WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

Thrugelmir

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Most of us Google pretty well - perhaps you should learn?

Reading seems a lost art. Being informed is key.

slightlymiffed

mumps wrote: »

So it wasn't fair and equal then. To protect my family I paid insurance for 30 years so it cost me a significant amount, I can't remember the exact figures but I know there was a cost for the lump sum and then a further cost for the monthly pension. Men are having the unfairness of women retiring earlier addressed but the unfairness to women like me is just ignored. We can't turn the clock back and give me the protection but I think it should be acknowledged that the "it's fair" or "It's equality" does work both ways.

I'm not sure how you are rating the value of maternity allowance compared to a pension. The maternity allowance was only 13 weeks when it was introduced, at that time widow's pensions were for life but were later changed so that is was only while children were dependant so could be up to 18 years, quite a discrepancy, not that I think maternity allowance should be for 18 years just looking at comparing what it is worth to the recipient. Of course more women would get maternity allowance than some sort of widow's pension, I'm not advocating we should be like Black Widow spiders, I don't know if they really kill their mate but I'm sure you get the reference.

I will get my pension 3 months earlier than a man born the same day as me but 3 months later than a woman born a day before me, well 8 hrs before me in fact.

At the end of the day regardless of the rights and wrongs of it all I think the notice for the 2011 changes was too short for women who were already making arrangements for a change in their state pension age and I think this is the difference for women born in 1960 as they have got more time to prepare.

I don't know if ten years is the right amount of notice but in this case the double whammy makes the time unreasonable. In my case I have retired at roughly the age relevant to the 1995 changes and to some extent that is offset by the fact that I am claiming Carer's Allowance. I have been my husbands carer for roughly 25 years but was earning too much to claim it so I don't feel too bad about claiming it for a couple of years.

I wonder if a man got pregnant would he then get maternity benefit? I don't think the MATB1 mentions gender just for confirmation of pregnancy. Might happen one day.

Thinking about it he would probably make a fortune selling his story so probably wouldn't need the maternity benefit.

Your story mumps is quite typical of many 1950's born women and it has been very difficult to convince some (especially here) that we have experienced very little 'equality' during our lives but are expected now to just 'put up with it luv'.

The 2011 Act was very unfair and actually extended 'inequality' (between women) - by making some women less equal by virtue of the day they were born.

jamesd

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I'm assuming you don't know how much of this £50 billion would be the 'loss' to NI - as you are suggesting I find out.

I've previously read the relevant figures. It's how I know that HMRC provides them. I mentioned HMRC to make your searching easier.

Twopints

slightlymiffed wrote: »

'Improve the quality of my future responses'? How pompous.

How well-deserved.

GunJack

saver861 wrote: »

I expect for most it is only part of their planning ....



Why would any notice be necessary on that basis?

Financial planning is just that ... creating a numerical model. On the basis of having a pension at a certain age, that model will produce a number. If the SPA gets changed, people will need a certain period of time to make the alterations necessary to adopt to the new circumstances.

Some will have built in extra resilience such that a change to SPA would have minimum impact. Others will have to meet unexpected circumstances, such has job loss, health issues, etc etc.

Each persons circumstances are individual but I think you are off the mark by saying 6 years or less is an acceptable notice period to SPA. Your personal circumstances might fit that model, but the government has to cater for the majority. The DWP themselves state 10 years as an acceptable notice period.

ok, but if you are under SPA and lose your job, you claim benefits, same if you can't work due to ill-health - both bridge the gap between the event and SPA, so does it matter if the SPA has moved out 1,2,5,10 yrs? That's the bit I'm struggling to get, as I said earlier, if the SPA was being reduced, different kettle of fish...

slightlymiffed

jamesd wrote: »

I've previously read the relevant figures. It's how I know that HMRC provides them.

I actually liked your little secret jamesd.

Not being as clever as you, is this the HMRC document to which you referred? I am not able to extract the total NI from this. Can you help?

