MPs debate transitional state pension arrangements for women

Goldiegirl

From the WASPI official submission

So is Steve Webb saying that:
a woman with 25 months’ notice of a 2 years 11 month increase is more affected than
a woman with 30 months’ notice of a 6 year increase?
(ie, only 5 months’ more notice for a further 3 year 1 month increase)
The 1995 and 2011 Pensions Act are inextricably linked.
To focus on cohorts in this way as a means of identifying who is/isn’t “most affected”, adds a further layer of inequality/discrimination to women who have already been unfairly treated.

Yet WASPI are quite happy to pass the 'inequality' to younger women


You have to laugh at the madness of it all!

mgdavid

xylophone wrote: »

A representative example? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Horlick

a paragon example of how to combine a career and a family without whingeing IMO.

xylophone

a paragon example of how to combine a career and a family without whingeing IMO.

I think you would agree that when one or both parents is a high earner, and a full time resident nanny (if required) is easily affordable, it is not overwhelmingly difficult

to combine a career and a family without whingeing

n'est-ce pas?:cool:

jamesd

So, looking at Official WASPI ESP0218 submission, see their section 2 and picture Interpretation of Freedom of Information responses to written notice of increases to state pension Age where they say:

"WHO SHOULD BE ELIGIBLE AND WHY? All women affected by the issues under the WASPI campaign who are not yet in receipt of their State Pension and therefore have no [state pension] “entitled income”"

And, their italics:

"“it should be across the board and all the women affected by the changes should be offered the chance.”"

Thereby for this purpose abandoning those women who were born from 6/4/1950 to 5/4/1953, the group affected by the 1995 Act only, and while in italics saying it should be across the board for all women affected by the changes, also saying that actually it shouldn't be for all women affected. And they further clarify that for those born from 6/4/1950 and affected by the 1995 Act, only those born from 6/4/1951 are part of the WASPI campaign, so WASPI doesn't seem to claim to represent even the whole of the 1995 Act cohort, abandoning the first affected part of it.

I wonder what those women born from 6/4/1950 through 5/4/1951 did to get WASPI to decide they didn't need WASPI representation? Unless it's perhaps that they have already been able if not deferred to receive their state pension for almost 4 to almost 6 years already.

Which is not very clever if poverty claims are to be made because this 1995 only cohort is the one that has the old style state pension which on average pays less to women. But it's also the cohort that gets 10.4% per year of deferral state pension increase, mostly in heritable, and similarly if a husband, wife or other civil partner exists it can be inherited from theirs.

Of course, again it's not really about poverty or financial need, with selected quotes from individuals that WASPI has chosen to submit including:

"I do not fancy working for over another 4 years"
"What if we don't reach 66 ? My parents died 56 & 62 ,, husband 62 son died 21yrs"
"They need to look at everyone who has had their pension age deferred twice"
"hope we all get payments backdated to our 60 the birthdays"
"We should be being paid now with no reductions and back pay to when we were 60!"
"A friend of mine is nearly 21 months older than me and could have had it at 62. She deferred it for 16 months and now gets £100 a month more!"*

even though WASPI asserts in 4.1 that:

"many women have, with little/no notice, been left without an “entitled income” for up to 6 years, with the result that very many cannot meet their daily basic living costs/existing financial commitments ... and as a result are being forced into a lifetime of debt/poverty"

Which causes me to wonder whether it might actually be a good solution to solve the debt poverty aspect, perhaps by letting women affected receive means tested benefits? Except of course that the women affected already can receive means tested benefits, including after state pension age Pension Credit.

So the first thing to note about the WASPI submission might be that WAPI has already been given a big part of what WASPI asserts it's about, the hardship cases, via the existing benefits system, with perhaps more support in claiming those benefits being useful to address this concern of WASPI instead of any state pension changes. Well, if we ignore the plain fact that WASPI isn't really about those in benefit level financial need so wouldn't actually want this.

