We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions
Options
Comments
-
slightlymiffed wrote: »I think the more important and worrying thing here is that the government are ignoring and deliberately stonewalling a cohort of 1950's born women who have some genuine grievances.
In my opinion Waspi now need to be more realistic with their aims - stop talking about 'compensation' and address the injustice of the 2011 Act.
I do agree that some 1950s born women have genuine grievances but so do men affected by the delays. Catch is finding something that is not gender discriminatory that might help some of the women and men in greatest absolute financial need. There are some not horribly expensive options, including things like trying to help women and men claim the means tested benefits they would be entitled to if willing to work, whether able to or not.
The smaller WASPI2 portion of the five founders of course won't accept anything less than effectively massively discriminating against men by reversing the effect of the earlier Act for the women in their target age range, because they aren't in absolute financial need, just wanting more money than a man of the same background would be getting.
Sadly for Altmann, it seems that she may have blown some of her valuable political capital on a lost cause that at its core would discriminate against men on the basis of their gender.0 -
slightlymiffed wrote: »We all know what information was made available at the time Molerat (not enough) but at least Silvertabby has been upfront and honest here and admitted that she/he had little or no interest in the state pension as she/he had other things on her/his mind.
We are continually told we should have known - it seems that Silvertabby's mum knew back in 1995 but that maybe Silvertabby her/himself may not have done, were it not for her/his mum's concerns.
I'm not a Waspi (or even Waspe) btw so don't do ostracising.
No we all dont know.
What I KNOW is that I heard about the change back in the 90's. Period.0 -
I think that the more important thing here is that the 2011 Act disadvantaged men vs women because a one year increase for a person with a shorter life expectancy - men on average - costs a higher percentage of state pension received. And that the 2011 Act failed to equalise the costs for men and women from the extra delay. Worse still, the reduced delay for women before the Act became law clearly discriminated against men who didn't receive any comparable adjustment in their state pension age. Not really a surprise that a government would not want to risk gender discrimination legal cases by men when it's so clearly discriminated against them in the 2011 Act.
I do agree that some 1950s born women have genuine grievances but so do men affected by the delays. Catch is finding something that is not gender discriminatory that might help some of the women and men in greatest absolute financial need. There are some not horribly expensive options, including things like trying to help women and men claim the means tested benefits they would be entitled to if willing to work, whether able to or not.
The smaller WASPI2 portion of the five founders of course won't accept anything less than effectively massively discriminating against men by reversing the effect of the earlier Act for the women in their target age range, because they aren't in absolute financial need, just wanting more money than a man of the same background would be getting.
Sadly for Altmann, it seems that she may have blown some of her valuable political capital on a lost cause that at its core would discriminate against men on the basis of their gender.
So, it's ok for women (still, now in 2016) to earn up to 33% less than men but that the 2011 Act 'disadvantaged' men? Curious logic. Why don't you crunch some of your numbers and arrive at a figure which shows that a lifetime of earning up to 33% more than a woman would disadvantage men in retirement?
I believe the gap between womens' and mens' life expectancy is already narrowing as men move away from 'hard' industrial to 'softer' jobs and womens' lives become ever more stressful as they juggle jobs/children/childcare and often huge mortgage commitments. Stress can and does manifest itself in many ways and can and does lead to illness and life limiting conditions (depression/heart conditions/cancer) in just such a way as did some of the physically demanding and dangerous industrial jobs that shortened mens' life expectancy in the past.
Do you really believe it would be right for women (or men) to have their state pensions means tested? So, if a woman or man had 45/50 years NI contributions already, she/he would still be expected to jump through DWP hoops to receive a pension she/he had only been denied because of bad legislation/lack of notice?
There seems to be a perception (among some) that 'most women' don't need their pensions and are living some kind of privileged life. Of course, some women will always be better off than others and some don't 'need' their pension in the same way as others but isn't this the case with all the other universal 'pensioner benefits'? I don't see the rush to remove these from the 'rich' - bit of a vote loser that one!! A group of 1950's women though? - blank them/ignore them/denigrate them and trust that they will either go away or retire anyway. Another bad misjudgment by the government.
