MPs debate transitional state pension arrangements for women

missbiggles1

jem16 wrote: »

Savvywoman website is doing a poll on this;

"Should women born in the 1950s get a lower state pension paid before their state pension age?"

https://www.savvywoman.co.uk/

It's on the right hand side of the Home page but you have to scroll down quite a bit to get to it.

Might be worth voting so that views are more representative than just Waspi supporters.

Pretty resounding "No" vote at the moment.:D

PensionTech

How about:

"The majority (48.13%) of respondents felt that action was necessary, with over a third of these believing that the proposals do not go far enough to compensate the women who have been disadvantaged by this unfair policy..."

Having said that, it's much more one-sided now (54.69% saying no altogether, 22.04% saying yes, 13.06% saying not far enough) so it would be hard to put even that spin on it.

saver861

PensionTech wrote: »

How about:

Having said that, it's much more one-sided now (54.69% saying no altogether, 22.04% saying yes, 13.06% saying not far enough) so it would be hard to put even that spin on it.

People .... ... alll you have to do is open your browser in Private Window (Safari), Incognito (Chrome) etc etc and you can vote as many times as you like ... thereby getting the result you wish to obtain.

I thought people were wised up enough not to take these things seriously ...... seemingly not!

Oh well .....

Paul_Herring

saver861 wrote: »

I thought people were wised up enough not to take these things seriously

We don't.

.. at least 10 characters...

colsten

I have only just voted on this poll. I agree with an earlier poster, it doesn't look as if the poll produces the intended results (over 50% against early pensions) and the poll is not likely to last for very much longer.

I voted "No, they shouldn't get their pension early" for a dozen reasons:-

1. there would no doubt be a huge number of WASPI women who would jump on every pound they could get early, but who have absolutely no appreciation what a reduced pension for life would mean for them. Will they then mount another 'it's so unfair' campaign in a few years time, when reality dawns on them?
   
   
2. any early access to pensions cannot be limited to women of a random range of birth dates. The option would, at a minimum, need to be open to other women, and also to men affected by the SPA increase. There might be other groups of people who would want early access to their SP if it has been granted to others - for example disabled people, or those with life-limiting diseases.
   
   
3. WASPI say they are against inequality, so they themselves couldn't possibly support a solution that only favours them
   
   
4. the early pension at lower rate option is rumoured to be "cost neutral" but nobody has actually done the numbers to confirm it is. Even if a credible cashflow plan were produced, I doubt anyone could really prove the cost neutrality - not in the next 30-40 years, anyway......
   
   
5. the WASPI petition has been signed by less than 5% of the electorate. Looks like a serious case of the tail wagging the dog.
   
   
6. The WASPI Facebook has dozens of utterly selfish posts, along the lines "I WANT MY PENSION NOW" (literally). Often from women who are already drawing a teachers' or NHS pension
   
   
7. WASPI claim to speak for all 1950's women. I know that is a lie as I am a 1950s woman myself, and they most definitely do no speak for me. I also know quite a few other 1950s women who are incensed by the very idea that they should be represented by a bunch of self-declared leaders who don't even tell their followers what exactly they are following
   
   
8. All countries need to prioritise their spending. As a civilised society, we must have our priority on those in most need, and on those who are most likely to keep the finances of our country flowing. Some WASPI women will fall into these categories, but most will not
   
   
9. Many of the 1950s women that WASPI claim to represent are already in receipt of SP. As every month goes by, more will become entitled to their SP. Any fair "early" arrangement would be an admin nightmare - not to talk about the costs of the requisite IT changes.
   
   
10. Most of the SPA increase was put into law in 1995. As a 1950s woman myself, I am incensed that anyone would even dream of suggesting I had not known about the SP increase, but I accept that some of my generation never read a paper, never listened to the News, never chatted to anyone about retirement, and never ever investigated how much money they would have to live off once they stop working. To anyone who meets the latter, all I can say: don't expect the working generation of our country to pay you extra because you couldn't be bothered to plan your very own future. You can continue to work (a part time job at min hourly rate pays more than SP), you can apply for benefits, you can live of your savings, your partner might be able to support you, or a combination of the above. Always remember: men can do it, so women can do it, too.
    
    
11. It's not unusual for people to feel stressed when they have to go to work. Stress isn't age-related, it can happen to anyone. If the stress suddenly becomes unbearable when you are female and 60, to the extent that you cannot continue to work, our social security system provides for your basic needs.
    
    
12. As a final by-the-by: I am also disgusted if anyone in this day and age thinks it's alright for women to receive a state pension 5-6 years earlier than men.

Paul_Herring

colsten wrote: »

• As a final by-the-by: I am also disgusted if anyone in this day and age thinks it's alright for women to receive a state pension 5-6 years earlier than men.

And get it for up to three years later for a total of 9 years more. If anything (no - I'm not serious about this, but perhaps WASPI should consider it if they're after "fairness") they should actually get their pension those 3+ years later than men so that they get it for the same period...

jem16

Work and Pensions Select Committee are inviting written submissions on the effects of allowing some women to access their state pension early. Following comments on here I thought some of you may like to reply.

Call for written submissions

Following the publication of the report, the Committee invites written submissions addressing the following points:
What would be the short-term and long term fiscal impact?
What would be the other costs of the scheme?
Could additional costs be incorporated in the reduction factors used to achieve long-term fiscal neutrality?
How should the scheme interact with pension credit and other benefits?
How could uncertainty within the system be budgeted for and managed?
How are similar schemes managed in occupational pensions?
Who should be eligible and why?
How popular would the scheme be among the people eligible?
What impact would it have on the lives of the people eligible?

You'll get the submission form here;

http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/news-parliament-2015/early-drawing-state-pension-launch-15-16/?utm_medium=https://twitter.com/workandpensions&utm_source=@workandpensions

monkeyspanner

jem16 wrote: »

I think Vara more or less ruled it out on Monday and made specific reference to this FOI request. The tables are interesting.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dwp-foi-releases-for-march-2016

Interesting, but why did it take a FOI request to get the DWP to release what transitional arrangements were considered? There doesn't appear anything particularly contentious about the information. The tables are informative and show that pension credit could have been retained for a fairly low spend.

jem16

monkeyspanner wrote: »

Interesting, but why did it take a FOI request to get the DWP to release what transitional arrangements were considered? There doesn't appear anything particularly contentious about the information.

Probably just the way things are done.

The tables are informative and show that pension credit could have been retained for a fairly low spend.

To retain Pension Credit at the 1995 timetable as per Owen Smith and Rachel Reeves' suggestion would cost £1.9bn. Low in relation to the £30bn to repeal the 2011 Act but I would not call it a fairly low spend. WASPI don't want means tested arrangements though in any case.

t0rt0ise

The poll we've been directed to doesn't state all the options. I simply would like them to scrap the 2011 changes. I'm quite happy to receive my pension at 64 which it was supposed to be after the 1995 changes but not so happy to wait until 66. As it is things have worked out okay for me and I'll be financially okay until 66 but a couple of years ago things were looking scarily different and I do think the sudden changes were unfair.