We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions
Options
Comments
-
Who decided that a certain group of women born in the 50's should shoulder a higher degree of cost than all others?
You've not really got that right have you.
Women born in the '50s are just getting equality and an end to preferential treatment.
You'll struggle to persuade all those youngsters to pay for these women to retire at 60 when those paying for it will be very lucky to retire by the age of 70.0 -
<sigh> OK I'll spell it out.
Why are you ignoring Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Yes there was a dip between '50 and '55, widely recognised as a result of food shortages and the nation tightening it's belt. The rationing of some foods actually got worse post-1950 and it did not end until 1954. However the birth rate was still way above prewar levels.
Please don't patronise. The graphs for Scotland and Ireland mirror (albeit more gently) that for England. After any period of war and deprivation, there will always be a re-adjustment as men return to their families and food is taken off rationing.
Remember, the worst effects of the changes to SPA (because of the acceleration and lack of sufficient notice) were shouldered by those born in 53/54. You cannot dispute that this cohort are not baby boomers - they are more 'baby slumpers'.
You don't mention the much bigger cohort of 1960's boomers who will put even more of a strain on generations following them - my own children actually.0 -
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/pensions-minister-ros-altmann-set-exit/
Yes, Altmann is sacked and look what she says!
Yes - please look.
0 -
You've not really got that right have you.
On the contrary ..... I think I have it exactly right.Women born in the '50s are just getting equality and an end to preferential treatment.
Equality is a good thing ..... however, the method of application on the route is unfair. Some have had a disproportionate burden to others heading for the same equality destination.Originally Posted by Pennylane View Post
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/pensions-minister-ros-altmann-set-exit/
Yes, Altmann is sacked and look what she says!
Yes - please look.
It may be that she will do more for getting something done on the 2011 thing outside of Government than ever she was going to do inside it!!!
Her letter suggests that this was not a lady going quietly ....... 0 -
There's nothing to convince me of. I know what is called the baby boomer generation and what the actual UK pattern of births was.slightlymiffed wrote: »
The term has no negative connotations that this baby boomer is aware of.slightlymiffed wrote: »What is disingenuous is to keep referring to these women disadvantaged by the speed of changes to state pension age as 'baby boomers' - with all the negative connotations that this term now implies.0 -
I think that we can all agree that the affected women should get fair treatment. Help claiming means tested benefits that they are entitled to before they reach their sate pension age, say.http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/pensions-minister-ros-altmann-set-exit/
Yes, Altmann is "replaced" and look what she says!0 -
Who decided that a certain group of women born in the 50's should shoulder a higher degree of cost than all others?
Most men and women older than that cohort had to accumulate significantly more NI years (44 for men and 39 for women) in order to obtain the same level of basic state pension as these women.
All men and women younger than them will have to wait even longer before being eligible for their state pension.
So I don't believe this group of women are shouldering any more financial cost than any other section of the population - they have just had slightly less notice of the changes.0 -
I think that we can all agree that the affected women should get fair treatment. Help claiming means tested benefits that they are entitled to before they reach their sate pension age, say.
Sooo, Mrs Jones who was born circa 1952 gets pension circa 61. Her sister Mrs Smith, who was born circa 1954, has to wait until nearly 66 to get pension. In the mean time 'if' she qualifies for state benefits she can live on those for the additional years - while big sis can lay back knowing she has her pension coming in for all those years.
A better option would have been ... to smooth that out better ..say!p00hsticks wrote: »Most men and women older than that cohort had to accumulate significantly more NI years (44 for men and 39 for women) in order to obtain the same level of basic state pension as these women.
It was the same for everybody.p00hsticks wrote: »All men and women younger than them will have to wait even longer before being eligible for their state pension.
It will be the same for everybody..... and they will have constant reviews with at least 10 years notice of any changes.p00hsticks wrote: »So I don't believe this group of women are shouldering any more financial cost than any other section of the population - they have just had slightly less notice of the changes.
'slightly' ???? some with 6 years notice when the current recommendation is 10 years. So some had just over half the current minimum acceptable notice .....
Not sure where you are from but........ you need to look up the definition of 'slightly' in them there parts ....0 -
Sooo, Mrs Jones who was born circa 1952 gets pension circa 61. Her sister Mrs Smith, who was born circa 1954, has to wait until nearly 66 to get pension. In the mean time 'if' she qualifies for state benefits she can live on those for the additional years - while big sis can lay back knowing she has her pension coming in for all those years.
A better option would have been ... to smooth that out better ..say!
It was the same for everybody.
It will be the same for everybody..... and they will have constant reviews with at least 10 years notice of any changes.
'slightly' ???? some with 6 years notice when the current recommendation is 10 years. So some had just over half the current minimum acceptable notice .....
Not sure where you are from but........ you need to look up the definition of 'slightly' in them there parts ....
Thank you Saver, you are one of the very few unbiased forum members here.
I am that woman, 1954 born with a sister 1952 born and this is happening now. My sister is happily retired and is angry that her sister (me) has been so disadvantaged. She can see the injustice of it.
When I was told in 2012 (at 58) that my SPA had been increased again from 2018 to 2020 (an 18 month increase), I was just SIX YEARS away from my expected SPA. That is four whole years less than the 10 years notice that is widely acknowledged as being acceptable. There is no slightly about it.
Sufficient notice? Absolutely, categorically not.0 -
I think that we can all agree that the affected women should get fair treatment. Help claiming means tested benefits that they are entitled to before they reach their sate pension age, say.
I am affected but am working (and paying NI) - why should I have to claim means tested benefits in order to get entitlement to a state pension? It was the government who twice moved the goalposts and I already have 44 years NI. Isn't that enough in your opinion?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards