WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

p00hsticks

GibbsRule_No3 wrote: »

Especially as my friend born in 1952 has had her state pension since she was 61.

Lucky her. My OH, also born in 1952, is having to wait until he's 65.

missbiggles1

xylophone wrote: »

Oh come on! A maximum of nine months?

1995 changes - fair enough.

2011 changes - not fair at all.

Oy, you're arguing with the wrong person - I knew about the changes in 1993 and I'm not complaining.

missbiggles1

slightlymiffed wrote: »

According to ONS stats (see my earlier post with link) you are not technically a baby boomer missbiggles and, with all due respect, born in 1950 (and I'm presuming post April 1950), then the maximum increase in your state pension age would have been just 8 months.

Comparing your 8 months SPA increase with my 6 year increase just illustrates the injustice, so thank you for posting.

I was indicating that my life experiences were likely to be similar to your own, given that I'm only a few years older than you are. I was pointing out that many of our generation could choose when to retire, regardless of the date we receive our SRP.

Pollycat

GibbsRule_No3 wrote: »

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.

As a female born late 1953 I too wanted my pension at 63 (April 2017, aged 63 and a half) as that was the date I was told it would be paid many years ago (until the 2011 Act).

But, like molerat, my retirement plans did not rely on receiving my state pension.

I do feel let down by the short notice and it would be nice to have but I don't need it.

Do you need it or do you just want it?

saver861

GibbsRule_No3 wrote: »

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.

Such is the problem. Most only want the pension they were led to believe they would get until the changes in 2011. By the Governments own 10 year rule, these women did not have enough time to make adequate alternatives.

p00hsticks wrote: »

Lucky her. My OH, also born in 1952, is having to wait until he's 65.

The major difference is that your OH had his full working lifetime to plan for State Pension at 65. Said lady above had just 6 years.

You have to understand that legislation can be brought out at any time. That is what the Government is there to do. However, when there are changes to legislation, the peasants have to be given fair warning and time to make adjustments, otherwise any Government can do things at will.

On this topic it is pensions, next time it could be tax, or driving regulations, etc etc. The government has to be accountable for its actions, be it pension changes, environmental rule changes or whatever.

slightlymiffed

Pollycat wrote: »

As a female born late 1953 I too wanted my pension at 63 (April 2017, aged 63 and a half) as that was the date I was told it would be paid many years ago (until the 2011 Act).

But, like molerat, my retirement plans did not rely on receiving my state pension.

I do feel let down by the short notice and it would be nice to have but I don't need it.

Do you need it or do you just want it?

You are clearly in favour of some kind of means tested pension for those women disadvantaged by lack of fair notice Pollycat so please could you explain to me how means testing works?

saver861

Pollycat wrote: »

I do feel let down by the short notice and it would be nice to have but I don't need it.

Do you need it or do you just want it?

It is not about need as more about fairness. Said lady's friend stated her friend born in 1952 gets her pension from 61. Said friend may not 'need' it either! Many picking up their pension at 65 don't 'need' it either.

Poster states she wanted her pension at the time the 1995 act said she would get it - there was nothing in the act about getting it on the basis of need.

slightlymiffed

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I was indicating that my life experiences were likely to be similar to your own, given that I'm only a few years yolder than you are. I was pointing out that many of our generation could choose when to retire, regardless of the date we receive our SRP.

I'm afraid I cannot remember which one of this forum cabal you are missbiggles but I think I can confidently say our life experiences must have been very different. You may have worked for, or had dealings with, the pension industry or financial services or had the benefit of working for a company or organisation which had a pension scheme and were kept informed.

Not all women were - and many women, who had to work part time, were precluded from joining too until it became law.

Pollycat

slightlymiffed wrote: »

You are clearly in favour of some kind of means tested pension for those women disadvantaged by lack of fair notice Pollycat so please could you explain to me how means testing works?

'Clearly'?
No I'm not in favour of 'means tested pension' at all.

I asked you in an earlier post:

Pollycat wrote: »

If the 18 month extension to your state pension age is causing you financial hardship, are there no benefits you can claim until you reach pension age?

No mention there of 'means tested pension'.
I used the term 'benefits'.
Are you in financial hardship, maybe unable to continue working for 18 monhs longer than you originally planned to do?
Are there any benefits that you could claim to help you through that period?

saver861 wrote: »

It is not about need as more about fairness. Said lady's friend stated her friend born in 1952 gets her pension from 61. Said friend may not 'need' it either! Many picking up their pension at 65 don't 'need' it either.

Poster states she wanted her pension at the time the 1995 act said she would get it - there was nothing in the act about getting it on the basis of need.

Of course, it's about fairness.
I never said it wasn't.
I don't think it fair either.

slightlymiffed

saver861 wrote: »

It is not about need as more about fairness. Said lady's friend stated her friend born in 1952 gets her pension from 61. Said friend may not 'need' it either! Many picking up their pension at 65 don't 'need' it either.

Poster states she wanted her pension at the time the 1995 act said she would get it - there was nothing in the act about getting it on the basis of need.

Exactly Saver - totally agree.

If we are going down the slippery slope of 'means testing' for 1950's womens' state pensions, is there not a case for means testing winter fuel allowance/tv licences/bus passes etc. How many wealthy people are happy to receive these state hand-outs when they don't 'need' them?