Inform the debate on the effect of the equalisation of the state pension age on women

mumps

colsten wrote: »

OK, I'll bite. How exactly do you suggest the WASPI demands will be funded?

There are lots of thing that the young get that we didn't. One example is free childcare for preschool age children. Back in the 70s we hired the local church hall or scout hut, employed a playgroup leader and took it in turns on a rota to help run the playgroup. Now it is free and mums don't need to organise a committee to run the thing, pay 2/6d a session, help on the rota etc etc. I wonder what it all costs?

I am sure there are plenty of things that people can prioritise.

Pollycat

colsten wrote: »

Then in 2011 I, alongside all men of my age, was given 8 years notice of a further 18 months delay to my state pension. I know many people do find the 2011 increase unfair, but I can't say I do, as the notice period ratio is not too different to that of the 1995 delays. I also can say that I have yet to meet a man of my age who considers their increase unfair. A bit annoying, may be, but not unfair.

Whether the 2011 increase is considered fair or unfair, I most definitely do not wish to be represented by WASPI who claim to speak for all women of my age. They do not speak for me.

But some women - including me - had less than 8 years notice so they probably do find the increase in SPA unfair.

I agree 100% with your final sentence.

ukcarper

colsten wrote: »

As a 1954 women, I had some 19 years notice of a 48 months delay to my state pension. I am perfectly alright with this as this finally gave men of my age the same rights for state pension as I have.

Then in 2011 I, alongside all men of my age, was given 8 years notice of a further 18 months delay to my state pension. I know many people do find the 2011 increase unfair, but I can't say I do, as the notice period ratio is not too different to that of the 1995 delays. I also can say that I have yet to meet a man of my age who considers their increase unfair. A bit annoying, may be, but not unfair.

Whether the 2011 increase is considered fair or unfair, I most definitely do not wish to be represented by WASPI who claim to speak for all women of my age. They do not speak for me.

My wife was given 6 years notice that she would have to wait another 18 months, I don't think any mans date increased more than a year.

saver861

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Three points:

1) Yes, some of the 2011ers (for example, '53/'54 women) have been in 'plight' since 2011. They probably need someone to stick up for them.

Well I'm doing my bit .... however small it is ....

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Some people did stick up for them and fought for an agreement on tweaking the age tapering which settled such that the differential they faced was a year and a half instead of two. They are unfortunate to fall on one side of a line in the sand and not the other. That is the problem with dealing with things through a line in the sand, but that is generally how things have to be done when you are dealing with a country of 60 million people with conflicting views and opinions.

It's clear there would have to be boundaries. However, these boundaries have not been smoothed appropriately. That is the problem. Its not just unfortunate - it has not been done systematically. See link from John Ralfe and his proposals. He is effectively saying all those that did not have 10 years notice should do so. If you look at his figures - someone born in June 1953 would have their pension two years before someone born in June 1954. Even the disparity between the 1953 and 1954 women is disproportionate.

http://www.johnralfe.com/public/SPA_posted.pdf

bowlhead99 wrote: »

2) WASPI brought the plight to mass market attention within an 'ask' which many people do not respect -

That's the only reason why we are here because of WASPI's instigation. In that, they have succeeded.

Their ask to get the 1995 roll back is a bridge too far, and will not happen. Their right to ask it is imperative though.

bowlhead99 wrote: »

The plight of (some of the) 2011ers therefore risks being lost in the noise about WASPI being unreasonable, as you say - we are agreed on that. It hasn't been lost in the noise in this forum, where many people have agreed that they do sympathise with the issues that some of the 2011ers faced.

The problem is that had WASPI not got the ball rolling, then there would be no current discussion about the 2011'ers. So while I think the focus should be on the 2011 thing, and I think that is what it will eventually narrow down to, I can't condem WASPI for getting it to that point.

bowlhead99 wrote: »

3) I am not sure where you are coming from with the
So, while the extra year and a half of working-age was imposed on them with less than a decade's notice, and will be expensive for some of them who don't want to work, it is not true to say that that small minority group is paying more than everyone else.

'Paying more' may not have been the correct term. As per above and John Ralfe's document etc, 1953/54 are at a disadvantage in terms of the smoothing process. If its 10 years as the time deemed fair to make reasonable preparation then it should be 10 years for all. This group did not have that time and thus are at a greater disadvantage than everyone else was, is and will be in the future.

mumps

bigadaj wrote: »

I have a lot of sympathy for buggy boys view, and would agree that the baby boomers have taken most of the money. I'm a little younger than the baby boomers, being fairly solid mid generation x though I dislike the term, and it seems clear that baby boomers are the luckiest generation that has lived, and may well be ever. I would note that I would consider my generation to be scone to the bay boomers, my parents grew up knowing real poverty and younger generations are clearly getting the rough end of the deal. If you think not then just consider how may elderly each one will be carrying with their tax burden compared to that of current and near future retirees whilst they were working.

The changes to state pension changes should have started far earlier when it became obvious of the rapidly increasing life expectancy, let's not forget the retirement age of 65 was introduced when the average male life expectancy was 66, so reliant on a huge minority never living to claim it.

I've worked overseas and can see the attraction for younger people to move abroad, where the money is going to come for the ever increasing benefits, pensions and health care isn't at all clear, we're still borrowing increasing amounts even though the deficit is reducing, companies are minimising their tax bills, individuals can't be taxed above 45%, and higher rate tax encroaches at lower levels.

This might not be a problem relevant to current retirees but there's no magic money tree and the money has to come from somewhere.

