WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

slightlymiffed

Pollycat wrote: »

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.


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.


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?


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

It wasn't me who started this thread Pollycat but, in so far as I am very much affected by both Pensions Acts (1995 & 2011), then yes, I do have an agenda. I personally accepted my new SPA set out in the 1995 Act but, to be told in 2012 (with 6 years to that new date) that my SPA had been moved again, was just wrong.

I agree that most of the posters here are critical of the 2011 Act but we keep going round in circles with 'experts' asking ordinary women (like me) disadvantaged by that Act, to come up with solutions and costings.

So...if you haven't already seen this briefing just released by the Pensions Policy Institute, I believe there are one or several options here which might work for some women:-

http://www.pensionspolicyinstitute.org.uk/briefing-notes/briefing-note-83---how-could-the-effect-of-rises-in-spa-be-mitigated-for-the-most-vulnerable

What are your thoughts Pollycat?

greenglide

.... but those options to address the "problem" (whether it is real or not) doesnt address the major problem with them. Are they actually deliverable in a timescale that works to give some kind of mitigation?

Considering that they would, I assume, require primary legislation and then require changes to IT systems to actually calculate and make the payments. The vast majority of the people "disadvantaged" would be in receipt of the State Pension by the time the IT was in place which would be a bit late, wouldnt it?

slightlymiffed

greenglide wrote: »

.... but those options to address the "problem" (whether it is real or not) doesnt address the major problem with them. Are they actually deliverable in a timescale that works to give some kind of mitigation?

Considering that they would, I assume, require primary legislation and then require changes to IT systems to actually calculate and make the payments. The vast majority of the people "disadvantaged" would be in receipt of the State Pension by the time the IT was in place which would be a bit late, wouldnt it?

You 'assume'? Why does it have to be primary legislation?

As I am not due to receive my pension until 2020, I think there is time enough for some.

The Pensions Policy Institute clearly believes so.

BLB53

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

Maybe some projection...?

The time to have engaged with this issue was 2010/11 when the proposals were being discussed in Parliament by our elected representatives. Maybe if enough people who would be adversely affected by the proposals had stood up and campaigned against the unfairness at the time, some changes could have been made.

But going on and on...and on, well after the legislation has been passed and implemented is a waste of time and is unlikely to change anything - especially on an online forum like this. It only serves to maybe help those affected feel a little better by airing their feelings.

Far too many people seem to leave the politicians to just get on with things and then when its far too late and they realise they will be directly affected, kick up a fuss.

Take an interest in what is in the pipeline, keep informed, lobby your MP when it can make a difference, join a lobby group, take to the streets - politics and democracy are far too important to be left to politicians.

slightlymiffed

BLB53 wrote: »

Maybe some projection...?

The time to have engaged with this issue was 2010/11 when the proposals were being discussed in Parliament by our elected representatives. Maybe if enough people who would be adversely affected by the proposals had stood up and campaigned against the unfairness at the time, some changes could have been made.

But going on and on...and on, well after the legislation has been passed and implemented is a waste of time and is unlikely to change anything - especially on an online forum like this. It only serves to maybe help those affected feel a little better by airing their feelings.

Far too many people seem to leave the politicians to just get on with things and then when its far too late and they realise they will be directly affected, kick up a fuss.

Take an interest in what is in the pipeline, keep informed, lobby your MP when it can make a difference, join a lobby group, take to the streets - politics and democracy are far too important to be left to politicians.

This is all good advice BLB53 but, back in 2011, many/most women were still unaware that their pension age had been changed by the previous Pensions Act 1995 and so would be unlikely to be looking out for a further escalation of their SPA. Some women, supported by some MP's and Ros Altmann, did campaign at the time and eventually a £1 billion 'concession' to reduce the maximum (2nd) increase in SPA to 18 months was allowed.

If you Google 'Waspi' - you will see that 1950's women have now become engaged and angry and will not give up, however hard politicians try to ignore them.

