MPs debate transitional state pension arrangements for women

missbiggles1

GunJack wrote: »

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

And my answer referred to what you were saying about other people, not your own plans. In fact, I don't really care about your own retirement plans.:D

seven-day-weekend

missbiggles1 wrote: »

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.

I wasn't in any pension schemes until I was in my 40s, so I thought I would have to rely entirely upon the SRP. Therefore I made sure I qualified, for at least a partial one, in my own right. I did take some time out of the workplace, but this was covered by credits from Child Benefit.

When I finally gave up work in 2004 I got a Pension forecast and found I only needed two more years to qualify for the full Pension, so I sent them a cheque for the amount.

I now get a full SRP in my own right.

I also knew about all the changes that have taken place and was very lucky to be one of the last women to receive my Pension at 60.

When I lived in Spain, my friend and I qualified for our SRP, in our own right, at about the same time. Another woman, the same age, who had never worked, said it 'wasn't fair' that she had to wait until her husband reached 65.

There will always be people who think it is unfair.

cannyshopper_2

colsten wrote: »

<snip>

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

Yes I do. I thought that would be obvious to anyone who read my original post.
.
.
.

I suppose I should have expected all the negative comments about not being a regular reader of newspapers. From 1994 onwards I was a mature student and whatever extracurricular reading I had time for consisted of the New Scientist plus skimming through whatever tabloids were left lying around the common room. Hardly surprising I didn't realise the equalisation of pension ages would affect me.

I can pick holes in Jo Pumbo's assertion that the increase in women's SPA was adequately covered at the time. I'm not going to waste time doing an in-depth rebuttal but I would comment about the articles that were supplied in evidence. Firstly, the 1993 autumn statement that announced the equalisation of men's and women's pension ages: as we all know, budget proposals still need primary legislation, and the details and timetable for the implementation hadn't been worked out at the time. The front page item from the Times 1 Dec 1993 is downright wrong as it says "Women's state pension age to rise to 65 IN 2020": which is a world away from saying "to rise to 65 BY 2020".
One of the examples submitted from 1995 (when the law was enacted) mentions a timetable for equalisation, but this is only in passing and is not the focus of the article. This was buried on p24 of the Times: just the place a fluffy-headed working woman would notice it.

However, all this focus on whether women in their forties should be forced to read every word in the Times every day is a red herring. I know there ARE thousands of people - men as well as women - who were not aware of the impact of the 1995 Act. As far as I'm concerned, that is a fait accompli and we are getting away from the main point of my original post by continuing to dwell on the acknowledged inadequacies of the Govt of the day.


No, Paul_Herring, I do not believe the majority of women still think we are entitled to our state pension at 60. We ARE however entitled to fair treatment. The acceleration of the increase in SPA to 66 in particular (2007 & 2011 Acts) has had a much greater impact on women born in the 1950's than it has for men because we were already in the transitional group resulting from the 1995 Act. Men in this group have to wait a maximum of 12 months to receive their State Pension: women have had up to 18 months added to their revised 1995 ages (this has been capped: the original timetable added 2 years). And all this with less than the 10 years notice we have since been promised.

saver861

cannyshopper wrote: »

Yes I do. I thought that would be obvious to anyone who read my original post.

Well the obvious will never be obvious to those who are blind ...
.
.
.

cannyshopper wrote: »

I suppose I should have expected all the negative comments about not being a regular reader of newspapers.

Herd mentality ...the nature of forums .... on here many follow .... few lead ...

cannyshopper_2

saver861 wrote: »

Well the obvious will never be obvious to those who are blind ...
.

...and those who only read the last 2 or 3 posts & not the whole thread.

perhaps I should just quote more

zagfles

cannyshopper wrote: »

However, all this focus on whether women in their forties should be forced to read every word in the Times every day is a red herring. I know there ARE thousands of people - men as well as women - who were not aware of the impact of the 1995 Act.

Yes, as there are thousands who are unaware of the 2007, 2011, 2014 acts. I was speaking to someone the other day who's the same age as me and didn't have a clue what his state pension age was!

As said time and time again in the previous threads, ignorance of the law is no excuse. The govt have changed hundreds of laws in the last few decades. But if you drive without a seatbelt, smoke in a pub, want to access your private pension at 50, talk on a mobile while driving, look at pictures of naked 17 year olds etc etc, you could get arrested/fined/imprisoned and "sorry officer, I don't read the papers" won't wash as an excuse.

As far as I'm concerned, that is a fait accompli and we are getting away from the main point of my original post by continuing to dwell on the acknowledged inadequacies of the Govt of the day.

Right - but you seem to making the same mistake as WASPI by burying the "main point" in unreasonable whinges about notification of the 1995 act.

