Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

PensionTech

I am not saying that I didn't know that state pension age was changing - I did - but I did not know what my own new state pension age would be until I asked DWP.

So you knew it was changing, but you never bothered to find out how it would affect you?

That is a far cry from the argument WASPI are trying to cling to, which goes as follows:

"We were told all our lives we would get our pension at 60 and there was no coverage of the fact that it would ever be anything other than 60. We made all our financial and personal plans on the cast-iron promise that we would get our pension at 60. So although we recognise that the state pension age needs to be equalised, the government should pay us enough compensation to put us in exactly the same position we would be if the state pension was paid at 60, because there was no possible way of us knowing otherwise."

This whole argument falls apart if you cannot say that you had an absolutely certain belief that you would get your state pension at 60 and there was no reason to suspect that this would ever change and thought it was immutable. If you knew there were changes afoot, and if any possible effect on you was absolutely fundamental to your retirement planning to the extent that you would suffer significant financial detriment from using the wrong information - which is the only possible legal argument for compensation that could ever be made - then you had a responsibility to check it out for yourself. To do anything else is negligence. You cannot expect someone to come around with a loudspeaker announcing your own personal state pension date. You have responsibility for your own financial plans.

By the way, I'm curious: you criticise people on here for not all being in the affected cohort of women and therefore somehow being biased or callous. I would put forward two responses to that:

• We are all affected - whether we are women born in the 1950s or not - because the state pension is funded by the taxpayer (today's taxpayers in fact, not the 1950s-born taxpayer) and any additional benefit payable to 1950s women therefore affects the public in the same way that any state spending affects the public. It is legitimately up for debate by all of us.
• Some of the people responding to you are indeed in the cohort of women affected by the changes. You say the information wasn't available, but they say that they were well aware of it. There are two possibilities: either you (and others in your situation) weren't paying attention to something that you found dry or didn't need to think about for the next twenty years, or others were psychic/dogged/somehow in possession of information that wasn't made publicly available. Common sense points towards the former.

slightlymiffed

PensionTech wrote: »

So you knew it was changing, but you never bothered to find out how it would affect you?

That is a far cry from the argument WASPI are trying to cling to, which goes as follows:

"We were told all our lives we would get our pension at 60 and there was no coverage of the fact that it would ever be anything other than 60. We made all our financial and personal plans on the cast-iron promise that we would get our pension at 60. So although we recognise that the state pension age needs to be equalised, the government should pay us enough compensation to put us in exactly the same position we would be if the state pension was paid at 60, because there was no possible way of us knowing otherwise."

This whole argument falls apart if you cannot say that you had an absolutely certain belief that you would get your state pension at 60 and there was no reason to suspect that this would ever change. If you knew there were changes afoot, and if any possible effect on you was absolutely fundamental to your retirement planning to the extent that you would suffer significant financial detriment from using the wrong information - which is the only possible legal argument for compensation that could ever be made - then you had a responsibility to check it out for yourself. To do anything else is negligence. You cannot expect someone to come around with a loudspeaker announcing your own personal state pension date. You have responsibility for your own financial plans.

Again - I repeat, am not a WASPI and I do not represent them nor reflect their 'ask' - you know my argument is with the 2011 Act. I mentioned the 1995 Act because the lack of notification has a part to play in this for many. Please read my posts again and stop twisting facts.

If you can see no injustice in the 2011 Act, then so be it. Most can and do, thank goodness.

OldBeanz

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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

You have stated you wanted it softened but not how softened. If you want to make a case you have to be more specific.

atush

I mentioned the 1995 Act because the lack of notification has a part to play in this for many.

There was no lack of notification, I saw it on TV and in the newspapers.

bowlhead99

Pennylane wrote: »

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.

We can find "cliff edges" everywhere.

If we go back to your childhood - with an October birthday you were born close to the start of an academic year. Your pal with an April or July birthday was born much later in hers. So, all the way through your schooling from infants and juniors to secondary school until you took your O levels and A levels you had the advantage of being oldest in the class with more age and experience than your classmates while she had to struggle to keep up with hers, some of whom were over over half a year older which can represent quite a bit of development at a young age.

So, born early in the academic year you get to take your O levels or GCSEs when you're a few months off turning 17. A girl born in July has to do them before she's even 16.

Some might therefore think you have a competitive advantage in academia - not to mention your extra curricular activities that look good on a CV like being captain of the netball team because you were always bigger and stronger than the younger girls in your year.