Seems to me that you are just trying to legitimise the 2011 Act - a very ill thought out and age discriminatory piece of legislation. Why would you be doing this?0 -
slightlymiffed wrote: »We all know what information was made available at the time Molerat (not enough)
Some of us know what Paul Lewis claimed - ie not enough in your opinion - and some of us know what Jo Cumbo later found from her search of national newspapers - ie that there was quite a lot.
Many of us know through personal experience that it was announced by Ken Clarke on live television in 1993 during his Budget speech and was also covered in the TV main news bulletins. Many of us also know from personal experience that they were informed by employers and Public Sector unions - in fact many of those Public Sector employees had pension statements that included the state pension. It is also true that many 1950s women worked for the Public Sector and have PS occupational pensions.
People that say they didn't know about the 1995 Act say they were too busy to watch TV or read newspapers or that they simply weren't interested in pensions in their late 30s or early 40s. I've read posts from people who said they had a forecast in 2004 but it didn't mention an age. When you ask them about the booklet that was enclosed with it which explains the rises to state pension age, you get told "who reads booklets?"
Some people genuinely didn't know but no amount of information would have changed that fact.but at least Silvertabby has been upfront and honest here and admitted that she/he had little or no interest in the state pension as she/he had other things on her/his mind.
If only WASPI would be honest and admit this too.0 -
Some of us know what Paul Lewis claimed - ie not enough in your opinion - and some of us know what Jo Cumbo later found from her search of national newspapers - ie that there was quite a lot.
Many of us know through personal experience that it was announced by Ken Clarke on live television in 1993 during his Budget speech and was also covered in the TV main news bulletins. Many of us also know from personal experience that they were informed by employers and Public Sector unions - in fact many of those Public Sector employees had pension statements that included the state pension. It is also true that many 1950s women worked for the Public Sector and have PS occupational pensions.
People that say they didn't know about the 1995 Act say they were too busy to watch TV or read newspapers or that they simply weren't interested in pensions in their late 30s or early 40s. I've read posts from people who said they had a forecast in 2004 but it didn't mention an age. When you ask them about the booklet that was enclosed with it which explains the rises to state pension age, you get told "who reads booklets?"
Some people genuinely didn't know but no amount of information would have changed that fact.
If only WASPI would be honest and admit this too.
Not again!...It's all here:-
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmworpen/899/899.pdf
But this is the relevant section
1995–2009: information on request
11. Until 2009, direct communication with people affected by increases in state pension age was very limited. Leaflets explaining the changes were available from the Benefits Agency from 1995 and accompanied any state pension forecasts that were requested. The Department told us that 11.5 million state pension statements have been issued on request since April 2000. These included the date (but until recently, not the age) at which the individual was due to reach state pension age under the legislation at that point. Between 2001 and 2004 the DWP ran a broad pensions education campaign which incorporated state pension age equalisation: The pensions education campaign ran in waves and used TV and press advertising, and direct marketing. One of the press adverts in 2004 was specifically about the equalisation of State Pension age and was featured in women’s magazines and national newspaper supplements.
12. Between 2004 and 2006, the Department issued around 16 million unprompted letters, known as Automatic Pension Forecasts, projecting state pension entitlements, including to women aged over 50. This forecast did not include any details of state pension age, or mention that state pension age was changing.
So, unless you (like me) had had communication from HMRC/DWP (in my case about NI contribution shortfalls) which prompted my own pension forecast request, you probably wouldn't have known. Relying on women catching a random infomercial on TV or happening upon an advert in an (unspecified) magazine or newspaper is, in my opinion, very misguided. I don't like the awful purple Workie monster adverts but at least you can't say you haven't seen them. No-one, to my knowledge has detailed which newspapers/magazines nor which TV channels this vital and life-changing information was featured on/in.
Even if you had seen any of these, you still would NOT have known how the 1995 Act would affect you personally - i.e. your new state pension age. You would have still have had to contact DWP or popped into your local Benefits Office (as you'd do of course!)
But Jem16, I am confused by your statement:
"When you ask them about the booklet that was enclosed with it which explains the rises to state pension age, you get told "who reads booklets?"