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/503200/PEN6__2001-02_to_2014-15___for_publication.pdf

mgdavid

mumps wrote: »

Yes that is it. My point isn't really about if people were interested or not at the time but that people always go on about the fairness and equality but seem to forget there were other inequalities.

........

Yes. If the man died the wife got extra benefits.
Another example of pro-woman gender discrimination, needs to be stopped.
Prioritisation will have been done at some ministry level no doubt.
It will all be equal and fair eventually.

mumps

mgdavid wrote: »

Yes. If the man died the wife got extra benefits.
Another example of pro-woman gender discrimination, needs to be stopped.
Prioritisation will have been done at some ministry level no doubt.
It will all be equal and fair eventually.

No the man got protection for his family by virtue of his NI contributions, if a woman wanted to protect her family it cost alot of money.

Irresponsible people would look at it one way, as a responsible adult I wanted the protection for my family and paid the money.

slightlymiffed

mumps wrote: »

No the man got protection for his family by virtue of his NI contributions, if a woman wanted to protect her family it cost alot of money.

Irresponsible people would look at it one way, as a responsible adult I wanted the protection for my family and paid the money.

I couldn't agree more mumps.

Sadly, some of those that post on these forums will not listen to reason and sense and are determined to push their own agendas. It may be that, because this thread has been posted on the Pensions, Annuities and Retirement Planning board, it is only realistic that it would have a heavy bias in favour of views from pensions and financial advisors and tax planners. Such a shame then that the very tiny minority of such advisors who post here and are most strident in their condemnation of a group of ordinary 1950's women, are merely tarnishing their whole industry's reputation.

With over 13,000 views on this thread alone, there is hope that most moderate, fair minded people will be able to see the injustice to some 1950's women who have worked and paid into a system which moved the goalposts at a time in their lives when they had little or no opportunity to do anything about it. Frankly, it's just heartless.

I'm neither expecting any further answers from jamesd about lost NI from pensions tax relief nor any further extracts from research papers or Hansard. In fact, I'm hoping that this discussion ends here.

When some fair and reasonable resolution to this injustice is found, all the smearing, sneering, derision and insults some women have had to endure, may seem worth it.

Pollycat

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I couldn't agree more mumps.

Sadly, some of those that post on these forums will not listen to reason and sense and are determined to push their own agendas.

I don't have an agenda.
I just have an opinion.
It differs from yours.
It's not an agenda.
I could say that it's you who will not listen to reason or sense.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

It may be that, because this thread has been posted on the Pensions, Annuities and Retirement Planning board, it is only realistic that it would have a heavy bias in favour of views from pensions and financial advisors and tax planners. Such a shame then that the very tiny minority of such advisors who post here and are most strident in their condemnation of a group of ordinary 1950's women, are merely tarnishing their whole industry's reputation.

I don't see that any pension/financial advisor who posts in condemnation of 'a group of ordinary 1950s women - of which I am one, I will remind you - are 'tarnishing their whole industry's reputation'.
You think that because they are not in agreement with your opinion.
It doesn't make you right and them wrong.
Most of the people I assume you mean are critical of the 2011 Act.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

With over 13,000 views on this thread alone, there is hope that most moderate, fair minded people will be able to see the injustice to some 1950's women who have worked and paid into a system which moved the goalposts at a time in their lives when they had little or no opportunity to do anything about it. Frankly, it's just heartless.

This is just one of a number of threads on this issue.
Search for WASPI.
There's one thread with over 1000 replies and almost 40k views.
Surprise! Surprise! The opinions expressed in all of them is pretty much the same as this thread.

I think - as do a lot of people posting on here, including quite a few 1950s women - that there has been an injustice in the 2011 Act.
Do you have any proposals to resolve the issue?

slightlymiffed wrote: »

When some fair and reasonable resolution to this injustice is found, all the smearing, sneering, derision and insults some women have had to endure, may seem worth it.

Do you think there is any possibility that a fair and reasonable resolution to this injustice will be found?