WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

jem16

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.

What yearly pension statement stated this? As the DWP don't send out yearly statements it won't be them.

As you quote 65 yrs 9 mths, I'm assuming you are around a July/August 1954 female. The 1995 Act increased your state pension age to 64 yrs 3/4 mths and not 63 years so that was never going to happen.

The maximum increase in the 2011 Act relative to the 1995 Act was 18 months.

Pollycat

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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?

Who suggested we are going down that route or sugggested that we should?

Certainly not me.

slightlymiffed

jamesd wrote: »

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.

I think the devil is in the detail here - are Waspi 'asking for more than £77 billion'? Who came up with this 'back of the envelope' exaggerated figure? Are Waspi actually asking for a roll back of pension to 60? I personally would not support that.

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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?

The suggestion of means testing is not for the state pension itself but for the transitional arrangements which are being asked for.

saver861

Pollycat wrote: »

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?

Why do you think it is ok for a woman born in circa 1952 to collect pension at 61 when someone born circa 1954 has to wait until nearly 66 to get pension?

Why would it be ok for the 1952 to live on her pension from 61 while the 1952 woman has to 'claim benefits' to bridge the unexpected extended gap? Both of those women were told in 1995 when they would get their pension ... one has come up somewhat shorter than the other ... claiming hardship benefits is not the answer - nor I suspect would it be for you if you 'needed' your pension and had to claim benefits in is absence!!!

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I think the devil is in the detail here - are Waspi 'asking for more than £77 billion'?

Their original "ask" and that given in evidence to the WPSC back in December 2015 did. It has never been withdrawn.

Who came up with this 'back of the envelope' exaggerated figure?

Government departments using actual figures. Why do you think it's exaggerated? What are you basing that claim on?

Are Waspi actually asking for a roll back of pension to 60?

Effectively but only for 1950s women. Three of the four options put forward to Ros Altmann have backdating to age 60. It's very much in the want of at least two co-founders and always has been.

I personally would not support that.

Neither do any of us but many WASPI supporters want that.

hyubh

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I'm afraid I cannot remember which one of this forum cabal you are

You are truly charm personified!

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

Yes, in the early 90s, on which the big public sector schemes (LGPS in particular) acquired lots and lots of part time female members. In the LGPS case they form a majority of the active membership, and to this day enjoy excellent defined benefit pension arrangements. Can't say the same for all men - and many men, who have to work full time, are precluded from joining too because they work in the private sector.

slightlymiffed

jem16 wrote: »

The suggestion of means testing is not for the state pension itself but for the transitional arrangements which are being asked for.

So that makes it ok then does it?

I think most on this forum are agreed that the 2011 Act was very unfair and yet you still support the proposal that those women affected should be means tested in order to 'qualify' for any kind of transitional arrangements? Bit contradictory I'd say.

If it's unfair, why any sort of hoop-jumping or penalty?

saver861

hyubh wrote: »

Can't say the same for all men - and many men, who have to work full time, are precluded from joining too because they work in the private sector.

That bit is easy ..... if someone in the private sector wants a public sector pension..... go work for the public sector.

Maybe the reason many did not do so was the somewhat higher renumeration for similar positions in the private sector ..... which you seem to omit mentioning

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

Why do you think it is ok for a woman born in circa 1952 to collect pension at 61 when someone born circa 1954 has to wait until nearly 66 to get pension?

Why would it be ok for the 1952 to live on her pension from 61 while the 1952 woman has to 'claim benefits' to bridge the unexpected extended gap? Both of those women were told in 1995 when they would get their pension ... one has come up somewhat shorter than the other ... claiming hardship benefits is not the answer - nor I suspect would it be for you if you 'needed' your pension and had to claim benefits in is absence!!!

Did I say I thought it OK?
No I didn't.

Pollycat wrote: »

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