WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

missbiggles1

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?

I, like many other pensioners, think that this would be an excellent idea.

GibbsRule_No3

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?

To allow me stop working after 45 years, yes I need it. So I will be working for 49 until I get the SP but have gone down to a three day week, so the monthly wage has not dropped by much and I can cope until the SP kicks in. To whoever mentioned their husband having to work until 65, men have always know this and only had to plan for 1 extra year, even I could probably have coped for one year extra. As a single woman who has worked since 17years 2 months in a physical job, I am a printer, the extra years are taking a toll on my health already.

jem16

GibbsRule_No3 wrote: »

To whoever mentioned their husband having to work until 65, men have always know this and only had to plan for 1 extra year, even I could probably have coped for one year extra.

Your spa has been 64 yrs 3 mths since 1995 though so it's really an extra 18 months to plan for.

As a single woman who has worked since 17years 2 months in a physical job, I am a printer, the extra years are taking a toll on my health already.

That's no different to a man of the same age though.

saver861

Pollycat wrote: »

It seems you need to read my posts.

Ah ... its my reading then .... well in my defence, Mrs McCormack did say my reading skills were good when I was in Year 4.

Perhaps its Mrs McCormack's fault for teaching me the wrong skills it seems ....

Pollycat wrote: »

Then you'll have clarity about what I'm saying.

I will no doubt have even more clarity on what you are 'not' saying .... winners all around!!

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

Ah ... its my reading then .... well in my defence, Mrs McCormack did say my reading skills were good when I was in Year 4.

You've clearly been resting on your laurels since year 4 then. :whistle:

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

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.

Yes I understand your point - but if there had been no 2011act then there would not be the increased difference.

Similarly, if the 2011act had only applied to those 10 years from their pension date, both Mrs 1952 and Mrs 1954 would have been in the same position as they were prior to 2011.

saver861

Pollycat wrote: »

You've clearly been resting on your laurels since year 4 then. :whistle:

Do you reckon? Or, do you think Mrs McCormack would be disappointed at your interpretation of her teaching skills?

Grand woman was Mrs McCormack .... mean with the cane though .... perhaps a few on here might have benefited from Mrs McCormack's attention!!!

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

Do you reckon? Or, do you think Mrs McCormack would be disappointed at your interpretation of her teaching skills?

I could have sworn Pollycat said "since year 4" so unless you had Mrs McCormack after that she obviously wasn't suggesting anything about Mrs McCormack.

Must be those reading skills again.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

I could have sworn Pollycat said "since year 4" so unless you had Mrs McCormack after that she obviously wasn't suggesting anything about Mrs McCormack.

Must be those reading skills again.

Mr Lambert ..... now he was the one that taught us Analytical Skills and how not to draw conclusions on a writing without first establishing the facts behind it ..... he did not have a cane .... he was a mean son of a gun with a whopping black leather belt .....

So I had Mrs McCormack in Year 5 and some of Year 6.....

Does seem like Mr Lambert's attention would benefited some on here also .....:D

jamesd

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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.

77 billion is not a back of the envelope estimated figure, it's the cost provided by the UK government. House of Commons Library Number CBP-07405, 6 July 2016 research briefing "Increases in the State Pension age for women born in the 1950s":

What WASPI told the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee they wanted in oral evidence given before the committee: "what we are asking – and we feel this is a very fair ask – is for the Government to put all women in the 50s, born on or after 6 April 1951 and affected by the state pension age in exactly the same position they would have been in had they been born on or before 5 April 1950" (page 19)

Official government cost: "The Government estimated that unravelling the 1995 Act reforms – so that women born in the 1950s had a State Pension age of 60 -would cost “£77 billion up to 2020-21 and the costs would continue to accrue after that period.”" (page 25)

And official government cost for just the 2011 Act undoing: "The acceleration of state pension age equalisation and the increase to the age of 66 under the Pensions Act 2011 achieved gender equality in state pension provision, while also saving more than £30 billion for the state, thereby ensuring the affordability and sustainability of our reformed pensions system" (page 25)

So you can probably see why WASPI refuses to give costs for anything they say they want: the costs are outrageous.