MSE News: Women's state pension changes petition smashes 100,000 signatures - and may

p00hsticks

mystic_trev wrote: »

Why are there now four threads on the same subject?

This one.....

and....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5378979

and....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5387144

and....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5384925

Actually, it's (at least) five - you missed this earlier one which started over in Campaigns corner a few months back...

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5330405

hyubh

phillw wrote: »

In the transition they are using both calculations, but after that you will have to put more money in to get what you would have done before. Do you understand now?

No, you are still not making any sense. What do you mean 'after' the transition? Once the new state pension begins, everyone starts with their foundation amount and accrue anything else under the new system going forward. You are not putting more money in to get what you would done before - you are 'putting more money in' (i.e., paying the normal not category D rate of NI) to earn something you would not have earned before.

If the contracted out people weren't going to be worse off then they would have offered to transfer them back in.

What are you referring to - the statutory restitution cases in the early/mid 90s, or the new state pension still?

MoneyWorry

As an another example, I was contracted out, but into a personal pension. Should I have done it? Of course not, but hindsight is a wonderful thing on both the part of the pension provider and myself.

My state pension forecast under the current rules is £121. I don't have a figure for new rules, but it will be considerably less.
I still however intend to work another 9 years before retiring so should make the flat rate.
The value of my contracted out payments within the personal pension is not that bad in fact quite surprising as I've always had fairly low paid (but not trivial!!) jobs.
So I count myself as a winner.
I may have been more of a winner if I'd stayed contracted in, but that's the way life is.

hyubh

MoneyWorry wrote: »

I still however intend to work another 9 years before retiring so should make the flat rate.

I may have been more of a winner if I'd stayed contracted in

How, if you will be just making the 'flat' rate having been contracted out previously...?

Pollycat

merrydance wrote: »

Good I was due my pension this year. Hope something comes of it! Equal pay was brought in 1970.

When you say you were 'due your pension this year', do you mean you reached 60 this year?

If you do, you have missed the point about equality because a man born on the same day as you would not be getting his pension until he was 65.

This is about the women whose pension age was put back as a result of changes in 1995 as part of the planned equality with men for SPA at 65 and then again in 2011 as part of the move to put the PA for men and wonmen to 66.

Al.

molerat wrote: »

You pay nothing extra to get exactly what you would have got under the old rules, you pay extra to get more.

This makes a good point, it underscores the mentality of exclusion and entitlement that we (boomers et al) have become used to. God knows, let's give future generations a break.

jem16

MoneyWorry wrote: »

My state pension forecast under the current rules is £121. I don't have a figure for new rules, but it will be considerably less.

Not that it will matter as you'll get the higher which is likely to the the £121.

I may have been more of a winner if I'd stayed contracted in, but that's the way life is.

If you have earned over £10k and were under age 40 approximately that is very unlikely.

Now it looks like you'll have £155 plus your contracted out pension as opposed to £119 ( basic state pension ) plus SERPS/S2P.

PensionTech

Equal pay was brought in 1970.

Not sure of your point here?

If you are saying that women born in the 1950s deserve a lower SPA because they were not entitled to equal pay during their working life, then I have to point out that women born in the 1950s could only have been working for a maximum of a couple of years (if at all) before the Equal Pay Act so the vast majority, if not all, of their working lives would have occurred after equal pay was brought in.

Of course, it can be argued that the gender pay gap continued to exist after 1970 and that cultural traditions often resulted in women working less and being paid less - but that is a different debate. My point is simply that the timing of the Equal Pay Act adds no basis or value to the WASPI campaign; indeed, if anything it undermines it, since it implies that 1950s-born women should have been the first to benefit in a significant way from gender equality, and therefore there is a good argument to also equalise their SPA.

zagfles

PensionTech wrote: »

Not sure of your point here?

If you are saying that women born in the 1950s deserve a lower SPA because they were not entitled to equal pay during their working life, then I have to point out that women born in the 1950s could only have been working for a maximum of a couple of years (if at all) before the Equal Pay Act so the vast majority, if not all, of their working lives would have occurred after equal pay was brought in.

Of course, it can be argued that the gender pay gap continued to exist after 1970 and that cultural traditions often resulted in women working less and being paid less - but that is a different debate. My point is simply that the timing of the Equal Pay Act adds no basis or value to the WASPI campaign; indeed, if anything it undermines it, since it implies that 1950s-born women should have been the first to benefit in a significant way from gender equality, and therefore there is a good argument to also equalise their SPA.

Not only a good argument, but hypocrisy to do otherwise. The govt passes a law saying to employers "you must not discriminate" yet carries on discriminating in the state pension age!!

Mortgagefreeman

Does Martin Lewis still support WASPI? They appear to be in need of more than a little help!