Some people genuinely didn't know but no amount of information would have changed that fact."
Have you had personal dialogue with Waspi women? Where? How did you arrive at the conclusion that some women (in your opinion) could not assimilate knowledge given in a correct manner and delivered to them directly?
I think this may be more prejudice on your part than dishonesty on some Waspi womens' part.
But let's move on from 1995 now - although not a Waspi, I am honest and have repeatedly admitted that I knew so how about the 2011 Act Jem16 - do you consider that this was fair?0 -
slightlymiffed wrote: »Not again!...It's all here:-
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmselect/cmworpen/899/899.pdf
Not again! to quote your own phrase.
There is no legal obligation to notify anyone personally by letter of UK law changes as you well know.These included the date (but until recently, not the age) at which the individual was due to reach state pension age under the legislation at that point.
Are you suggesting that someone could not work out their age from two given dates? Surely not.Between 2004 and 2006, the Department issued around 16 million unprompted letters, known as Automatic Pension Forecasts, projecting state pension entitlements, including to women aged over 50. This forecast did not include any details of state pension age, or mention that state pension age was changing.
No but the enclosed booklet did. The booklet also suggested that you get a state pension forecast to obtain exact details.So, unless you (like me) had had communication from HMRC/DWP (in my case about NI contribution shortfalls) which prompted my own pension forecast request, you probably wouldn't have known.
Or then again, for the reason I gave above, you could well have known.Relying on women catching a random infomercial on TV or happening upon an advert in an (unspecified) magazine or newspaper is, in my opinion, very misguided. I don't like the awful purple Workie monster adverts but at least you can't say you haven't seen them. No-one, to my knowledge has detailed which newspapers/magazines nor which TV channels this vital and life-changing information was featured on/in.
What I saw was hardly random - it was headline news on both TV and newspapers. Many were also informed by employers and unions.
Very difficult to detail everywhere it was shown or mentioned given that it was 1995 and most records are not digitised. However Jo Cumbo has found over 600 entries in newspapers and this evidence was provided to the WPSC.Even if you had seen any of these, you still would NOT have known how the 1995 Act would affect you personally - i.e. your new state pension age. You would have still have had to contact DWP or popped into your local Benefits Office (as you'd do of course!)
In my case you would as anyone born after 1955 had their spa increased to 65. It was only those born between 1950 and 1955 where it was a sliding scale.
Question is though - why would you not make an effort to contact the DWP if you knew you would be affected having seen something that said you might? Surely anyone planning on how to live in retirement would do exactly that?Have you had personal dialogue with Waspi women? Where? How did you arrive at the conclusion that some women (in your opinion) could not assimilate knowledge given in a correct manner and delivered to them directly?
I have had numerous personal dialogues with WASPI women. In an effort to understand I have discussed letters and forecasts with them. Several have shown me the letter that they received which they said did not tell them that their state pension age was changing. In this letter it clearly stated that further information was to be found in the enclosed booklet. When asked about the booklet they either said they didn't get one or that they didn't read it. I have even seen one letter where it clearly stated the retirement date even though the person said she didn't know it.
So what conclusion do you think I should reach from the above?I think this may be more prejudice on your part than dishonesty on some Waspi womens' part.
It is certainly not prejudice but a simple fact that some people do not always take in what they read or understand what they read even though others may find it perfectly clear.
I have never suggested dishonesty in any shape or form so I have no idea where this comes from.But let's move on from 1995 now - although not a Waspi, I am honest and have repeatedly admitted that I knew so how about the 2011 Act Jem16 - do you consider that this was fair?
I think you know the answer to that already from my previous posts.0 -
Some of us know what Paul Lewis claimed - ie not enough in your opinion - and some of us know what Jo Cumbo later found from her search of national newspapers - ie that there was quite a lot.
Many of us know through personal experience that it was announced by Ken Clarke on live television in 1993 during his Budget speech and was also covered in the TV main news bulletins. Many of us also know from personal experience that they were informed by employers and Public Sector unions - in fact many of those Public Sector employees had pension statements that included the state pension. It is also true that many 1950s women worked for the Public Sector and have PS occupational pensions.
