MPs debate transitional state pension arrangements for women

colsten

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I think it's just daft to expect every single woman born after April 1950 to get individual letters about this or any other benefit changes - apart from anything else, it would cost a fortune.

Even if all affected had received personal letters at the time, how many would have made a change to their financial planning? Many say they had low paid jobs and could not have saved anything.

cannyshopper wrote: »

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]

Just out of interest: how did you find out about the internet, about MSE, about email, about online banking, about mobile phones, about compulsory wearing of seatbelts etc etc etc? Did someone write personal letters to you? When did you receive your personal letter that said you would get your state pension at age 60?

cannyshopper wrote: »

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

Do you mean you accept the 1995 change but object to the 2011 change? Many people would have sympathy if that was your position.

Goldiegirl wrote: »

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

You and me both. Cringeworthy.

OldBeanz

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Oh come one.


Women were not offered jobs like men were 40 years ago and did not earn as much as men did.


Things are different now yes but still have some way to go even now.


Even when I put my name first on things I find my husband's name is usually put first which irks me no end.

There is a big difference between being forced to take lower pay and job opportunities. When someone writes something which is blatantly wrong then the statement should be challenged. If women were doing the same or similar job they should have been on the same money or could revert to the law.
40 years ago women had the choice of being a housewife or not something that does not happen today unless you are either very rich or very poor.
I earn more than my wife but only because she took time off to bring up our children.
The area of IT she worked in virtually disappeared during this period and she re-trained. Progress is being made in this area but society still expects women to rear children and my wife has more patience (a lot more) than me in dealing with our children.
She became a Santander Select customer by invite rather than me because most of our savings were in her name. Nationwide address everything through her as she was the original account holder as well so hopefully one of those two banks can rid you of your irk.

Paul_Herring

cannyshopper wrote: »

How many women read the financial and business pages in national newspapers?

Well, given..

bmm78 wrote: »

The mentions were on the front pages,

missbiggles1 wrote: »

The coverage of the budget is very thorough across all print and broadcast media, you have to make an effort to avoid it if you're not interested

...you clearly went out of your way to avoid it.

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.

So I doubt you would have actually bothered reading some boring letter personally addressed to you from the government? Ah... talking of which...

monkeyspanner wrote: »

I disagree with the assertion that it is unreasonable to expect an individual letter.

I don't. Unless you're actually going to force those who "didn't know about the widely talked about changes in the media" to actually read and understand those letters - a-la Clockwork Orange - instead of simply binning them unread which is what is most likely what would have happened in those cases.

seven-day-weekend

missbiggles1 wrote: »

No wonder women get treated like fluffy headed idiots when a mature woman can post something so shameful as a justification for their ignorance!

I absolutely agree, I for one always take an interest in these matters, and have done since I was quite young. This is why I get cross about people who paid the 'married womens' stamp' complaining that they have no pension and didn't realise until it was too late. At age 21 I knew paying it would give me no pension, which is why I paid full stamp.

I do agree however, that many people (of both genders) are not interested and don't listen, but this is not just confined to women!

GunJack

having read through this, one question has remained unasked.....

why don't those affected just not retire until the SP kicks in, or am I missing something here?

My sp age is now 67 (I'm male), and I'm thinking IF I can afford to retire at, say, 65 - great. If not I may have to work to 67. Do those affected not think like this?

missbiggles1

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I absolutely agree, I for one always take an interest in these matters, and have done since I was quite young. This is why I get cross about people who paid the 'married womens' stamp' complaining that they have no pension and didn't realise until it was too late. At age 21 I knew paying it would give me no pension, which is why I paid full stamp.

I do agree however, that many people (of both genders) are not interested and don't listen, but this is not just confined to women!

Actually, I have to confess I didn't take any interest in pensions when I was younger and was even withdrawing my pension contributions from schemes until I was well into my thirties.:o

Having said that, the fact that I was aware of this issue at the time it was announced (and later) shows how well it was publicised, despite what others would have us believe.

missbiggles1

GunJack wrote: »

having read through this, one question has remained unasked.....

why don't those affected just not retire until the SP kicks in, or am I missing something here?

My sp age is now 67 (I'm male), and I'm thinking IF I can afford to retire at, say, 65 - great. If not I may have to work to 67. Do those affected not think like this?

You're fortunate in that you'll have a large enough pension that you can retire on it without waiting for the SRP to kick in - for many people that isn't the case.

Paul_Herring

GunJack wrote: »

having read through this, one question has remained unasked.....

why don't those affected just not retire until the SP kicks in, or am I missing something here?

Because they're entitled, entitled I tell you, to their SP at 60.

GunJack

missbiggles1 wrote: »

You're fortunate in that you'll have a large enough pension that you can retire on it without waiting for the SRP to kick in - for many people that isn't the case.

I didn't say I had... I said IF ......

I also said IF I DIDN'T I'd have to wait till sp age... please read properly before responding

mumps

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!

I've been ill for a couple of months and as I normally get a paper when I go for a walk I haven't been reading a paper. It has actually been incredibly liberating and I don't know if I am going to bother with one in future. I do listen to the news and Newsnight so not entirely out of touch.