WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

xylophone

a baby boomer woman born in 1950 who never earned more than the average wage who retired 3 years before my (raised) state pension age.

Oh come on! A maximum of nine months?

1995 changes - fair enough.

2011 changes - not fair at all.

saver861

xylophone wrote: »

Oh come on! A maximum of nine months?

1995 changes - fair enough.

2011 changes - not fair at all.

Spot on bro .....

OldBeanz

Don't worry SM, you can have equality with me as I too will be claiming my State Pension at 66.

xylophone

For anybody interested who hasn't seen it - the indefatigable Djuna Thurley (he knows his stuff!), has produced this Briefing Paper update.

House of Commons Library

Number CBP-07405, 6 July 2016

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Thank you Saver, you are one of the very few unbiased forum members here.

Well I am biased but being a woman born in 1956 I have reason to be.

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.

Most people on here have already said that the 2011 Act was unfair in terms of notice, including me.

For those born 1953 to 1954 it was definitely unfair. For those born 1955 to 1956 - a little unfair. For anyone born Nov 1956 onwards - they had the 10 years' notice so not unfair.

Do I agree with the Waspi campaign - no I don't as I think the original "ask" was ludicrous and far too generalised that all 1950s women were the same. I also feel that people should take some personal responsibility in making sure they understand what affects them - this personal letter is nonsense.

So I'm sorry that you find my opinion biased but there you go. I've got to wait till I'm 66 too but I can't say I didn't know about the changes.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

Most people on here have already said that the 2011 Act was unfair in terms of notice, including me.

And me .....

jem16 wrote: »

For those born 1953 to 1954 it was definitely unfair.

Definitely agree ....

jem16 wrote: »

For those born 1955 to 1956 - a little unfair.

Agree. Perhaps if the 53/54 women had not been taking the big hit and it had been smooothed better then it would never have been an issue.

jem16 wrote: »

For anyone born Nov 1956 onwards - they had the 10 years' notice so not unfair.

Spot on again .... 10 years is deemed the acceptable time scale ... those with less should have their changes revoked.

jem16 wrote: »

Do I agree with the Waspi campaign - no

That's fine too ....

.... now, how can we go about getting the 2011 changes into a more fairer context as above?

jamesd

slightlymiffed wrote: »

'...failed to provide properly for myself..'?? Words fail me. Do you, as a clearly very self-satisfied baby boomer, have any idea of the average life experiences of a 1953/54 born woman?

I've never been female, so definitely not. That's just one of the choices, though. Working is another, or if unable to work, means tested benefits. Or a spouse if there is one. But just to avoid doubt, I don't consider relying on only the state pension and means tested benefits as providing properly for oneself, whatever their gender, unless they are unable to do so by virtue of disabilities of some sort.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

But jamesd, the times they are a'changing...:). Crabb, Altmann and Vara now gone. Where are your friends in high places now?

My friends? I thought that Altmann was supposed to be supportive of at least some of the objectives of WASPI, not in opposition to them?

jamesd

saver861 wrote: »

Sure.... that would be good. It would have been the same for all ... so Mrs Jones and her sis Mrs Smith would both have had equal time scales. As it happens ....... that did not happen and Mrs Smith and sis Mrs Jones have been given unequal burdens!!

Sadly so. I do wish that the men, with larger unequal age burdens, could have some of their transferred to both of those women. We seem to have legislation in place that is doing that, the legislation that arrived in 2011.

saver861 wrote: »

Oh, one point, it is true that women at times have done the same job as men at the same age in the same place .... strangely one was given a higher salary than the other

You may have noticed that I've mentioned that the flat rate state pension that this group of women will get is generally better for women. Did you notice that earnings are irrelevant to the pure flat rate calculation, which is based only on years of NI or NI credits, so that pay is irrelevant provided it is above the minimum to pay NI?

saver861 wrote: »

Yeah ...... seems your calculator and mine are singing from the same sheet ..... and for all men it was 44 ..... for all women it was 39 .... thus same for all depending on which group they were in ....

There does seem to be that difference of five years between the two groups based solely on gender. Not all people being treated the same after all.

jamesd

xylophone wrote: »

For anybody interested who hasn't seen it - the indefatigable Djuna Thurley (he knows his stuff!), has produced this Briefing Paper update. House of Commons Library Number CBP-07405, 6 July 2016

Thanks. That also has costings. For example, the cost of restricting the delay to one year was at the time put at 12.5 billion Pounds. With numbers like that for even a delay of up to a year it's no wonder that those who want to restore more gender age inequality are not willing to provide costed plans for eliminating the delay.

But that paper did give some costs: £77 billion through 2020-21 and more beyond that, to give women born in the 1950s a state pension age of 60.

So it appears that WASPI is asking for more than £77 billion. Really easy to understand why they refuse to give costs.

GibbsRule_No3

As a female born in 1954 I don't want my pension at 60 but I did want it at 63 as stated for many years in my yearly pension statement, now it has jumped to 65 and 9 months, certainly not enough time to sort things. Especially as my friend born in 1952 has had her state pension since she was 61.