No, Paul_Herring, I do not believe the majority of women still think we are entitled to our state pension at 60. We ARE however entitled to fair treatment. The acceleration of the increase in SPA to 66 in particular (2007 & 2011 Acts) has had a much greater impact on women born in the 1950's than it has for men because we were already in the transitional group resulting from the 1995 Act. Men in this group have to wait a maximum of 12 months to receive their State Pension: women have had up to 18 months added to their revised 1995 ages (this has been capped: the original timetable added 2 years). And all this with less than the 10 years notice we have since been promised.

Indeed. Let's all just stick to that issue now shall we?

mumps

cannyshopper wrote: »

.
.
.. The front page item from the Times 1 Dec 1993 is downright wrong as it says "Women's state pension age to rise to 65 IN 2020": which is a world away from saying "to rise to 65 BY 2020".
One of the examples submitted from 1995 (when the law was enacted) mentions a timetable for equalisatihon, but this is only in passing and is not the focus of the article. This was buried on p24 of the Times: just the place a fluffy-headed working woman would notice it.


=.

That is a good point, the same applies to the announcements in 2007 when it was announcedthat the SPA would increase to 66 in 2019. My immediate thought was that it wouldn't be an issue for me as I would be retiring in 2016 but in fact it did add 18 months to my SRA.

Disclaimer, I think those dates are correct but if the announcement was in 2006 or the SPA changes to 66 in 2020 I apologise.

I'm awake now and the changes I referred to were 2011 not 2007.

bmm78

cannyshopper wrote: »

I can pick holes in Jo Pumbo's assertion that the increase in women's SPA was adequately covered at the time. I'm not going to waste time doing an in-depth rebuttal

She has made no such assertion, so there aren't any claims to rebut. Jo's evidence was entirely factual and provided details of articles where state pension equalisation was mentioned. It was in direct response to the evidence given by WASPI co-founders to the W&P Committee, based on research by Paul Lewis.

The evidence is what it is, and whether the coverage was "adequate" is a different argument.

cannyshopper wrote: »

...but I would comment about the articles that were supplied in evidence. Firstly, the 1993 autumn statement that announced the equalisation of men's and women's pension ages: as we all know, budget proposals still need primary legislation, and the details and timetable for the implementation hadn't been worked out at the time. The front page item from the Times 1 Dec 1993 is downright wrong as it says "Women's state pension age to rise to 65 IN 2020": which is a world away from saying "to rise to 65 BY 2020".
One of the examples submitted from 1995 (when the law was enacted) mentions a timetable for equalisation, but this is only in passing and is not the focus of the article. This was buried on p24 of the Times: just the place a fluffy-headed working woman would notice it.

The accuracy of the reporting was in many cases poor, which concurs with the 2002 DWP analysis of state pension change awareness. Most people were aware that the age was increasing, but most were not sure exactly when or what to.

This applies equally to people around my age (none of whom have received a letter about changes to their state pension age). Most are aware that the state pension age is rising, but few will know the exact ages and dates, and fewer still will know the relevant legislation in question (2007 and 2011 Pension Acts).

Not everyone knew about the changes, and the majority did not know the finer details. However, there was surely sufficient coverage for people to be aware that something was happening, and reasonable to expect that people would not base life-changing plans on the assumption that they would receive state pension at age 60, and never once check this was correct.

cannyshopper wrote: »

However, all this focus on whether women in their forties should be forced to read every word in the Times every day is a red herring.

It should be a red herring, but for some reason people continue to perpetuate the myth that there was little coverage, and/or that the government somehow attempted to cover up the changes (despite announcing them on live television). The debate about media coverage only exists because WASPI made incorrect claims about it in evidence to the government and as a briefing to supporters for meetings with MPs. The misleading claims were then repeated in parliament, and continue to be used by supporters to support the perceived sense of injustice over the 1995 Act.

jamesd

cannyshopper wrote: »

We ARE however entitled to fair treatment.

We all are, including those you want to discriminate against on the basis of their gender. As Social Security Minister Lord Mackay observed in 1993, European law does not permit gender discrimination in private sector pensions any more:

"In 1990 the European Court of Justice ruled that occupational pensions constituted part of pay and must be equal for men and women in respect of pensionable service from 17th May 1990. The great majority of schemes which have equalised their pension ages have done so at 65. The Bill will bring domestic legislation into line with the requirements of European law by requiring schemes to comply with an equal treatment rule which ensures that schemes do not discriminate on grounds of sex."

The change in 2011 was also to reduce discrimination, this time against those of the younger generations, as Pensions Minister Steve Webb observed when introducing it:

"In the face of increased life expectancy, making no change to the timetable for the increase in State Pension age to 66 risks the sustainability of the state pensions system. As longevity improvements are shared between the generations, it is only fair that costs are too."

You and WASPI are simply seeking to increase discrimination in your favour and you should not be permitted to get away with such a crass objective.

cannyshopper_2

jamesd wrote: »

We all are, including those you want to discriminate against on the basis of their gender.

are you aware that men currently aged between 63 and 65 can get pension credit, despite not being eligible for their state pension?


women can only get pension credit once they reach SPA.