WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

saver861

Daniel54 wrote: »

Waspi have achieved nothing to date apart from a good deal of publicity.What is your point ?

As I have said many times. My point is that the 2011 Act which gave an 18 month extension to some women's pensions with considerably less than 10 years notice was unfair. Currently 10 years notice is the minimum acceptable time for alterations to pensions. Not unreasonable therefore that those impacted by the 2011 act should also have had 10 years notice.

That's my point.

Apparently many others agree.

WASPI have achieved nothing in terms of movement on this or anything on the pensions issue of 1995 or 2011.

My opinion is that there will not be any movement whatsoever on the 1995 act. My opinion is that there is very unlikely to be any movement on the 2011 act. If there is, my point is that it will be down to the WASPI campaign.

If you want to say there was movement from 24 months to 18 months then do so. My opinion is that was merely governmental horse trading, as is often the case in these situations - add a bit on to reduce it and make it look like a concession. If you want to put groups or individuals down as achieving this then so be it. Mrs Altmann seems to think she is the one that got this - but did not have enough people campaigning with her at the time, otherwise she presumably feels she would have achieved more.

However, nothing has been achieved beyond the 18 month extension. As above, there was apparently different groups which were attempting to gain concessions on the current 2011 act. None have made any progress and most were unheard of in the wider domain. The suggestion that they stood aside to make way for WASPI is silly, given WASPI wanted a roll back of the 1995 act as well as the 2011 act. The claim that WASPI somehow messed up their aims and intentions is just plain silly.

In terms of movement, WASPI has achieved the same as these other groups - nothing. In terms of getting it into the wider domain, and into Westminister, WASPI have achieved something. If there is no change at all to the 2011 act, which is likely, then we will be exactly where we were before WASPI came along, except there would have been very little or no discussions, debates, nor a myriad of threads on MSE!!!

That's my point.

Mistermeaner

All that enervgy and noise and tax payer money wasted on discussions and debates at Westminster instead of dealing with the much more significant and worthy issues at hand....

Think how much voluntary work all those waspi campaigners could have done

Opportunity costs

missbiggles1

Daniel54 wrote: »

Waspi have achieved nothing to date apart from a good deal of publicity.What is your point ?At least the 2011 coalescing of opposition,which included Saga ( read their press releases from that time) achieved something

Actually, I think the debate has moved on and you have missed it .I would again recommend reading Twitter if you have any interest in the Waspi issue - it is above all a social media campaign that has so far achieved zero political support for it's proposed 'transitional arrangements" all of which involve retro-active payments to 1950s women as-if their retirement age was 60.

So where are we....

The only option to achieve retrospective payments due to poor communication from the DWP in respect of the 1995 Act is legal.The costs to all of us who pay tax and NI would be into eleven or twelve figures and it would be the duty of any Government to fight this with all means necessary in the interests of the economy and inter-generational fairness.I would fully support them in this

The 2011 Act was harsh,but it has gone through due Parliamentary process and is law.Mrs May was a senior member of the Cabinet and held one of the three top Offices of State at the time.Government is not going to legislate for a change to this Act.

As the SPA goes out to 66 and then 67 - and most certainly further in the future ( unless we start dying sooner) -I think it would be sensible to review whether the state benefit system might be better shaped to help both men and women in financial need post 60.Maybe something for the WPSC to prioritise in their agenda.I am not clear that saving for retirement is adequately rewarded as things stand

I would also welcome advertising campaigns to point 1950s born men and women towards maximising the benefits to which they might be entitled.If you find yourself in difficulties towards the end of your working life due to e.g. illness or redundancy,there truly should be no shame in taking such entitlements.

As for Waspi, they could morph into a campaign that steps away from demanding more state money only for 1950s born women,irrespective of need.That is their choice. But it might be welcome if they concentrated on those most in need.

Sorry for being ,as you so pleasantly put it,a cesspool of negativity.

In the days when JSA was Unemployment Benefit and men's retirement age was 65, it used to be possible for men to stop work at 60 and claim benefit for for those 5 years (and get their "stamp" paid) with no jobseeking responsibility. I can't see that it would be difficult to put something similar in place these days.

jamesd

saver861 wrote: »

This 'group' petitioned to stop the pension rises being aligned to the CPI as opposed to the RPI ..... not much success there then!!

The increases to the basic and single tier state pensions are now covered by the triple lock that goes up by the higher of CPI, earnings or 2.5%. Long term average earnings increases tend to be RPI plus about 1%.

The major difference between RPI and CPI is that RPI includes housing costs largely for those buying homes, notably mortgage costs. It's not a good measure to use for pensions because most pensioners no longer have mortgages. Usually they are either outright home owners or long term discounted tenants of councils or housing associations.

jamesd

saver861 wrote: »

That money thus saved goes elsewhere. Where does it go exactly?

To state pensioners, of course. There are more of them due to the size of the baby boomer generation that is retiring, increases are above inflation and the single tier pension pays more to women in general than the previous system, notably including women who have had their state pension ages increased so that they are under the single tier system instead of the previous one.

I provided you with the list of things were NI benefit spending goes so it should be obvious what the choices are. We've seen the state pensions increase faster than inflation and we've seen things like the bedroom tax, caps on housing and other benefits, increased testing thoroughness for disability benefits, greater checking and searching requirements for job seekers as well as more people excluded from child benefit that should make it clear that money isn't going to those places in the list instead.

brewerdave

jamesd wrote: »

The major difference between RPI and CPI is that RPI includes housing costs largely for those buying homes, notably mortgage costs. It's not a good measure to use for pensions because most pensioners no longer have mortgages. Usually they are either outright home owners or long term discounted tenants of councils or housing associations.