Well I'm a baby boomer. I was born in a house with no bathroom, toilets were at the top of the yard, normally shared. We were quite posh as we lived in a through house, not a back to back so we had our own loo. I went to a school that had no inside toilets, I tell you trecking back and forwards to toilets of a feature of my life till I was 11.

I had been married 7 years before I first had central heating, I had two children already out of nappies before I got a washing machine. Obviously we didn't have computers or mobile phones, it was hard enough getting a landline. We didn't have a family car till I was turned 30, my parents never had one.

My father died of kidney failure when I was still at school, the NHS couldn't afford enough dialysis machines.

Yes we had it all, it was all so easy. My daughter is looking at buying her first house at 26, her and her boyfriend were telling me how lucky I was as I had my first house at 19 but I didn't have 4 years at uni, I hadn't travelled to USA, Australia, Russia, India, Africa and all the other places they have been, I still haven't been to most of them. If they had left school at 15 and started saving every penny to buy a two up two down with no double glazing, no central heating and dodgy wiring they could have probably had a house years ago but they want to start off in the sort of house we had after 20 years. We could only dream of the sort of interest rates they are being offered.

Have they got it easy, no not really. Did we have it easy, no not really. It was different that's all, different.

mumps

colsten wrote: »

As a 1954 women, I had some 19 years notice of a 48 months delay to my state pension. I am perfectly alright with this as this finally gave men of my age the same rights for state pension as I have.

Then in 2011 I, alongside all men of my age, was given 8 years notice of a further 18 months delay to my state pension. I know many people do find the 2011 increase unfair, but I can't say I do, as the notice period ratio is not too different to that of the 1995 delays. I also can say that I have yet to meet a man of my age who considers their increase unfair. A bit annoying, may be, but not unfair.

Whether the 2011 increase is considered fair or unfair, I most definitely do not wish to be represented by WASPI who claim to speak for all women of my age. They do not speak for me.

Men of your age did not have their retirement age increased by 18 months.

colsten

saver861 wrote: »

'Paying more' may not have been the correct term. As per above and John Ralfe's document etc, 1953/54 are at a disadvantage in terms of the smoothing process. If its 10 years as the time deemed fair to make reasonable preparation then it should be 10 years for all. This group did not have that time and thus are at a greater disadvantage than everyone else was, is and will be in the future.

John Ralfe's proposal would cost £8.5bn - very significantly less than the WASPI ask.

However, £8.5bn isn't small change either. I may have overlooked it but I have not seen anything from JR on how he would raise this money. What would you suggest should be the funding source?

bowlhead99

mumps wrote: »

I am sure there are plenty of things that people can prioritise.

Yes, like whether they should prioritise giving up work to live like a retiree or prioritise earning an income to pay the bills. Regardless of the date the state pension is available and they officially cease to be 'working age' they may choose to stop working earlier or later than that date. We all make choices.

Some people are infirm or need care and in individual cases may not have much practical ability to keep on working. It would be good if there was a solution for them. I wouldn't want to get that case of incapacity, or disability, or lack of skills and local job opportunities, mixed up with the 'old age pension' granted to all from a particular date. Such issues would not be solved by arbitrarily bringing forward the retirement dates of 50s women. There will be people like that born in the 60s, 70s, 80s etc too.

You say you did not have much of a problem with being told you were no longer going to get a pension from 60 and again when you were told it was going back by a year with everybody else. But you didn't like it going back 18 months when everyone else only got a year. But every person who is currently younger than you and 'only got a year' must still wait to an older age for their pension than you do. So if you want your 6 months back, shouldn't they get 6 months 'back' as well?

I sympathise with the position of 53/54ers that they were most harshly affected by the change, although the overall deal they get is good (I'll be waiting to 67+), because I appreciate that the short notice is difficult to plan around for some people who could have planned around it with more notice. However, it is not the case that you have been thrown in the bin without being considered. It was considered in 2011 and the rules drafted - and if they had gone ahead, you would have wanted 12 months back! Based on feedback / backlash they were redrafted, so now you only want 6 months back. At this weeks discussion there will be more feedback. If it does not result in a favourable result (you getting your 6 months back) should it be brought back for debate via another petition next year and the year after and so on forever until they give you the 6 months back?

saver861

colsten wrote: »

John Ralfe's proposal would cost £8.5bn - very significantly less than the WASPI ask.

However, £8.5bn isn't small change either. I may have overlooked it but I have not seen anything from JR on how he would raise this money. What would you suggest should be the funding source?

The funding source?

That will be the pot of money that the Government collects from us all, or those that pay their taxes, of which I am one. How they distribute that money is not down to me. That's what they are there for.

Now, you and others have asked about the 'funding source' on behalf of the Government.

This is exactly the same problem as those 2011'ers who have to make up their own 'funding source' to cater for the shortfall. There seems to be less concern about this particular 'funding source'!

In effect, the two situations are identical, just different amounts of money involved.

So, if the government cannot manage the finances to cater for this shortfall, how can it legitimately say to those 2011'ers that you need to manage your finances to make up the shortfall yourselves?

colsten

There is no spare £8.5bn sloshing around in government coffers. So there are three funding options

1. raise more money from taxation
2. cancel planned expenditure and re-direct the funds to pension payments
3. a combination of the above

Which option would you suggest, and how would it work?

saver861 wrote: »

So, if the government cannot manage the finances to cater for this shortfall, how can it legitimately say to those 2011'ers that you need to manage your finances to make up the shortfall yourselves?

The difference would be that the government has planned their income and expenditure. Most WASPIs appear to just have planned to retire, without looking at affordability. WASPIs have the same options everyone else has - work longer, use their savings, etc. If they are unable to work, they also have the same options as everyone else unable to work has.