Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

atush

Pollycat wrote: »

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.

I am affected, in that i am going to get my SP later than I thought. And so is my husband. Double whammy.

I consider some of the arguments here irrational.

And while boring (flogging. horse. dead.) it is like a car crash. One has to look.

atush

Pennylane wrote: »

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.

it wasnt quietly. And are you going to complain the 35 years is less than others getting pensions had to pay in for? Didnt think so.

You have a grievance well worth supporting. WASPI did you zero favors. AS they were not on your side but their own.

zagfles

Pennylane wrote: »

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.

The 2010 changes had similar cliff edges.

But look at it another way. What is more unfair, you getting your pension after a woman a few months older than you, or you getting your pension before a man who is exactly the same age as you?

It's easy to hand pick what is "unfair". Of course the notice of change is a different issue and IMO is the one which is worth campaigning about. Not hand picked "unfairnesses".

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.

It was hardly "quietly". They combined the basic state pension (30 years needed for full amount) with S2P (all years since 1978 needed for full amount). And someone with 30 years as at April 2016 will get at least the full amount of the "basic" state pension as it was pre 2016.

slightlymiffed

Pennylane wrote: »

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.

It gets worse Pennylane - you and I would have been in the same class year at school but, being July 54 born, I won't get get my pension until May 2020 - almost TWO YEARS after you and almost FOUR YEARS after your friends.

The 2011 Act was discriminatory in the extreme and summer born 1954 women are the very worst affected. I too have 43 years NI (and counting). Can anyone explain how this was ever fair?

Daniel54

slightlymiffed wrote: »

It gets worse Pennylane - you and I would have been in the same class year at school but, being July 54 born, I won't get get my pension until May 2020 - almost TWO YEARS after you and almost FOUR YEARS after your friends.

The 2011 Act was discriminatory in the extreme and summer born 1954 women are the very worst affected. I too have 43 years NI (and counting). Can anyone explain how this was ever fair?

The "unfairness" or "inequality" is between women of different birth dates,not between men and women ( you and I were born the same month)

The Government has been clear that it will not raise the £30bn to unwind the 2011 act,nor even the £8.5bn to adopt John Ralfe's proposal of a longer and more gradual transition.It certainly won't raise the £77bn to pay for the original WASPI ask.

My question to you and to Pennylane is- what do you want to happen and how much money do you want the Government to spend on your preferred solution ( and how would you propose raising these sums) ?

We discuss state pension age on this board because this is the pensions and retirement forum .Extra money going to one group of state pension retirees is potentially less money going to others

slightlymiffed

Daniel54 wrote: »

The "unfairness" or "inequality" is between women of different birth dates,not between men and women ( you and I were born the same month)

The Government has been clear that it will not raise the £30bn to unwind the 2011 act,nor even the £8.5bn to adopt John Ralfe's proposal of a longer and more gradual transition.It certainly won't raise the £77bn to pay for the original WASPI ask.

My question to you and to Pennylane is- what do you want to happen and how much money do you want the Government to spend on your preferred solution ( and how would you propose raising these sums) ?

We discuss state pension age on this board because this is the pensions and retirement forum .Extra money going to one group of state pension retirees is potentially less money going to others

I did not say that the 2011 Act was discriminatory between men and women - it's between women of different ages. It is ill thought through and unfair.

What I personally would like to see (and I do NOT speak for Waspi), is probably more along the lines of John Ralfe's 'softening' of the transitional arrangements accelerated in 2011.

I was 58 when I was informed about the implications of the 1995 Act in February 2012 and, whilst I was, and still am working, and had made it my business to find out about my own personal retirement age, I acknowledge and accept that many, many women did not even know about the 1995 Act and that this first notification from DWP in 2012, may have been their first knowledge that they had up to six years added to their 'expected' retirement age. We are not all of the same educational level nor social class and to be told we 'should have known' is blatant prejudice.

DWP have now admitted that NO letters were actually sent out informing people of the changes to state pension age until 2009 and arguably, the worst affected women (1953/54 born) were not told until 2012!

HMRC were however, able to write to me personally in 2004 to tell me that I had shortfalls in my NI contributions and would I like to buy them - but were not able to inform me (same address) that my state pension age was changing. It was only when I actually requested this information (later in 2004) that I was advised it was now November 2018. If I had not had a shortfall in my NI payments, would I have been prompted to ask my pension date? I'm not sure.

Can the truth be that DWP did not actually have the technology or the will to actually even attempt this gargantuan task of informing millions of men and women of their individual new state pension age? DWP did even admit that the technology was not available until 2001 - six years after the 1995 Act.

My question to you then is why do you believe that 'extra money' going to one group of retirees is potentially less money going to others?

bmm78

slightlymiffed wrote: »

My question to you then is why do you believe that 'extra money' going to one group of retirees is potentially less money going to others?

Well, it's either that or increased taxation or spending cuts elsewhere.

bmm78

slightlymiffed wrote: »

DWP have now admitted that NO letters were actually sent out informing people of the changes to state pension age until 2009 and arguably, the worst affected women (1953/54 born) were not told until 2012!

While obviously not the same as a personal letter, around 16m automatic pension forecasts were sent out unprompted between 2004 and 2006.

This is in addition to the 11.5m prompted state pension forecasts sent out since 2001.

While I don't think anyone would argue that the communications could and should have been better, the notion going around some quarters that the government "did nothing" is patently untrue.



I don't want to get too bogged down in going over old ground, but anyone interested in the reasons for the 2011 timetable should review the debates and options discussed in parliament at the time. It may not make the changes any "fairer", but it does help explain why seemingly viable alternatives were dismissed.

missbiggles1

Pennylane wrote: »

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.

That's the sort of post you expect to be followed by the comment "I'll thcream and thcream until I'm thick"!

mgdavid

slightlymiffed wrote: »

....... We are not all of the same educational level nor social class and to be told we 'should have known' is blatant prejudice..........

for the state to treat people of different educational level or social class differently would simply be more blatant discrimination.
Th argument is usually deemed to be settled when one side plays the victim card.