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

mumps

bowlhead99 wrote: »

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?

No the redrafting in 2011 did not reduce it to 18 months. It made 18 months the maximum and made no difference to me.

saver861

Daniel54 wrote: »

Governments with a working majority and over 4 years until the next GE tend to be rather less sensitive than those further into their term

That is true and on top of this, the current weakness of the Opposition means that its the most difficult time period to get any concessions.

The government definitely hold the trump card currently, so the possibility of there being no concessions at all is a strong possibility.

However, there are other factors at play that muddies this situation a little. Pensions will be a recurring theme for this Government - thus this problem will likely be returning if they can't shut it up.

George and a few others down there a looking at getting their name over the door at number 10.

The SNP are the new kid on the block and they need putting in their place.

So, the overall problem is not quite as simple as it might seem at first glance.

saver861

bowlhead99 wrote: »

The WASPs incessant buzzing (see what i did there?)

Careful ...... you might give them ideas ....

bowlhead99 wrote: »

in trying to make someone bring 'pressure to bear' risks the government being pushovers and going OK, we're the bad guys, have it your way. A general rollback to age 60 should not and will not happen. Targeted measures to 'fix' particular groups by arbitrarily moving dates en-masse again, as distinct from looking at specific needs of people who actually need help (whether born in 50s or 60s or 70s or 80s) stands to be very expensive for us taxpayers, so most of us hope that won't happen either. If there was a referendum on it, I don't believe it would pass - it is just the self-interested ones who think it could and should come to pass.

As with all of these things. Those who are self interested are mostly those who have something to gain. The opposition are the rest - equally self interested - who stand to lose.

bowlhead99 wrote: »

True. Divorce from the unreasonable stamping Mrs B is a solution but that might be financially painful too. And until new nookie provision can be obtained, best not to kick the current one out.

Yes - your dilemma is the cost of a potential divorce v nookie provision. Now, if you are a suave, debonair with equivalent handsomeness then of course your worries of imminent nookie provision would be of little to minor concern.

The fact that you seem reluctant to turf out the current provision might indeed be telling in terms of your suaveness factor etc ....

.... as indeed those MPs less certain of where their office desks will be after the next election!!

p00hsticks

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?

With my tongue rather in cheek, and playing devil's advocate...

If the "WASPI women" really wish to be put "in the same financial position they would have been in had they been born on or before 5th April 1950" (as their facebook site says) then one could argue that their pension entitlement should be calculated on the basis of 39 NI years qualification for a basic state pension, rather than the 30 years introduced in the 2007 Pensions Act.

It would be interesting to know what savings would result if this was indeed the case, as one would imagine that potentially there are quite a few women born in the 1950's who meet the current 30 year qualification for the full basic rate pension but not the 39 year one that was in place prior to (I think) April 2010... so if their wishes were granted they could end up with a lower State Pension Age but a (possibly considerably) reduced weekly amount....

colsten

Going back to the WASPI idea of "as if born before 1950" would mean over £100bn.

Pollycat

Daniel54 wrote: »

Governments with a working majority and over 4 years until the next GE tend to be rather less sensitive than those further into their term

If the Government does feel the need to "do something" then my own conclusion is that it will have to be means tested.

This was rejected by WASPI in their oral submission to the Work and Pensions committee.

I would be content if that were to happen.

It would not benefit me as I wouldn't get any benefits that were means tested (occuptional pension in payment) but it would mean that the Government had acknowledged that it had got it wrong.

A couple of my friends would benefit - and I would be happy with that.

ukcarper

colsten wrote: »

Going back to the WASPI idea of "as if born before 1950" would mean over £100bn.

Does that take into account future savings made by paying them a lower pension.

DiggerUK

Why do so few acknowledge the obvious, the proposals are wrong at all levels. They are not just in any way.
The argument over the sums not adding up are a pesh poor excuse to hit people who do not deserve to be penalised for the crisis that blew up in 2007/8.
Sums far in excess of what are needed for this proposed pension inequality were found at the drop of a hat for the banks, why not us..._

mumps

p00hsticks wrote: »

With my tongue rather in cheek, and playing devil's advocate...

If the "WASPI women" really wish to be put "in the same financial position they would have been in had they been born on or before 5th April 1950" (as their facebook site says) then one could argue that their pension entitlement should be calculated on the basis of 39 NI years qualification for a basic state pension, rather than the 30 years introduced in the 2007 Pensions Act.

It would be interesting to know what savings would result if this was indeed the case, as one would imagine that potentially there are quite a few women born in the 1950's who meet the current 30 year qualification for the full basic rate pension but not the 39 year one that was in place prior to (I think) April 2010... so if their wishes were granted they could end up with a lower State Pension Age but a (possibly considerably) reduced weekly amount....

I'm all for the 39 years, I already have 47 years, well I will at Easter as I started work the Easter after my 15th birthday and am 62 now. I have always worked until I took retirement last February but as I am now able to claim carers allowance, I have been my husband's carer for over 20 years but not eligible to claim as I earned too much, I am still being credited NI contributions. The only other breaks in my NI record are when I was on maternity leave but due to maternity pay I was still paying for some of that.

Daniel54

DiggerUK wrote: »

Why do so few acknowledge the obvious, the proposals are wrong at all levels. They are not just in any way.

There aren't any proposals,just the 1995,2007 and 2011 pension acts ,which remain in force unless amended by the will of parliament

Collapse of banks/financial institutions would have affected entire population and economy