We all play the cards we're dealt. Play your cards right and getting off on the right foot with a good job might be worth an extra 10%+ which with inflationary pay rises for working hard can be worth a heck of a lot over a 40 year career. More than two years basic pension anyway. You can say that April or July girl has an early pension age but maybe she misses out in other things. Also, you can say the 'pension age' cards you were dealt are better than those given to the boys in your class and they're better than the ones given to me when i was born later than you.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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.

If you had never been in a position to really save or get a good job that paid a fat pension, it doesn't strike me as particularly obvious that if you got a letter in the post in 1995 telling you to watch the news, you would have magically been in a position to really save or get a good job that paid a fat pension?

So, the lack of personalised notice from the government was not a bad thing that affected you adversely, as it doesn't impact the life choices you would have made. Your contention is that you simply weren't in a position to save, right?

You were just a poor young woman in a go-nowhere job, gradually becoming a poor middle aged woman in a go-nowhere job, and whenever we start paying the state pension to you, you'll give up the job and start taking the pension. Doesn't seem to be a particular reason for you to be allowed to retire earlier than a poor middle aged woman in a go-nowhere job who was born in 1955/6, 1957/8, etc etc, 1963/4 or 1974/5 etc etc.

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?

Seriously?! You might want to read that question back to yourself. Hmm, why is it that we would believe that giving more money to some people would leave less in the pot for others? My answer to that is simply "How could it not?"

jamesd

slightlymiffed wrote: »

They are using every trick in the book to promote apparent 'inter-generational unfairness' which is working

They are hardly the first to do that, it was one of the concerns of Lord Turner's Pensions Commission back in 2004-2006 and before that as well. It's one of the more significant issues in state pension planning because without a later state pension age there would have to be an increase in taxes unless something was done to reduce the value of the pension or reduce life expectancy.

The reports of the Turner Commission are well worth reading for anyone interested in pensions, in part because the Commission did a good analysis of a range of options including cost implications.

saver861 wrote: »

I'm confused. I'm saying the same thing but I'm making false claims!!

Your assertions were that there was no case prior to WASPI and that those who wanted change were doing nothing about it. In fact what happened is that those who wanted change got some in the 2011 act between it being introduced and it becoming law while WASPI has achieved little but noise.

saver861 wrote: »

Different products totally.

Your assertion was that the state pension delay was the longest extension. It wasn't, the longest recent extension was the five year increase in pension age for men and women who hadn't reached age 50 yet.

atush

Well said Bowlhead and your example was great

So, born early in the academic year you get to take your O levels or GCSEs when you're a few months off turning 17. A girl born in July has to do them before she's even 16.

I know this to be 100% true. I had a Jan birth child, who was behind his september friends, but above his july ones a.cademically

I had twins due in August (who were born early) and they started school just gone 4. One was behind his entire school life til A levels, and I had to work really hard at home to get him up to speed. His twin was truly gifted, but still needed help in elementary school. They both were tiny in size compared to their friends until they were at uni.

Being 6 foot now at 21 isnt compensation for being a foot shorter than all their friends at 16. Not to mention they hit all their age barriers like driving and being able to go to the pub until nearly a year after their friends- they couldnt even get part time jobs at Alevel, as they were younger than all the other applicants.

I am a university educated mother in a normal stable family I can well see now why males do less well than females in school, and I can especially see why disadvantaged white male children under perform to every other class/gender in society these days. I could see it all thru their elementary school some of their friends fall behind academically, which makes a difference once you get to high school as you get streamed by ability and then when you get to 16, many dont go on with school.

in a decade or two, universities will see women take 75% of places (they are already over 50%). So really, it is imperative that men be equal to women in pensions. Now.

Women live longer, they no longer die young in childbirth in large numbers. It is high time we carried our weight in pension equality.

I was actually HAPPY, believe it or not, when women had to wait til 65 like men. Because it was the right thing to do.

If i was in charge, I would have spread out the pain of the further change above 65 which both my husband (born in the 50s) and me (in the 60s) fall into, so that people like us didnt get the double whammy. But I was not in charge.

So suck it up. It had to happen, as we are all living longer now.

hyubh

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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'.

Do please expand! Apparently the NI Fund was in trouble because payments were exceeding contributions, but behind the scenes, the real reason was Herman Van Rompuy exacting Eurogeld from his Bullingdon Boy quislings...?

Triumph13

I too can't believe this thread is still going on, but as it is I'll add my twopenn'th:
2011 act - I have sympathy
1995 act - If you couldn't give a monkey's then, why on earth would you expect me to give a monkey's now?

saver861

Triumph13 wrote: »

I too can't believe this thread is still going on,

I can

Lots like to hear their own voices .... and thus repeat it .....

What is clear there is a significant difference between number of years old and being mature!

Life expectancy has increased in years .... seems like adult maturity is lagging behind somewhat!!!