WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

Pollycat

Archi_Bald wrote: »

I have watched that program. The featured WASPI women all seem to have / have had jobs that provide them with a final salary pension. Not a mention of that - shame on the Rip Off Britain team.

No mention either of who would pay for these WASPI. Not one word about the taxpayer being ripped off if WASPI got their way. More shame on the Rip Off Britain team.

And shame on the MPs who believed some of the things these WASPI women told them and regurgitated them during the debates in Parliament.

Someone I know insists on telling people that she won't get her state pension until she's 65.
I know for a fact she'll get it at 64 years and 6 months and some days.
These are the sorts of things WASPI women told their MPs to make their circumstances out to be worse than they actually are.

robin61

Pollycat wrote: »

Link:
http://www.waspi.co.uk/action

Apparently, according to the Derby Telegraph, they have Jeremy Corbyn's backing.

He's never been one to turn down a good placard carrying opportunity. Maybe he will do us another one of his protest videos.

Silvertabby

“ Any woman who really believes she can 'retire' at 60 can't have worked (outside the home) for at least the last 20 years, so where does 'retirement' come into it?

Save

Originally posted by Silvertabby ”
I 'retired' at age 50 after working full-time for over 33 years.

I didn't expect to get my state pension at 60, unlike some of these women - it's state pension age we're talking about, not 'retirement'.

Pollycat - yes, I know, I was just following the theme. I have just retired at 60, and have known since 1995 that I wouldn't get my State pension then (originally 65, now 66)

jamesd

cbsexec wrote: »

I am still working but dont wish to defer my state pension just to get a bit extra and now cant defer to get a lump sum payment. If I take my pension I will incur tax - interest rates are low so what are my options? If any. I am not in higher rate tax bracket or anything exciting.

Tax is a fact of life but you can reduce it by using the extra income to make pension contributions. Then you can later take the money out of the pension and 25% of what you take out will be tax free. Not 100% elimination of the tax but 25% of it gone beats none gone.

The gross value of pension contributions you can make is limited to £40,000 a year or your earned income, whichever is lower. If earned income is higher you can use carry-forward of unused allowance from the past three years.

If appropriate for you it's also possible to use VCTs to reduce the tax cost. I rather like the Albion VCT (AAVC) because it's relatively low risk as VCTs go, being invested in asset-backed things like hotels, care homes, schools and green energy projects. you get tax relief from HMRC of 30% of your purchase price and after allowing for that this one pays about 10% tax exempt a year in two chunks. You have to hold for five years or repay the tax relief. In effect it's deferring a bit of the income for five years until you can sell. If you have a lot of money in savings and investments it's possible to use this to mostly eliminate the income tax liability on your whole income and that's what I'm doing. But it does need to only be an appropriate portion of your total investments.

bigfreddiel

There is no retirement age. There hasn't been for for many years, is that where the waspis are going wrong? fj

Archi_Bald

bigfreddiel wrote: »

There is no retirement age. There hasn't been for for many years, is that where the waspis are going wrong? fj

As far as I can see, they are just clinging to the fact that Government didn't send them any personal letters in 1995 to notify them of the increase. The other fact that there is no legal obligation to notify anyone by personal letter when a law changes doesn't seem to matter to them.

How they could miss it in the news or in the workplace is a mystery to me. I remember meetings at work with women moaning that they now need to wait for their state pension as long as us blokes! This went on over quite a few months.

How they could "plan" to retire without regularly reviewing their likely income from around their mid forties or early fifties is even more of a mystery.

Mortgagefreeman

Archi_Bald wrote: »

How they could "plan" to retire without regularly reviewing their likely income from around their mid forties or early fifties is even more of a mystery.

They were hoping that others (Taxpayers) would finance their retirements for them. The Campaigns losing momentum and they're getting no Press coverage in the MSM.

atush

Mortgagefreeman wrote: »

I expect she's also confident of wining the lotto rollover tonight.:D

She should know better.

atush

As far as I can see, they are just clinging to the fact that Government didn't send them any personal letters in 1995 to notify them of the increase.

And if they had, what % would have read them? Less than 20% i would have thought.

I am affected, I didnt get a letter, but i did know about it. Because, i watch the news, and i read newspapers.

badmemory

I just wish they would stop embarrassing themselves. They were either totally lacking in interest in what was going on or they are lying about it. Both causes for their embarrassment. I even remember a discussion in a hairdressers where the hairdresser put a client right on her retirement date.