WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

Malthusian

liffy99 wrote: »

Ive not been able to read all the posts in this very long discussion, but I feel that part of the WASPI issue has been rather glossed over.
Raising and equalising the retirement age is understandable but for my wife (born June 53) there are two observations;
1) the Government rather rushed this equalisation through. They could have raised the female retirement age more slowly. For my wife this meant a big jump in retirement age from 60 to almost 64.

There was 20 years' notice. They could have raised the female retirement age more slowly but the rate at which they are raising the State Pension Age is pitifully slow as it is, from the purely financial side - it is already inadequate to keep pace with rising life expectancy.

Then you have the problem of perpetuating the inequity of women receiving on average 8 extra years' State Pension compared to men (5 years early + 3 years of extra life).

there is a real problem with the 'cliff edge' pension changes between women who may be born just a few weeks apart.

Not as much problem as there would be under WASPI's "ask", where there would be a six year cliff edge between women born a single day apart. A woman born 31/12/1959 would get State Pension at 60, a woman born 1/1/1960 at 66.

A woman born 22 June 1953 has an SPA of 63 years, 8 months, 12 days. A woman born 3 weeks earlier on 1 June 1953 has an SPA of 63 years, 5 months, 5 days. Where are you getting a year's difference from?

Pollycat

Malthusian wrote: »

A woman born 22 June 1953 has an SPA of 63 years, 8 months, 12 days. A woman born 3 weeks earlier on 1 June 1953 has an SPA of 63 years, 5 months, 5 days. Where are you getting a year's difference from?

I've done a slightly different calculation.
Assuming liffy99's wife was born on 1st June 1953 (the earliest date she could be), her state pension date would be 6/11/2016 (63 years, 5 months and 5 days).
If she had been born 3 weeks earlier - on 11th May 1953 - she would also have a state pension date of 6/11/2017 (63 years 5 months and 26 days).

Taking it to the other end:
liffy99's wife born on 30/6/1953 - state pension date 6/3/2017 (63 years, 8 months & 6 days)
liffy99's wife born on 9/6/1953 - state pension date 6/3/2017 (63 years, 8 months & 25 days)

In both examples, liffy99's wife actually get her pension on the same day as someone born 3 weeks earlier.

So where does this 'Again in my wife's case, had she been born just 3 weeks earlier she would have received her pension a year sooner' come from?

jamesd

liffy99 wrote: »

Raising and equalising the retirement age is understandable but for my wife (born June 53) there are two observations;
1) the Government rather rushed this equalisation through. They could have raised the female retirement age more slowly. For my wife this meant a big jump in retirement age from 60 to almost 64.

In the 1993 Budget the Chancellor announced that equalisation was to start from 2010. The 1995 Act implemented this and the planned dates for women born up to 5 April 1953 haven't changed, that group reached state pension age in 6 March 2016. As well as those highly prominent events the changes were mentioned more than 600 times in the printed press, from women's weeklies to major newspapers. So from then she could have had 23 years of notice, from 1993 to 2016.

But she's also affected by three other changes:

1,2. The single tier state pension, applicable to those reaching state pension age from 6 April 2016. For those with limited work history but lots of credits, mostly women, it increases the state pension by about £40 a week, from the basic state pension to single tier. Little difference in the early years for those with full working lives. She also probably benefited from the earlier reduction from 43 years to 30 for the full basic state pension then 35 for single tier, a further improvement on what was expected in 1995.

3. the 2011 Pensions Act. This increased her state pension age to 6 November 2016. A bit over five years notice of an extra 6-7 months. Saving about £700-800 a year more could bridge that assuming a full single tier state pension.

If she is one of those women with limited work history but lots of credits she seems lucky, she was delayed just long enough to get the higher pension, close to missing out.

liffy99 wrote: »

2) there is a real problem with the 'cliff edge' pension changes between women who may be born just a few weeks apart. Again in my wife's case, had she been born just 3 weeks earlier she would have received her pension a year sooner. It needed to be aligned more closely with individual age.

There have been two big cliff-edges:
1. the five year state pension age difference in state pension age for fraternal twins and others based solely on their gender at state pension age (changing legal gender changes the age)
2. the three years when women are getting their state pension and men are dead, based on life expectancy differences

parcival

I suggest that all WASPI related threads are suspended with no further posts allowed. There is no point in going round and round the houses on this.......

brewerdave

Plus one with post # 1035!!

jamesd

Pollycat wrote: »

had she been born just 3 weeks earlier she would have received her pension a year sooner' come from?

Close enough for thinking she might have been in the 6 March to 5 April 1953 group who were the last on the 1995 Act and the last to miss out on the single tier state pension. Not quite right on the 3 weeks, but about 8 is close enough for his point. Those 8 or so weeks could be getting her about £40 a week extra for life minus the extra delay. A bit under two years to catch up on the delay then she's in pure profit.

Assuming she's in the maximum improvement group. If she has an extensive work record her only gain might be the better index linking between basic state pension and single tier, triple lock instead of CPI.

Triumph13

Pollycat wrote: »

I've done a slightly different calculation.
Assuming liffy99's wife was born on 1st June 1953 (the earliest date she could be), her state pension date would be 6/11/2016 (63 years, 5 months and 5 days).
If she had been born 3 weeks earlier - on 11th May 1953 - she would also have a state pension date of 6/11/2017 (63 years 5 months and 26 days

You might want to edit that typo quickly before you start getting quoted by WASPI as 'proving' their case!:rotfl:

Pollycat

Triumph13 wrote: »

You might want to edit that typo quickly before you start getting quoted by WASPI as 'proving' their case!:rotfl:

As you've pointed it out so nicely, I'll leave your post to rectify my error.

Intoodeep