*At least some WASPI supporters do seem to recognise that 10.4% deferral rate is a great deal.

jamesd

Continuing with the Official WASPI submission, in 4.2 they assert:

"WASPI are aware that there are women who face a long and daunting journey ahead of them without an “entitled income” for up to 6 years, who are desperately worried about how they are going to manage financially until they receive their State Pension, and it is this group of women for whom the opportunity to receive their State Pension earlier, albeit at a reduced rate, could provide a much needed lifeline. For these women the early retirement option could provide an acceptable solution."

So, lets consider the consequences if that was done by assuming for the moment that the women start out at the flat rate or higher, because those more than a little below the flat rate and many at it would already be entitled to means tested benefits as the flat rate is set just above the Pension Credit level.

A reduction would take many of them below that level and bring them into the means tested benefits system. Which if in financial need they would already be in via the working age benefits system, potentially entitled to payments for seeking work, incapacity to work, housing benefit, council tax benefit and more.

Would it be fair to this group to make them eligible for a reduced state pension which would serve only to reduce their entitlement to means tested benefits? I think not. WASPI correctly points out that they would get less for life once they reach state pension age if that happened.

A better solution would seem to be to help them to claim the working age benefits they are already entitled to, if in financial need, perhaps via a contract with Citizens' Advice and personal mailings inviting them to get help via a CAB benefits checkup.

The earlier state pension age proposal for this part of the affected group should be rejected because it simply makes them worse off.

But of course WASPI is not really about financial need and those not in financial need might have lifestyle benefits from taking a state pension sooner.

jamesd

Continuing with the Official WASPI submission:

'Prevent women “slipping through the benefits net” because they have managed to save a small pot of money for their retirement, which makes them ineligible for benefits. Because of this, they have no choice but to use their limited savings to live off for up to 6 years. The option to take a reduced pension, would prevent these small savings pots being “wiped out” thereby reducing the chance of poverty in retirement'

With this point I do think that perhaps WASPI has a point and note that the capital thresholds for means tested benefits haven't been increased much over the years and there is perhaps justification for both a general increase and for recognising that those closer to retirement may have non-pension savings for retirement that are vulnerable to means tests at a time when there is reduced opportunity to replenish them by future work.

The 20017 Lifetime ISA being vulnerable to means tests will further increase this problem of savings intended for retirement being lost to means tests.

So I do think that it would be a good move, for both central and local government (housing, council tax) benefits to increase the savings caps within means tests via:

1. a broad increase for all ages

2. a larger increase for those aged 55 or older, perhaps also increasing over time fro this point to recognise the high probability that the money is intended for retirement.

This would have significant costs yet it does seem reasonable to recognise the reality that non-pension savings for retirement routinely do exist and can be drained completely by misfortune leading to need for means tested benefits.

As a transitional move perhaps this might be done for those aged 60 and above, to be gender neutral yet include the whole 1995 Act group. Since only means tested benefits would be affected it has the possible advantage of being far cheaper through being targeted at only those potentially in need and claiming those working age benefits, while maybe having lower costs since the administrative costs for this are largely already being paid via the normal claiming process anyway.

Here it's perhaps worth noting that I can't expect to benefit from this personally, having saved more than 60% of my income for ten plus years and now being able to support myself for life well above the means tested benefit levels.

bigadaj

My view would be to finish this discussion as there is no validity or justice involved, and any oxygen of publicity for waspi is a bad thing.

It's effectively trolling which should be best ignored.

Paul_Herring

bigadaj wrote: »

My view would be to finish this discussion

Feel free to ignore it then. Telling the rest of us to shut up on the other hand...

bigadaj

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Feel free to ignore it then. Telling the rest of us to shut up on the other hand...

....is my opinion, which is what i'm entitled to.

Keep flogging the floggers of the dead horse to your hearts content.

tinacee1

Just noticed that if you are 60 or over you get free travel in London. Also in Scotland and Northern Ireland. This is very unfair on over 60's in other parts of England who don't qualify. I've been looking to see if there is an online petition running that people can sign to make provision for the over 60's who live in the areas in England not covered. Very unfair.