Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

slightlymiffed

mgdavid wrote: »

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.

Well the state in this case has not treated us differently, we've all been affected - just some more harshly and all without adequate notice.

If you are in a poorly paid manual job, to be told at 58 that you have to keep slogging on for another 8 years and you have never been in a position to really save or accrue a nice fat pension, you are basically stuffed.

1950's women are not 'victims' - we were 'chosen'. Chosen to take the hit for saving the government a colossal amount of money to balance the books - and all in the name of 'equality' and 'the EU'.

missbiggles1

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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?

Whilst I know I'm thrashing over points already made, you don't need to be of any particular class or educational level to have followed the coverage of the 1993 budget (when these changes were first announced) or to have read a newspaper in the intervening years. To suggest that this is the case is both condescending and demeaning to all of us.

OldBeanz

My sister-in-law is a 1950's woman and she was given her pension at 60, her sister, ten years younger, will receive hers at 67. The 1950's women appear to be doing well and better than 1950's men and 1960's women.

slightlymiffed

bmm78 wrote: »

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.

Thanks bmm but no need to go over old ground (think you all have been doing that very well for some considerable time ) but I have followed all the debates and options very closely and have come to the conclusion that there is no money for 1950's women because we're seen to have no political clout.

This government may want to reconsider their position when they remember that for every 1950's affected woman, there is usually a 1950's husband or partner and thousands upon thousands of 1970/80's born children and we are all able to vote. We'll choose very very carefully now.

OldBeanz

It is still unclear what changes anyone would want made. It all appears to be a me,me,me temper tantrum.

slightlymiffed

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Whilst I know I'm thrashing over points already made, you don't need to be of any particular class or educational level to have followed the coverage of the 1993 budget (when these changes were first announced) or to have read a newspaper in the intervening years. To suggest that this is the case is both condescending and demeaning to all of us.

Sorry Miss Biggles, as a pensions/financial 'expert', I would expect you to be abreast of the minutiae of the 1993 Budget. Strangely enough, in 1993, I was only 39 and any 'proposed' pension age changes would probably not be my main concern - after all, we would be informed of any changes by the government, wouldn't we??? Our trust was misplaced.

slightlymiffed

OldBeanz wrote: »

It is still unclear what changes anyone would want made. It all appears to be a me,me,me temper tantrum.

I've offered my opinion of what changes I personally would opt for. Maybe you missed it?

missbiggles1

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Sorry Miss Biggles, as a pensions/financial 'expert', I would expect you to be abreast of the minutiae of the 1993 Budget. Strangely enough, in 1993, I was only 39 and any 'proposed' pension age changes would probably not be my main concern - after all, we would be informed of any changes by the government, wouldn't we??? Our trust was misplaced.

Why on earth would you think I'm a pensions/financial expert?

I'm a woman who was born in the 50s but that doesn't mean that I didn't watch the television or read a newspaper occasionally, where the initial change was very well covered.

How can you say you'd take notice of a letter but you ignored the media - it just doesn't make any sense.

missbiggles1

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Thanks bmm but no need to go over old ground (think you all have been doing that very well for some considerable time ) but I have followed all the debates and options very closely and have come to the conclusion that there is no money for 1950's women because we're seen to have no political clout.

This government may want to reconsider their position when they remember that for every 1950's affected woman, there is usually a 1950's husband or partner and thousands upon thousands of 1970/80's born children and we are all able to vote. We'll choose very very carefully now.

And why would you think that people would change the way they vote just because a member of their family was adversely affected by a something like this? If that's the way you form your political opinions I'm quite shocked, because I certainly don't.

bmm78

slightlymiffed wrote: »

This government may want to reconsider their position when they remember that for every 1950's affected woman, there is usually a 1950's husband or partner and thousands upon thousands of 1970/80's born children and we are all able to vote. We'll choose very very carefully now.

The 2011 changes had no apparent impact at the ballot box, despite going back on a pre-election promise that there would be no further rises in state pension age.

It seems to get overlooked how big a furore the 2011 Act caused at the time, and how hard campaigners (including a certain Baroness) and opposition MPs fought to get the concession they did.

The same arguments put forward about it costing the tories at the next election were used back then, but instead the electorate voted them in with a majority...