Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

mazzy

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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.

As a woman born in October 53 my definition of softened would be as I missed the April cut off point by 6 months I should only have to wait 6 months longer for my pension, born November 7 months longer andso on. WASPI have done us no favours as there was never going to be a return to pension at 60. I fully understood when I would get my pension and tried to tell other women at work but a lot were not interested, they also had no idea that our final salary pensions would impact on our state pensions. I do believe more information should have been given but some will just stick their heads in the sand and worry about it when the time comes. I do however feel we were not given enough notice of the second rise and that wouldn't have been quite so bad if they had done it in the way I thought would have been fairer.

dunstonh

they also had no idea that our final salary pensions would impact on our state pensions.

Which would have been covered in the scheme booklet they were given. So, that also goes some way to confirm that even if all women had received documentation about the state pension, most would not have read it.

I do however feel we were not given enough notice of the second rise and that wouldn't have been quite so bad if they had done it in the way I thought would have been fairer.

Which, as you know, is the majority consensus here. And as you say, WASPI did nobody any favours with their ill fought campaign.

mazzy

To be fair I started working at the firm 32years before I retired and don't even remember a scheme booklet, I am sure there probably was one but I was only 30 then and wouldn't have thought much about retirement. I think nowadays people are better informed as I have read so much information here that I may have missed on the news or in papers. When I did realise I did try to share that information but some just don't want to know, some didn't even know how many NI years they needed to have and didn't know what opting out was.

Unfortunately things like pensions are confusing to many and I include myself in this, even when you try to inform yourself understanding it is not so easy which makes forums like this such a valuable resource. Sometimes the better informed on here will have to use dummy speak to get the message through and I don't mean that to be insulting to anyone as some of us need it.

slightlymiffed

OldBeanz wrote: »

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

Actually OldBeanz - I don't have to do anything. Suggest you check out John Ralfe's suggestions.

slightlymiffed

Pollycat wrote: »

Well - from here:

You acknowledge it was in the media but found something else - that had no impact on you personally at all - more interesting.
More fool you.

I find it astonishing that you could be aware of changes but couldn't be bothered to find out how you were personally affected until 2 years before your 'old' state pension date.

I have been educated enough to be able to assimilate and have interest in more than one subject and I deliberately used the CamillaGate reference, knowing it would get the response it did. Those who responded as they did have outed themselves very admirably. Thank you.

Whilst I took my O level English Language a year early at 14 (and passed ), you clearly have a little more trouble with comprehension so I will say again - I knew state pension ages were changing which is why I contacted DWP in 2004 to ask for my state pension age. Quite why you suggest that I only 'bothered' to find out in 2012, I'm not sure, but I am guessing that you think it supports my 'feather-brain' and 'fool' nomenclature?

This 'fool' has a filing cabinet with a dedicated 'pensions' file - in which is every piece of correspondence from HMRC/DWP. My first unsolicited notification about my state pension age was in 2012. Previous correspondence was at my request.

I'll also add here that I totally agree with the equalisation of mens' and womens' pension ages (I have two university educated sons and care passionately about their future).

Is that a little easier for you to understand?

slightlymiffed

saver861 wrote: »

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!!!

Agreed.

If you think this is bad, take a look at some of these forum members' Twitter posts.

One has just this week been reported to Twitter for stalking a woman's Facebook page and posting a link to photographs of her grandchildren.

Despicable and completely unwarranted behaviour.

Sisterhood? Not a bit of it.

slightlymiffed

atush wrote: »

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.

Not sure I recognise the world you live in - I am a late summer born and so is one of my sons. I was the youngest in my class all through school. I did not feel disadvantaged, nor did my son.

Girls always historically out performed boys at the 11 plus so that numbers had to be 'adjusted' to equalise those qualifying for grammar school places.

Still, good to hear you are so HAPPY for women to wait till 65 (or almost 66 for me) so I'll 'suck it up' and at least I've lived longer than my mother, who died at 52.

Pollycat

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I have been educated enough to be able to assimilate and have interest in more than one subject and I deliberately used the CamillaGate reference, knowing it would get the response it did. Those who responded as they did have outed themselves very admirably. Thank you.

Then it's a pity that you didn't apply that education sufficiently to assimilate the fact that a major change was about to affect you at that time.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Whilst I took my O level English Language a year early at 14 (and passed ), you clearly have a little more trouble with comprehension so I will say again - I knew state pension ages were changing which is why I contacted DWP in 2004 to ask for my state pension age. Quite why you suggest that I only 'bothered' to find out in 2012, I'm not sure, but I am guessing that you think it supports my 'feather-brain' and 'fool' nomenclature?

I have no trouble with comprehending what people have actually posted previously.
I didn't 'suggest' that you only 'bothered' to find out in 2012, I was quoting you:

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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.

I'm not sure if 'feather-brain' and 'fool' nomenclature actually applies to you but I would comment that you appear to have a little trouble with your memory.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

This 'fool' has a filing cabinet with a dedicated 'pensions' file - in which is every piece of correspondence from HMRC/DWP. My first unsolicited notification about my state pension age was in 2012. Previous correspondence was at my request.

Has there ever been any suggestion that women affected by the 1995 Act were individually informed?
If that hasn't been claimed by Government, I'm unsure what relevance your filing cabinet has.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Is that a little easier for you to understand?

I understand perfectly well,
I understood perfectly well from your initial post on this thread.

slightlymiffed

Pollycat wrote: »

Then it's a pity that you didn't apply that education sufficiently to assimilate the fact that a major change was about to affect you at that time.


I have no trouble with comprehending what people have actually posted previously.
I didn't 'suggest' that you only 'bothered' to find out in 2012, I was quoting you:

I'm not sure if 'feather-brain' and 'fool' nomenclature actually applies to you but I would comment that you appear to have a little trouble with your memory.

Has there ever been any suggestion that women affected by the 1995 Act were individually informed?
If that hasn't been claimed by Government, I'm unsure what relevance your filing cabinet has.

I understand perfectly well,
I understood perfectly well from your initial post on this thread.

Oh here we go Pollycat (cats not dogs, that narrows it still further )....it may be your memory at fault here. You actually said 'I find it astonishing that you could be aware of changes but couldn't be bothered to find out how you were personally affected until 2 years before your 'old' state pension date'

I 'bothered to find out' in 2004 (10 years before I reached 60) and not in 2012 (when I received my first unsolicited notification from DWP).

Repeat - I said 'I was 58 when I was informed about the implications of the 1995 Act in Febuary 2012'. Informed officially - and not in response to a request. I made the point that it was because my pension was on my radar that I knew before DWP had me on their radar to inform me. Actually, because everyone's new state pension age will differ, I believe it was the government's duty to personally inform everyone of their specific retirement date. After all, HMRC seemed to have a duty to ask me if I wanted to buy NI contributions (which I did) so they had detailed knowledge.

Feather-brained fools probably don't even have filing cabinets do they? Surely they chuck everything in the bin and 'breeze through life not thinking'?

Enough of this - you know exactly what I'm saying and choose to misinterpret. I've work to do. No pension for me yet.

mgdavid

slightlymiffed wrote: »

......... and I deliberately used the CamillaGate reference, knowing it would get the response it did. ............

Isn't that called trolling?
Maybe it says more about you than us.