MPs debate transitional state pension arrangements for women

missbiggles1

monkeyspanner wrote: »

I disagree with the assertion that it is unreasonable to expect an individual letter. These changes were extremely important and should have been communicated individually. If the government can communicate individually regarding child benefit payments after each change to each recipient informing them of the new amount and start date I see no reason why the pension changes could not have been communicated individually. In the private sector I was informed in writing no less than 4 times that the monthly fee on my bank account was increasing in addition to it appearing on my statement. Why? - because the private sector can be held accountable and the government cannot.

CB changes were notified to people actually claiming it at the time, not to every single person who might claim it in the future which is what you're suggesting should have happened with the pension changes.

The fact that banks can waste money by sending out that number of letters just shows how unaccountable they are to the people who pay bank charges - if they'd done that to me I'd have reminded them of how useful (and free) it is that one can send emails these days!

bowlhead99

monkeyspanner wrote: »

Sorry but I disagree with the assertion that it is unreasonable to expect an individual letter. These changes were extremely important and should have been communicated individually.

As there have been one or more threads on MSE talking about this for nigh on six months now, it's pretty much impossible to say anything which has not already been said, on either side of the debate. The above comment has certainly been said tens of times, with just as many people saying the opposite.

Most people would not have received an individual communication from the government when they were born, or when they received their national insurance number, or when they started work, which told them officially what date they would receive a state pension. I haven't. The age of 60 or 65 was something that you would just find out from speaking to other people whose knowledge you can trust, or from reading around or keeping your ears open for new facts as you go through the world. It was not directly told to me by government via letter. So, if it changes, should the government tell everyone that something that they had never told them before, is now different?

If you are sitting there in the year 2000 and building a plan to retire with state pension at 60 and would plan differently if the state pension was not payable until some later date, it is incumbent on *you* to ensure that 60 is still a valid date and not just an antiquated notion that you had picked up years or decades earlier.

Some on the WASPI membership or others on this board do not accept that argument, and say there needs to be a letter (personally addressed, not a general pamphlet, leaflet, poster, TV spot, newspaper article) otherwise the new date is not valid. Well, perhaps we should take them at their word: - a claim is only valid with a letter. So women who were explicitly told by personally addressed letter (and not in general terms) that their personal state pension date would definitely be 60, and were not subsequently told that their retirement date was later, can keep 60. This would be a tiny minority.

If the government can communicate individually regarding child benefit payments after each change to each recipient I see no reason why the pension changes could not have been communicated individually.

I am sure all current recipients, who are already being communicated with as they receive money, are told the changes to that money. But you are not talking about current recipients of a government payment, you are talking about non recipients, i.e. everyone in the country who does not qualify yet but might sometime want to claim it.

For example, I am not a current recipient of child benefit payments and have never had a letter telling me the rates or change of rates. If I now have a child, can I say that the current rates don't apply to me because I never got a letter about it and from all I learned about child benefit when I used to listen to the news or my friends a decade ago, there was no reduction to the size of the benefit just because you earned over £50k?

Of course I can't say that. It is incumbent on me, if considering having a child, to plan how I can afford that and who (if anyone) is going to give me financial help. I consider retirement, the same. Retirement might be three decades of my life and if it is going to be largely funded by someone else (like the state) I would want to check exactly what I need to do to qualify, rather than waiting close to the time I think I qualify and then realising I'm screwed if I've got it wrong.

In the last couple of budgets there have been some changes. For high earners, the amount they can put into a pension without penalty has been reduced. For savers / investors, the amount they can shelter via ISAs is being increased and the tax rates on gains are dropping while the rates on dividends are going down for some and up for others. All of these things might affect my financial planning. For drinkers, the amount of duty collected out of their purchase price and handed over to Treasury for certain drinks has been increased. This might affect whether I drink whisky or wine if I want to stay within my grocery budget. I didn't get a letter about any of these things, but all of them are allowed to affect me.

FWIW I think the short notice changes for some people in the 2011 regulations was a bit harsh and would have supported more leniency given the short notice, although there was already a debate about it at the time so that the rules ended up being less harsh than originally proposed.

But all of these things have been said before and this thread is going nowhere.

Pollycat

cannyshopper wrote: »

How many women read the financial and business pages in national newspapers? Other than on a very ad-hoc basis, I can't remember the last time I read a daily paper [it was probably getting on for 40 years ago when I moved house & couldn't find anyone willing to deliver] Nor do I read women's magazines. I have not been in a benefits office since 1991.
I use the TV to keep up with the news, and in common with most people any 5-second segment about something "boring" like pensions that doesn't have any immediate impact just goes straight over my head. I do not watch political debates so if there were any in-depth discussions about the financial impact of changing my pension age I would not have been aware. I do not think I am particularly unusual in this.

And there we have it.

I believe it went over so many women's heads at the time because 'it didn't have an immediate impact'.

