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

colsten

DiggerUK, there's a briefing paper for tomorrow's session that you might find interesting. Right at the bottom of this page: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7405#fullreport

jem16

This MP has got the Facebook "ask" well in his sights. He's also on the Work & Pensions Select Committee where Anne Keen ( co founder of Waspi ) delivered this "ask" personally.

https://twitter.com/RichardGrahamMP/status/693778268001034242

Looks like it might be an interesting debate.

Goldiegirl

I like this as well - WASPI say they don't want to unwind the 1995 act so Richard Graham asks why they are referring to a six year wait


https://twitter.com/WASPI_Campaign/status/693746110607810560?lang=en-gb


This could be a much more balanced debate tomorrow

Daniel54

Agree-it's good to see an MP ask and drill into detail rather than be satisfied with fluffy sympathy.Another recent tweet from Mr Graham

"Yes. The 'very little' & 'very reasonable' ask has been costed at about £112 billion"

DiggerUK

Daniel54 wrote: »

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

Yes, quite true, I wish I had said changes, and read through thoroughly before posting.

We are in a crazy situation were I will get my pension 4 1/2years before Mrs.D, despite being 3 1/2 years older. So it seems the "population and economy" have been badly affected without banks being allowed to collapse..._

McMoon

Help please
I only joined last week to post on this thread
Only joined Facebook a few weeks ago to sign Waspi petition and haven't contacted MP because couldn't get straight answer about their 'ask', so no further contact with them.
But I'm trying to catch up on the issues (here and reading facebook/twitter, and google) and have many questions.
How are people getting costings of various suggestions i.e.8/30/100+ £billions, and how many years are these spread over?
One idea was unconditional JSA for all 60+, but how could a single person live on circa £300 per month for 6 years?
Why does everyone imply that just equalising SPa results in equal outcomes when median SP is much less for women than men (abt 75% for 2015 retirees)?
Thanks.

hyubh

McMoon wrote: »

Why does everyone imply that just equalising SPa results in equal outcomes

Everyone does...? The WASPI argument is that there is a quasi-contractual right for 1950s-born women to SPA at 60, with the amount dependant on the individual's NI record in the same way it is for a women born at the start of the 50s unaffected by SPA rises. In contrast, the anti-WASPI argument denies there to be a quasi-contractual right, and as such, tends to de-emphasise the contributory nature of the state pension in favour of its formal classification as a welfare benefit.

In neither case is equality of outcomes the issue, although everyone claims they are in favour of SPA equalisation, i.e. when men and women can start drawing their state pension (as opposed to how much pension they get when they do) as a matter of principle.

bowlhead99

DiggerUK wrote: »

We are in a crazy situation were I will get my pension 4 1/2years before Mrs.D, despite being 3 1/2 years older.

Wow that does sound kerraazy!

A person who is several years younger than another person, has to wait until an older age for state pension entitlement because rising life expectation has caused the government to put back the state pension age. Seems quite normal to me. Most countries are doing it.

So it seems the "population and economy" have been badly affected without banks being allowed to collapse..._

I don't think your example shows that the population and economy has been badly affected at all?

McMoon wrote: »

Help please
Why does everyone imply that just equalising SPa results in equal outcomes when median SP is much less for women than men (abt 75% for 2015 retirees)?
Thanks.

The SP does not contain an 'extra because you're a man' component. Equalising SPA means everyone gets it at the same age and calculated on the same basis. If the median SP is lower for women it is because they contributed for fewer years, and also perhaps do not get as much 'earnings related pension' because they contributed less per week over their working lives. Does that mean they get less than what they 'deserve'? I expect some women would say so, but the men would not.

However, you are talking about 2015 retirees. By the time the mid-fifties women get to retire, they will be retiring on the post-April-2016 system, where they are able to get NI credit for various things: time on maternity; time not working but looking after children on child benefit up to age of 12; time being a carer. The medians claimed by the two sexes will converge with the addition of these things and the removal of earnings related pension etc.

So, equalisation and moving to the 'new system' is a good thing in terms of fairness. Personally I won't qualify for SP for a few decades and will be at an older age than today's retirees, and would have preferred to be able to retire on the old pre 2016 system (because the large amounts of extra NI I've paid over the years as a high earner would have given me a larger pension). But that has been debated elsewhere and I can't really complain, it just means I see my extra NI paid as an extra general tax.

Daniel54

McMoon wrote: »

How are people getting costings of various suggestions i.e.8/30/100+ £billions, and how many years are these spread over?

All figures are to a greater lesser extent a guess. A good starting point is John Ralfe's article in the Telegraph ( link below) which uses the governments costing in 2011 for the 2011 Act to savings from the act ( £30 bn but just over £1bn of cost was put back in due to the concessions obtained by Ros Altmann and others to cap the maximum increase for any woman at 18 months)

Ralfe has used the same 2011 numbers to cost his own proposal to smoothing implementation for the worst affected women at £8.5Bn

These are the costs spread over several years - the calculations will have been based on actuarially derived life expectancies and a range of underlying assumptions.Not simple stuff !

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/12105259/500000-women-deserve-a-better-state-pension-deal.html

I very much doubt anyone has done a serious costing of unwinding the 1995 act for 50s women but it's obviously going to be several multiples of the cost of the 2011 act and a figure of over somewhere over £100 bn is frequently used.It would be interesting if anyone has a source for a figure that is even remotely scientific

colsten

McMoon wrote: »

How are people getting costings of various suggestions i.e.8/30/100+ £billions, and how many years are these spread over?

The £8.5 billion were costed by John Ralfe, as part of his proposal.

The £30 billion are from the Briefing Notes for tomorrow's debate: http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7405#fullreport

The £112+ billion is also sourced from government papers but I can't find a link on the quick. You can calculate the approximate amount yourself - there are 3.2m women born in the 1950s, WASPI wants some £6K - £7K extra for each of them per year, for some 5+ years.

The last two would be required by 2020, and JR's proposal would be spread up to 2022.

Whichever way you look at it, we are talking about what's known as FBNs.