Former Pensions Minister, Ros Altmann, shockingly revealed on BBC Radio London last week that she had been 'silenced and gagged' over the Waspi issue and told not to engage. This doesn't sound like any kind of democracy to me.

Pollycat

slightlymiffed
I think the briefing paper is interesting, especially the headline

How could the effect of rises in SPa be mitigated for the most vulnerable?

A number of regular posters on WASPI threads have expressed support for those women in financial difficulties through being unable to continue working because of illness or carer responsibilities.

I was surprised therefore to read (proposal #1)

Allowing people with more than 45 years of NI contribu-tions to receive their State Pen-sion early unreduced.

Does this mean everyone in this category or just the vulnerable ones?
If it means everybody, then the briefing paper title is misleading.

Proposal #3 doesn't seem to apply to 'vulnerable people' only.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

This is all good advice BLB53 but, back in 2011, many/most women were still unaware that their pension age had been changed by the previous Pensions Act 1995 and so would be unlikely to be looking out for a further escalation of their SPA.

Do you have anything to back this up or is it just a WASPI allegation?

Thrugelmir

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Former Pensions Minister, Ros Altmann, shockingly revealed on BBC Radio 5 Live last week that she had been 'silenced and gagged' over the Waspi issue and told not to engage. This doesn't sound like any kind of democracy to me.

Remember how she was personally treated.......

Baroness Altmann told the Telegraph that she has faced a sustained hate campaign from the Women Against State Pension Inequality (WASPI) campaign since she became a minister in the Department of Work and Pensions last year.

She said she was the victim of “incessant tweets and emails, trolling, insults and many swear words” after the campaign gave out her email address to thousands of their angry supporters.
“These women have emailed me horrid and vile messages, such as hoping I get struck down with cancer, that I’m a traitor, a turncoat and that I’ve sold my soul to the devil.”

That's the trouble with selective quoting. Paints a very misleading picture. God knows why anybody would now wish to hold public office. Given the abusive nature of society when it comes to single issue topics. One issue cannot be singled out in isolation.

slightlymiffed

As we have been continually told that we must have 'breezed through life not noticing'....it is worrying that Kate Smith, head of pensions at Aegon, a major pension provider, still thinks women currently expect to retire at 63 and that 'Over the next four years women’s state pension age will be increased to 65'.

And, for all you guys who believe we should have 'made adequate provision' for another 18 months till our SPA, it is revealing that research done by Aegon suggests that the average woman has £20,000 in pensions by the time she reaches retirement, less than half the £52,500 men living in the UK have saved.

So - quick calculation here...£20,000 would buy the average woman an annuity of....well, pretty much zilch really I think.

http://www.yourmoney.com/retirement/women-fail-close-gender-pension-gap/

mystic_trev

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Former Pensions Minister, Ros Altmann, shockingly revealed on BBC Radio 5 Live last week that she had been 'silenced and gagged' over the Waspi issue and told not to engage. This doesn't sound like any kind of democracy to me.

Link please.

Pollycat

slightlymiffed wrote: »

As we have been continually told that we must have 'breezed through life not noticing'....it is worrying that Kate Smith, head of pensions at Aegon, a major pension provider, still thinks women currently expect to retire at 63 and that 'Over the next four years women’s state pension age will be increased to 65'.

Is that what she's actually said?

Kate Smith, head of pensions at Aegon, said: “Despite encouraging signs for women, the truth is that their expectations are simply not lining up with reality. The value of women’s pension pots is well under half of their male counterparts but they currently expect to retire aged 63, a year earlier than men. This target retirement age comes against a backdrop of an increasing state pension age for women.
“Over the next four years women’s state pension age will be increased to 65. With this in mind, they’ll need to fund an additional two years of retirement from an inadequate pension pot before the state pension kicks in, unless other income, such as their partner’s salary or retirement savings is available.”

Could she be talking about retirement age i.e. the age they stop working (which could be any age at all) rather than the age their state pension will be paid?

It sounds strange that she says the above which would make a man's state pension age 64 years - which it has never been.