People that say they didn't know about the 1995 Act say they were too busy to watch TV or read newspapers or that they simply weren't interested in pensions in their late 30s or early 40s. I've read posts from people who said they had a forecast in 2004 but it didn't mention an age. When you ask them about the booklet that was enclosed with it which explains the rises to state pension age, you get told "who reads booklets?"
Some people genuinely didn't know but no amount of information would have changed that fact.
If only WASPI would be honest and admit this too.
Oh dear, you mentioned the Budget - you must have been an intellectual or finance professional to have watched that!;)0 -
missbiggles1 wrote: »Oh dear, you mentioned the Budget - you must have been an intellectual or finance professional to have watched that!;)
There should have been a plotline on east Enders or coronation street, headlines on take a break and hello magazines etc etc0 -
Not again! to quote your own phrase.
There is no legal obligation to notify anyone personally by letter of UK law changes as you well know.
Are you suggesting that someone could not work out their age from two given dates? Surely not.
No but the enclosed booklet did. The booklet also suggested that you get a state pension forecast to obtain exact details.
Or then again, for the reason I gave above, you could well have known.
What I saw was hardly random - it was headline news on both TV and newspapers. Many were also informed by employers and unions.
Very difficult to detail everywhere it was shown or mentioned given that it was 1995 and most records are not digitised. However Jo Cumbo has found over 600 entries in newspapers and this evidence was provided to the WPSC.
In my case you would as anyone born after 1955 had their spa increased to 65. It was only those born between 1950 and 1955 where it was a sliding scale.
Question is though - why would you not make an effort to contact the DWP if you knew you would be affected having seen something that said you might? Surely anyone planning on how to live in retirement would do exactly that?
I have had numerous personal dialogues with WASPI women. In an effort to understand I have discussed letters and forecasts with them. Several have shown me the letter that they received which they said did not tell them that their state pension age was changing. In this letter it clearly stated that further information was to be found in the enclosed booklet. When asked about the booklet they either said they didn't get one or that they didn't read it. I have even seen one letter where it clearly stated the retirement date even though the person said she didn't know it.
So what conclusion do you think I should reach from the above?
It is certainly not prejudice but a simple fact that some people do not always take in what they read or understand what they read even though others may find it perfectly clear.
I have never suggested dishonesty in any shape or form so I have no idea where this comes from.
I think you know the answer to that already from my previous posts.
It surprises me that you have had numerous discussions with Waspi women, given your antagonistic views. So it seems either, that you work/worked in the pensions industry or you are a know-it-all! ;)If the former, it would not be unreasonable then for you to be fully conversant with pensions law. If I were a farmer/producer, I would no doubt be fully conversant with EU legislation and farming regulations. Horses for courses and all that.
That said, we are all responsible for our own lives and we should be more pro-active in protecting our futures. However, this whole womens' state pension age debacle has opened my eyes...There are some seriously determined (mostly 1960's born women) with a rottweiler mentality who will not let go of their Waspi 'prey'. They troll and snoop and smear and insult - it's very disquieting. I am not saying you are one of them Jem16 btw.
"If only WASPI would be honest and admit this too." - implication that they are not honest? I thought so.
Finally, I do know yours and indeed most forum members' views on the 2011 Act - you have conceded that it was unfair. We can at least agree on something then! :T As a summer 1954 born, I do feel aggrieved at the lack of notice and the additional, and entirely random method of acceleration. It is a complete mess.
Move on!0 -
I think you may be omitting to mention that you yourself probably worked in the pensions industry and so would doubtless have raised the issue to your family in the first place!
Silvertabby was quite open about the employment background which enabled her to make informed comments on the subject of pensions.
See post 3 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71167055#Comment_71167055Well...this is interesting. A 'newcomer' who is already giving pensions advice (on other threads) and who clearly remembers his/her poor dying mother's concerns in 1995 about her childrens' state pension age changes.
What gratuitous discourtesy!
And I may say that I can clearly remember some comments made by my dear dad when he too was very ill (in fact dying, though neither my mother or I realised it) and this was more than thirty years ago.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 598.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards