MPs debate transitional state pension arrangements for women

brewerdave

OldBeanz wrote: »

Kinnock talking about pensions. He didn't believe in the EU until he saw the pensions that he and his wife could collect. No wonder he is now a pensions expert. Would be interesting to know the money the two of them are taking off HMG and the EU in pensions.

...no, it wouldn't -I'm depressed enuf already !!:mad:

UKParliament

On Monday 14 March 2016, MPs asked questions to the Department of Work and Pensions on state pensions.

What the average notice period was for women whose pension age was brought forward by the Pension Act 2011.

Whether he has had discussions with the Women Against State Pension Inequality campaign; and if he will make a statement.

Watch the session in full on Parliament TV.

ffacoffipawb

More like 'Women Against State Pension Equality'.

jamesd

UKParliament wrote: »

On Monday 14 March 2016, MPs asked questions to the Department of Work and Pensions on state pensions.

What the average notice period was for women whose pension age was brought forward by the Pension Act 2011.

Some highlights, though it's relatively short and worth watching:
Notice was between 4 years and 8 months and 14 years and 5 months between Royal Assent and their new State Pension age. Average notice period was 10 years and 11 months.
Between 2009 and 2010 over five million notices were sent about the records held by HMRC.

I commend the Minister for his responses to this question and the subsequent questions but not the Opposition for apparently ignoring the equality and discrimination issues involved, that of the WASPI objective of increasing the now-reduced discrimination against males in the state pension system. It's lamentable that in these days we still have MPs apparently wanting to increase gender discrimination.

GibbsRule_No3

BBC article on the web site mentions letting women receive it earlier again if they agree to a reduced amount for life. PPOV in 2011 I was told my SP would start when I was 64 and 4 months now it is 65 and 9 months I had planned to leave at 63 and use part of my lump sum until the SP cut in, I could have done that but not until 65 and 9 months with my outgoings. So I have opted after 45 years with out breaks for family raising, I have always been a single person, to go down to a three day week from last week. For me this looks like the best of both worlds and so far I am enjoying it. With the reduction in NI and tax I hopefully won't be that worse off financially, yet get extra time to unwind each week. Not really helpful to my employer since they are two days short.

System

GibbsRule_No3 wrote: »

BBC article on the web site mentions letting women receive it earlier again if they agree to a reduced amount for life.

They'll surely have to allow that option for men too, and not discriminate in favour of any particular age bracket?

JezR

There would need to be some calculation of dis-allowance in full or in part as appropriate to means tested benefits, as the claimant would have chosen to reduce income.

Early reduced pensions don't run into such trouble in other countries as they lack this kind of benefit.

Daniel54

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

They'll surely have to allow that option for men too, and not discriminate in favour of any particular age bracket?

Work and Pensions committee report is here:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmworpen/899/899.pdf

Dismisses any outcomes which are not cost neutral - but appreciates uncertainties that mean it is difficult to ascertain what may or may not be cost neutral with confidence.Whilst referencing women in particular , the report also raises that discrimination means any outcome would also have to be equally applicable to men ,as also noted by Paul Lewis who ,rightly in my view,says that any flexibilities would need to be gender neutral

http://www.paullewismoney.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/flexible-state-pension.html

The report dismisses compensation for 1995 reporting inadequacies.Time for WASPI to re-consider aims or lapse into being an ineffective protest group ?

I am not at all clear how the benefits system would avoid favouring anyone who took a reduced state pension early,as the SP is itself a contribution based benefit.

OldBeanz

So cut their pension then top it up with pension credit. Nuts.

Pollycat

OldBeanz wrote: »

So cut their pension then top it up with pension credit. Nuts.

I might have missed your point but they wouldn't be able to claim pension credit until they reach SPA.