that affected women are somehow greedy or stupid is really demeaning and demonstrates exactly what we have to put up with.

I recognise a few of those posting here from Twitter - and it is apparent that some of you have your own agendas; some 60's born feel they are 'missing out' and some (at least one) is trying to get means-tested early state pension for men (himself).

Pennylane

Whichever way I look at this I find it so unfair that women born within months of each other have to wait YEARS to receive their state pensions. That just isn't right.

I have friends born same year as me (1953) One born in Feb gets her pension already (along with bus pass, winter fuel allowance etc) another friend born in April will receive hers in July and I'm born in October and have to wait another TWO YEARS until July 2018. I will lose out on a massive amount of money and that is not fair.

They also very quietly increased the number of years NI contributions needed from 30 to 35 years. I have 43 years anyway so I've got more than enough.