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

Serendipitious

I remember the 1995 changes simply because it gave me such an unusual SPA - it was something like age 62 and a quarter.

However the 2011 acceleration, notified to me by personalised letter in March 2012, is, I think, unfair.

I am concerned about the low-paid in physically demanding jobs, on zero hour contracts with no sick pay entitlements, who face an extra 4 years of continuing hard work at a time when they are naturally slowing down due to age. It is unlikely to result in wellbeing which implies there may be an increase in benefit claims.

colsten

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I do believe 20 years notice is enough - if we had been given it- we weren't. That is the whole point.

Assuming you define "been given notice" as "having received a personal letter", as this is what WASPI Towers appear to define it as:

Should people drive without seatbelt because nobody wrote to us saying it's the law to wear a seatbelt? Should everyone be allowed to smoke in public places because we didn't get letters saying it's illegal? Should we all pay 25% tax as nobody wrote to us to say BR tax has come down to 20% since 1995? Should we all decline the annual increase in personal allowance since we didn't all get letters about it? Should same sex marriages be dis-allowed since nobody wrote to us saying it's now legal? etc etc etc etc

Even if changes in legislation were communicated by personal letter, which would cost hundreds of billions to do, this would not guarantee that everyone receives the letters, and it certainly wouldn't guarantee that the recipients read and/or understood the communication.

Aside from that, nobody ever got personal notification the SPA for women was 60, so how did some women decide theirs was?

slightlymiffed

colsten wrote: »

Assuming you define "been given notice" as "having received a personal letter", as this is what WASPI Towers appear to define it as:

Should people drive without seatbelt because nobody wrote to us saying it's the law to wear a seatbelt? Should everyone be allowed to smoke in public places because we didn't get letters saying it's illegal? Should we all pay 25% tax as nobody wrote to us to say BR tax has come down to 20% since 1995? Should we all decline the annual increase in personal allowance since we didn't all get letters about it? Should same sex marriages be dis-allowed since nobody wrote to us saying it's now legal? etc etc etc etc

Even if changes in legislation were communicated by personal letter, which would cost hundreds of billions to do, this would not guarantee that everyone receives the letters, and it certainly wouldn't guarantee that the recipients read and/or understood the communication.

Aside from that, nobody ever got personal notification the SPA for women was 60, so how did some women decide theirs was?

With all due respect, I don't wish to debate further with IFA's here. I do not 'represent' WASPI - my views are my own.

Perhaps you need reminding of the purpose of this thread posted by the Digital Outreach team for the House of Commons?

The Committee would like to hear:
What were the most important points in the first debate for you? What do you think should have been covered that was not?
What points do you think a second debate should focus on?
What questions would you ask the Minister following their response to the debate?

Do you have any points you wish to raise to the team?

Figgerty

To: The Petitions Committee

I signed the #Waspi petition because I believed the state pension age changes in the 2011 Act were grossly unfair to the women who already had their state pension age increased under the 1995 Act. I am one of those women.

Under the 1995 Act, my state pension age increased from age 60 to 63¾, a rise of 3¾ years. I accepted this change even though I was not properly aware of how much the changes affected me until much later. I was aware of the equalisation to age 65 but did not know of my actual state pension age for quite some time after the Act. I accept this increase and believe the 1995 Act should stand.

Under the 2011 Act, my state pension age increased by a further 1½ years making a total increase of 5¼ years. That meant that my age group was effected twice with the 2011 Act increase. There is no precedent for this as the state pension age has been 60 since 1940. I believe this further escalated increase is grossly unfair to many. The 2011 Act should be amended so everyone gets fair notice of the changes.

The Pensions Minister and the DWP Select committee said 10 years notice of state pension changes (increases) is fair.

If everybody, regardless of sex or age, gets 10 years notice of the change in their SPA, all are treated equally, no unfairness.

#I would like to thank the #Waspi campaigners for raising awareness of this issue as nobody was listening to our individual complaints until their campaign.

saver861

colsten wrote: »

Even if changes in legislation were communicated by personal letter, which would cost hundreds of billions to do,

hmmmm ..... not sure when you last bought a postage stamp but the good news is that its a lot less expensive than you are aware.

I think they said it would cost £30 billion to repeal the 1995 policy.

So, if it takes hundreds of billions to send out letters, it seems a much cheaper option would be just to go for the bargain basement deal of scrapping the 1995 policy and just pay the £30 billion!!!

£30bn v £hundreds of bn's .... that's an easy one to work out!

noh

saver861 wrote: »

hmmmm ..... not sure when you last bought a postage stamp but the good news is that its a lot less expensive than you are aware.

I think they said it would cost £30 billion to repeal the 1995 policy.

So, if it takes hundreds of billions to send out letters, it seems a much cheaper option would be just to go for the bargain basement deal of scrapping the 1995 policy and just pay the £30 billion!!!

£30bn v £hundreds of bn's .... that's an easy one to work out!

The cheapest option is to do neither as there is no requirement to do anything.

Daniel54

saver861 wrote: »

I think they said it would cost £30 billion to repeal the 1995 policy.

That was the 2011 act.

1995 would be well north of £100bn

greenglide

Even if changes in legislation were communicated by personal letter, which would cost hundreds of billions to do,

For hundreds of billions they could send somebody round in person to tell everyone!

xylophone

There is an excellent summary (published a couple of weeks ago) by the indefatigable Djuna Thurley....

State pension increases for women born in the 1950s

researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP.../CBP-7405.pdf

colsten

slightlymiffed wrote: »

With all due respect, I don't wish to debate further with IFA's here.

I am not an IFA.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Perhaps you need reminding of the purpose of this thread posted by the Digital Outreach team for the House of Commons?..........

Do you have any points you wish to raise to the team?

If you care to read back, I posted my response to the OP several days ago.

You are quite right that the thread is being abused now by discussions that should be had in another thread. Please do take up your complaint with those that started the discussions.

saver861 wrote: »

hmmmm ..... not sure when you last bought a postage stamp but the good news is that its a lot less expensive than you are aware.

Had it occurred to you that sending a letter to someone costs a lot more than the price of a postage stamp?

greenglide wrote: »

For hundreds of billions they could send somebody round in person to tell everyone!

My "hundreds of billions" refers to advising people personally of changes in legislation. Not just changes in pension legislation. How would you justify that people get notified about some legislation changes but not about others? Who would agree what is worthy of notice and what isn't? The whole idea of personal notifications is ballooney.