WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

missbiggles1

Pennylane wrote: »

No I'm not James, I know there are male carers but in the main that burden falls on women and often women of my age. I care for two family members and of course you can only claim one carers allowance. So I get the princely sum of £62 a week for all that and precious little time to myself but I would much rather be working, socialising and earning a darn sight more money. I have no choice!

Had I got my pension this July like my friend who is just 6 months older than me it would have made a terrific difference to me. Had I got it at 60, which I always believed I would, that would have been even better! As it is I have to wait until July 2018. . Of course I'd still be a carer but I'd be a lot better off. I have 43 years NI contributions.

If your only income is CA, you should be claiming Income Support to top it up.

Pennylane

jamesd wrote: »

Good to read that you're getting it and of course I agree that the circumstances that leave two family members in need and you deprived are unfortunate and undesirable.

Glad about the 43 years but unfortunately I don't agree about the state pension since a man doing the same thing wouldn't get theirs either. But what do do about carers in your situation isn't something that I think should depend on the state pension system either, for men or women, since it needs to work for carers of any age - it's the caring aspect that I think is broken.

I agree about male carers but with regard to pensions, men knew all about retiring at 65. I was always told I'd retire at 60. That was then changed to 62.5 and now it's 65. Many of us had no chance to prepare and I know you'll all start stamping your feet and say we were told about this .... Many of us weren't and the DWP have actually admitted that they didn't inform women properly.

THe only letter I ever received telling me of the date I would receive my state pension was in response to a request I made asking for this date .... And only after hearing about this on the radio one lunchtime.

We also want fairness and consistency. It's just not right that being born a few months later than another woman and you have to wait 2 YEARS to get your pension. I would have no problem if I was told you are (say) 6 months younger than your friend so you will get your pension 6 months later. That's fair. TWO Years isn't fair and is also a huge amount of money.

Pennylane

OldBeanz wrote: »

I gave up work to care for my father who died during my notice period. I know which position I would rather be in. It is like the old saying of someone crying because they had no shoes realising their luck when meeting someone with no feet.

Maybe you had a good pension from your employment?

Triumph13

Pennylane wrote: »

We also want fairness and consistency. It's just not right that being born a few months later than another woman and you have to wait 2 YEARS to get your pension. I would have no problem if I was told you are (say) 6 months younger than your friend so you will get your pension 6 months later. That's fair. TWO Years isn't fair and is also a huge amount of money.

Whilst I can quite understand how the accelerated timetable of the 2011 act may lead some women to have a perception of 'unfairness' compared to other women, the fundamental fact is that you are both benefitting from unfairness compared to men of the same age.
Your friend just gets to have 18 months (not 2 years as you would always have been 6 months later than her as you're 6 months younger) of extra 'unfairness' compared to how much unfairness you get to benefit from.

jem16

Pennylane wrote: »

I was always told I'd retire at 60.

Were you actually told that in a letter or was it more an assumption as that was what the state pension age was until it started increasing in 2010 as a result of the 1995 Act?

That was then changed to 62.5 and now it's 65.

Where did the 62.5 come from? If it's now 65 for you it would never have been 62.5 as the maximum increase from the 2011 Act was 18 months. There seems to be many mentioning an increase to 62 which appears to be some sort of misunderstanding.

Many of us had no chance to prepare and I know you'll all start stamping your feet and say we were told about this .... Many of us weren't and the DWP have actually admitted that they didn't inform women properly.

We're not saying whether people were told or not as you're talking about personal notification by letter which is not something that happens with Uk laws. What we are saying is that the passing of the Act itself is the notification and that people should be making themselves aware of what is going on in the country that might affect them.

We also want fairness and consistency. It's just not right that being born a few months later than another woman and you have to wait 2 YEARS to get your pension. I would have no problem if I was told you are (say) 6 months younger than your friend so you will get your pension 6 months later. That's fair. TWO Years isn't fair and is also a huge amount of money.

How can you achieve equalisation if the increase is the same across the board? You would never, ever get there.

The 1995 Act was done fairly and with plenty of notice. The 2011 Act then accelerated that increase and this is what has been done unfairly with not enough notice for some in particular. More should have been done to focus on this but I fear that is too late now.

colsten

Pennylane wrote: »

I was always told I'd retire at 60.

Whoever told you that should be held to account.

Pennylane wrote: »

That was then changed to 62.5 and now it's 65.

This doesn't sound right. The maximum increase in the 2011 Act was 18 months, so it's 64 from 62.5. Was the 62.5 correct to start with?

Did you get that information from the same source who told you earlier that your state pension age would be 60? What did your official state pension forecasts give as your state pension age?

jem16

greenglide wrote: »

Strangely people keep ignoring the fact that DWP did a huge exercise around 2004 or so (it was a long time ago and I can't remember the precise days) which sent "unsolicited" pensions forecasts which included details of the female changes to all of the working age population.

Interesting. Was that the Automatic Pension Forecasts - ie APFs that I'm sure I remember reading somewhere? I believe there was also a booklet enclosed with them that explained the changes.

Or was it something else?

I know this as a fact, I was involved in the operation and my wife got one. I didn't as I had received a "combined" forecast with my employers scheme earlier in the year.

Would there not be a record kept of who exactly got one?

jamesd

Pennylane wrote: »

We also want fairness and consistency. It's just not right that being born a few months later than another woman and you have to wait 2 YEARS to get your pension. I would have no problem if I was told you are (say) 6 months younger than your friend so you will get your pension 6 months later. That's fair. TWO Years isn't fair and is also a huge amount of money.

I agree that it's not fair and not right but not in the way you do. The man born on the same day or years earlier can get to wait five years more, not just two. You think two years is too much, just consider how those having to wait five years are feeling!

What we have with at least the WASPI2 is trying to in money terms at least keep that five year gap for two people born even on the same day. That's not a good thing.

Given more time I agree that it would have been nice for women to do this more gradually, but that would have meant starting say five or ten years before the first Act, else it would just continue the too large gap between men and women for longer. Sadly we can't go back and do that now, we're a couple of decades too late.

What's happening isn't perfect but it is finally getting rid of a way too large five year gap between when two people born on the same day get their state pensions.

rpc

Pennylane wrote: »

I was always told I'd retire at 60. That was then changed to 62.5 and now it's 65.

You can retire when you wish. And your personal or occupational pensions are probably available to you at age 55.

My father retired before his state pension age, my mother retired after her (younger) state pension age.

Not everyone has enough financial independence to have that flexibility. But that WASPE campaign isn't (and has never been) about providing protections for those on low incomes who will genuinely suffer hardship as a result of the most recent changes.

Pennylane

jamesd wrote: »

I agree that it's not fair and not right but not in the way you do. The man born on the same day or years earlier can get to wait five years more, not just two. You think two years is too much, just consider how those having to wait five years are feeling!

What we have with at least the WASPI2 is trying to in money terms at least keep that five year gap for two people born even on the same day. That's not a good thing.

Given more time I agree that it would have been nice for women to do this more gradually, but that would have meant starting say five or ten years before the first Act, else it would just continue the too large gap between men and women for longer. Sadly we can't go back and do that now, we're a couple of decades too late.

What's happening isn't perfect but it is finally getting rid of a way too large five year gap between when two people born on the same day get their state pensions.

I've just checked for both man and woman born on my birth date and there is only approx 3 months difference in the dates they get their SP. women getting it earlier.

Men have always known there official state pension age would be 65, women haven't and women born 53/54 have been hit twice.