Offtopic but.....In theory I agree ...but as a pensioner my costs are going up year on year at a much higher rate than either measure ! Insurance premiums,Council tax, utility bills, phone bills, DIY jobs that I have to pay for which I used to be able to do for myself -I've actually got 6%+ built into my spreadsheets!!

saver861

jamesd wrote: »

The increases to the basic and single tier state pensions are now covered by the triple lock that goes up by the higher of CPI, earnings or 2.5%. Long term average earnings increases tend to be RPI plus about 1%.

Triple Lock is only intended to be in place until 2020 - it may not even last until then - May being the operative word!! The point being made there was that the 'campaign' being alluded to earlier was apparently intended to gain concessions on the 2011act to reduce the current 18 months extension. I pointed out that they petitioned for retaining increases against RPI rather than CPI, which was clearly unsuccessful. The merits of one versus the other is a different debate.

jamesd wrote: »

To state pensioners, of course.

You have that on good authority no doubt. The NI payments cover a number of areas so that 'saving' was not ring fenced as such. Equally, to take your point - it still means that those 50's women with the greater extension and less than 10 years notice have had their pension benefits reduced to be distributed among the rest. Why should that particular group have to shoulder the cost.

jamesd wrote: »

There are more of them due to the size of the baby boomer generation that is retiring, increases are above inflation and the single tier pension pays more to women in general than the previous system,

There are more that's true. However, there was a time when there was somewhat less in number and personal wealth. Previous pensioners were considerably worse off in terms of pension income and, as you say, there was less of them, so the overall relative cost was somewhat less. The NI money still got spent though!!

I don't know if you would prefer pensioners were still enduring such circumstances. I don't.

Mistermeaner

In an ideal world there would be limitless resources and everything everybody wanted would be paid for. Free medical care, a life of leisure, lovely housing, wonderful food etc. etc.

in the real world resource is limited and spending has to be apportioned in a considered manner.

Also somebody has to pay for everything - nothing is 'free'

The 'pain' with pensions etc. today is that there is far more people pulling from the state pension pot and for far longer (in part because of NHS spending - a double whammy) - the people being asked to pay into the pot (young working people) are unlikely to ever receive the same level of payout at the end of their working lives - its a double (or triple) whammy for the young working today: pay in to fund the pensions and healthcare of others, while also having to make their own provision for later life, also while having to pay very high housing costs (in part) due to the increased longevity of the older population leaving less vacants (and also anecdotally protesting against new builds)

Its all pretty harsh anmd anyone can argue a different view of what is 'fair' however I think the vast vast majority of the population agree that aligning women state pension age with mens is 'fair' and anyone claiming on technicalities about 'notice' etc. is clutching at straws. I have not received official notice that the lifetime limit on my SIP pension has reduced, or that the annual maximum I can pay in and benefit from tax relief has also been reduced. I know these things because it is incumbent on me to find out stuff that is important to my financial wellbeing - rather than sitting around complaining that someone else should pay for me.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

The point being made there was that the 'campaign' being alluded to earlier was apparently intended to gain concessions on the 2011act to reduce the current 18 months extension.

There was no allusion. The campaign I gave you the link to was for that exact purpose. It was a joint effort which included Saga ( including Ros Altmann ), Labour MPs, Unions Together and the founders of the 2011 protest group.

Together they achieved the 6 months concession. You can dismiss it if you like but it did happen and was due to that campaign.

I pointed out that they petitioned for retaining increases against RPI rather than CPI, which was clearly unsuccessful.

Two different campaigns - note the word "also" mentioned.

This might explain the 2011 Act campaign more clearly.

http://www.progressonline.org.uk/2011/02/08/womens-state-pension-age/

saver861

Mistermeaner wrote: »

having to pay very high housing costs (in part) due to the increased longevity of the older population leaving less vacants (and also anecdotally protesting against new builds)

Different generations have different challenges. In my younger days, I recall many people losing their homes due to losing their jobs, negative equity, long dole queues etc etc. My parents generation were happy to get basic rations during and after the war years!

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Its all pretty harsh anmd anyone can argue a different view of what is 'fair' however I think the vast vast majority of the population agree that aligning women state pension age with mens is 'fair'

Of course it is. Very few people disagree with that.

jem16 wrote: »

There was no allusion. The campaign I gave you the link to was for that exact purpose. It was a joint effort which included Saga ( including Ros Altmann ), Labour MPs, Unions Together and the founders of the 2011 protest group.

I'm not clear on your point. You have provided a link that outlines the protests made by an amalgamation of various organisations, unions and MP's and highlight the example of a lady called Barbara Bates.

This would be different than a group such as WASPI, who are regular Janes and Joes from the public. Are you saying that the group of Unions and Organisations stood back when WASPI came along? Or are you telling me there are other groups of Janes and Joes that got together to try to get concessions from the 2011act as it stands - and that this group or groups stood back when WASPI came along?

jem16 wrote: »

Together they achieved the 6 months concession. You can dismiss it if you like but it did happen and was due to that campaign.

But why did they stop at 6 months concession? Many people feel that the current 18 months extension with less than 10 years notice is unfair.

I'm not clear why the group you refer to stopped at 6 months as having 'achieved' something, when many feel the 'current rules' of 2011act is still unfair.

It seems to be akin to saying a football team that is 4-0 down and scores a goal to make it 4-1 and are then somehow happy that they going out 'winners' having pulled just one goal back!!