"You're talking about my pension that I'm not going to get for another 20 years?"
"Really? Far too busy with other stuff."

cannyshopper wrote: »

bmm78, if you are going to quote from the Work & Pensions Committee Report published 14 March you should at least acknowledge that the Committee - having taken evidence from many sources - did conclude that
" 2. We will never know how many women did not know, or could not be reasonably expected to know, that their state pension age was increasing. What is apparent with hindsight is that previous governments could have done a lot better in communicating the changes. Well into this decade far too many affected women were unaware of the equalisation of state pension age at 65 legislated for in 1995. While the last and current Governments have done more to communicate state pension age changes than their predecessors, this has been too little too late for many women, especially given increases in the state pension age have been accelerated at relatively short notice. Many thousands of women justifiably feel aggrieved.

And I don't doubt that if those women had received a letter back in 1995 a lot of them would have had this same reaction:
"You're talking about my pension that I'm not going to get for another 20 years?"
"Really? Far too busy with other stuff."

cannyshopper wrote: »

Of course WASPI - and others - have chosen to emphasise cases where women were completely unaware until almost the last minute: this is a standard tactic in arguments where you don't have hard facts. It does however divert attention away from the appallingly short notice of the changes that the 2011 Act would have on people born before 1956.

I don't want compensation: I want my pension to be paid from the date the 1995 Act calculated.

I don't disagree that the 2011 Act was short notice.
I'm a late 1953 woman and I would like my state pension paid from the date I expected it to be when I became aware of the changes to female SPA back in 1995.
But it's not going to happen.

missbiggles1

Pollycat wrote: »

And there we have it.

I believe it went over so many women's heads at the time because 'it didn't have an immediate impact'.

"You're talking about my pension that I'm not going to get for another 20 years?"
"Really? Far too busy with other stuff."

And I don't doubt that if those women had received a letter back in 1995 a lot of them would have had this same reaction:
"You're talking about my pension that I'm not going to get for another 20 years?"
"Really? Far too busy with other stuff."



I don't disagree that the 2011 Act was short notice.
I'm a late 1953 woman and I would like my state pension paid from the date I expected it to be when I became aware of the changes to female SPA back in 1995.
But it's not going to happen.

Good grief, I was too annoyed at the "I haven't read a paper for 40 years" comment that I missed that one! Sometimes I despair, I really do!:(

jamesd

cannyshopper wrote: »

I use the TV to keep up with the news, and in common with most people any 5-second segment about something "boring" like pensions that doesn't have any immediate impact just goes straight over my head.

Why would you think that society owes people who ignore important future information anything other than the usual reward for it, being worse off?

cannyshopper wrote: »

I don't want compensation: I want my pension to be paid from the date the 1995 Act calculated.

And I don't want you to be able to prolong the discrimination in favour of you and against men in the state pension system. Nor do I want higher costs imposed on those who will be paying for you to get that money for longer.

bmm78

cannyshopper wrote: »

bmm78, if you are going to quote from the Work & Pensions Committee Report published 14 March you should at least acknowledge that the Committee - having taken evidence from many sources - did conclude that
" 2. We will never know how many women did not know, or could not be reasonably expected to know, that their state pension age was increasing. What is apparent with hindsight is that previous governments could have done a lot better in communicating the changes. Well into this decade far too many affected women were unaware of the equalisation of state pension age at 65 legislated for in 1995. While the last and current Governments have done more to communicate state pension age changes than their predecessors, this has been too little too late for many women, especially given increases in the state pension age have been accelerated at relatively short notice. Many thousands of women justifiably feel aggrieved. "

To be honest, I don't really see the relevance of the conclusions about government communications of the changes to the matter being discussed (media coverage).

The point I made related specifically to the misconception about the amount and nature of the media coverage of the changes. Prior to Jo Cumbo's research being made public, it's understandable that WASPI and their supporters would rely on research by a well-known journalist like Paul Lewis. However, his research has continued to be quoted and circulated long after it has been exposed as complete bollards.

Goldiegirl

I've been on a long holiday - can't believe this is still going on!:rotfl:


I find it even more difficult to believe that someone would say in public that they haven't read a newspaper for 40 years!


People have to take responsibility for themselves and keep up to date with current affairs that are likely to affect them.


We can't be spoon fed everything!

Pollycat

Goldiegirl wrote: »

I've been on a long holiday - can't believe this is still going on!:rotfl:


I find it even more difficult to believe that someone would say in public that they haven't read a newspaper for 40 years!


People have to take responsibility for themselves and keep up to date with current affairs that are likely to affect them.


We can't be spoon fed everything!

But some people do expect that - apparently.

mgdavid

cannyshopper wrote: »

.............
I use the TV to keep up with the news, and in common with most people any 5-second segment about something "boring" like pensions that doesn't have any immediate impact just goes straight over my head............

and now you know why this is a very unwise approach to your knowledge of current affairs.
Fortunately you are in the minority.

missbiggles1

mgdavid wrote: »

and now you know why this is a very unwise approach to your knowledge of current affairs.
Fortunately you are in the minority.

Except if you're a member of WASPI.;)