WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

slightlymiffed

hyubh wrote: »

You are truly charm personified!



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.

Thanks hyubh - much appreciated.

Do you have a problem with the word cabal then?

A cabal is a group of people united in some close design together, usually to promote their private views or interests in a church, state, or other community, often by intrigue, usually unbeknown to persons outside their group.

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

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!!!

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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?

I don't think anybody is saying it is OK for the short notice a lot of women had in the increase of their state pension age.

But if someone is in financial hardship because of this, there is the option of claiming benefits.

And, saver861 - if I was in financial hardship and could claim means tested benefits, then yes, it would be the answer for me.

jem16

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?

We have to be careful to remember that only 18 months of that difference is down to the 2011 Act. Due to equalisation from the 1995 Act that 1954 woman was going to be around 64.5yrs before she could collect her pension.

Some women will be able to cover that 18 months and some won't. I have an extra 12 months to wait over what I was told in 1995. My finances are such that I can manage that fine so I would rather the help went to those that need it rather than to no-one at all.

Ideally the 2011 Act would be revoked for those born 1953 to 1956 but I personally don't see it happening.

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

So that makes it ok then does it?

No and I never said that it did.

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?

Answered in my other post.

Pollycat

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Thanks hyubh - much appreciated.

Do you have a problem with the word cabal then?

A cabal is a group of people united in some close design together, usually to promote their private views or interests in a church, state, or other community, often by intrigue, usually unbeknown to persons outside their group.

Personally, I'm not in any cabal or clique on this or any other public forum.

I have my own opinions, they may or may not be in agreement with other posters.
I may agree with a poster on one subject but disagree with that same person on another.

Any 'cabal' you refer to is simply people with the same opinions.
We are not 'united'.
We do not 'promote our private views' any more than you or saver861 do.
There is no 'intrigue'.
There is no 'group'.

slightlymiffed

Pollycat wrote: »

Personally, I'm not in any cabal or clique on this or any other public forum.

I have my own opinions, they may or may not be in agreement with other posters.
I may agree with a poster on one subject but disagree with that same person on another.

Any 'cabal' you refer to is simply people with the same opinions.
We are not 'united'.
We do not 'promote our private views' any more than you or saver861 do.
There is no 'intrigue'.
There is no 'group'.

I'm sorry Pollycat, but I stand by my comment.

Some (not all) of you 'usual suspects' do hunt in packs and pounce on anyone you perceive as being financially naive or whose view differs from your own. The bullying behaviour towards Pennylane earlier in this thread reached such a pitch that another forum member felt he/she had to intervene. It makes very uncomfortable reading.

You say you are not united and yet you 'like' all each others' posts (like some awful little school gang) and nitpick every tiny nuance of an 'outsider's' post with glee. Random outsiders troll in every so often to insult - but it's the same random trolls. Co-incidence?

I've no doubt that some of you are the same mean-spirited who continually troll Waspi supporters on Twitter, posting spiteful and undeserved comments and who trawl Facebook to try to suggest that some poor woman has dared to go on holiday or was wearing a necklace! I would be very ashamed of myself if it is any of you.

Are you trying to prove a point that you are all so much more clued up and savvy about pensions (we'll agree that one), that you knew all about pension law inside and out (maybe), that you are superior to us 'greedy' 1950's women who dare to suggest we have not been treated fairly? (definitely not).

missbiggles1

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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.

Gawd, not that again!

I was in an occupational pension scheme as were many of our generation (far more than nowadays) but why you think they would inform me about changes in the state pension age defeats me.

saver861

Pollycat wrote: »

But if someone is in financial hardship because of this, there is the option of claiming benefits.

And, saver861 - if I was in financial hardship and could claim means tested benefits, then yes, it would be the answer for me.

If having to claim financial hardship benefits has been caused by the changing of the regulations in 2011 with insufficient notice, then those people are entitled to a grievance.

If the act has created an unequal situation that some, e.g Mrs 1952, has her pension from around 61 but Mrs 1954 has to wait an additional period, particularly to an older age, then it means they have not smoothed out the calculations sufficiently. Thus unfair.

For those that have to claim financial hardship benefits, its a necessity, not an option! Other than scroungers, not many would be happy at having to do so, much less so on the basis of unfairness out of their control.

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

If having to claim financial hardship benefits has been caused by the changing of the regulations in 2011 with insufficient notice, then those people are entitled to a grievance.

If the act has created an unequal situation that some, e.g Mrs 1952, has her pension from around 61 but Mrs 1954 has to wait an additional period, particularly to an older age, then it means they have not smoothed out the calculations sufficiently. Thus unfair.

For (I hope) the last time - I've never said those people are not entitled to a grievance.

I've never said it's not unfair.

saver861 wrote: »

For those that have to claim financial hardship benefits, its a necessity, not an option! Other than scroungers, not many would be happy at having to do so, much less so on the basis of unfairness out of their control.

My Mum and a close relative claim means tested benefits as a necessity - as a result of means outside their control.

To refer to them and other people in similar circumstances as scroungers is, quite frankly, despicable.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

If having to claim financial hardship benefits has been caused by the changing of the regulations in 2011 with insufficient notice, then those people are entitled to a grievance.

If the act has created an unequal situation that some, e.g Mrs 1952, has her pension from around 61 but Mrs 1954 has to wait an additional period, particularly to an older age, then it means they have not smoothed out the calculations sufficiently. Thus unfair.

Mrs 1952 was not affected by the 2011 Act, only the 1995 Act. As the 2011 Act accelerated the 1995 Act for some women, then of course it will create an unequal situation. Possibly not the best comparison to use to show the unfairness.