WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

PensionTech

Are they trying to save on postage costs by sending them now, instead of 2021? Just don't move house between 2017 - 2021

I'm just glad you didn't notice I said they were raising the state pension age to 28 in 2044...

mumps

The staggering of the pension changes is pretty sharp for some. Someone who is 1 year older than me got their pension at 62 years 5 months, I get mine at 64 years 9 months. Someone 3 months less a day younger than me gets their pension at the same age as me. On the first set of changes, I have no problem with them, I would be getting my SRP this month but I have another 18 months to go.

I would be interested the ages of women dismissing the problems for women born in say 1953/54. I suspect they mainly fall into two groups the first being women who got their pension at 60 and the second being women who are much younger and have plenty of time to prepare.

I retired 2 years ago but I do feel sorry for friends who can't afford that and didn't have enough time to plan for the changes.

mumps

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I was one of the last women to get my State Pension at 60, being born in January 1950.

Nevertheless, although it didn't affect me, I did know about the changes in legislation through watching /reading the news and taking an interest in the budget.

I don't really understand how people could not have known. The change was announced was over 20 years ago!!

It isn't just about knowing, it is also about having time to prepare for the changes. Women of my age were making plans for the change, in my case 3 years, when suddenly another 18 months was added on. I agree that there is no case for moaning about the first and for younger women they have time to plan for the second change but for a certain group of women, basically 1953 and 1954 women I think, the second change was unfair.

Jackieboy

mumps wrote: »

The staggering of the pension changes is pretty sharp for some. Someone who is 1 year older than me got their pension at 62 years 5 months, I get mine at 64 years 9 months. Someone 3 months less a day younger than me gets their pension at the same age as me. On the first set of changes, I have no problem with them, I would be getting my SRP this month but I have another 18 months to go.

I would be interested the ages of women dismissing the problems for women born in say 1953/54. I suspect they mainly fall into two groups the first being women who got their pension at 60 and the second being women who are much younger and have plenty of time to prepare.

I retired 2 years ago but I do feel sorry for friends who can't afford that and didn't have enough time to plan for the changes.

I'm in the category of women who were affected by the 1995 changes but not those later. My lack of sympathy is wholly with those who claim to have had no knowledge of the original changes.

I have a friend (born in 1955) who's in this situation and we've had several arguments on the subject -if she were complaining about the later changes I'd obviously be sympathetic but she loses this when she claims to have no knowledge of the announcements in 1993/1995.

mumps

Jackieboy wrote: »

I'm in the category of women who were affected by the 1995 changes but not those later. My lack of sympathy is wholly with those who claim to have had no knowledge of the original changes.

I have a friend (born in 1955) who's in this situation and we've had several arguments on the subject -if she were complaining about the later changes I'd obviously be sympathetic but she loses this when she claims to have no knowledge of the announcements in 1993/1995.

They just muddy the waters for women who were seriously affected by the two changes coming together. I think some people encourage them because it makes it easier to dismiss genuine concerns.

In my case if I was a day older I could get my SRP 4 months earlier. Someone born 30 days younger than me can retire the same day as me and someone who is 2 months less a day younger than me will be 4 months older than me when they get to SRP age and if they are a day older then they have to be six months older than me. I think it is bizarre. If you play around with dates on the government site it is quite interesting.

molerat

The only people I have the slightest sympathy for is those that early retired before the 2011 changes were announced (i.e. me and MrsM, yes men are affected) because by then plans were set in stone and will have to somehow fund the gap. Are we bitter, no. We retired in 2009 with me at 55 and our plans were robust enough to cope with a delay of 6 months for me and 13 months for MrsM. Those that were still working just have to put off retiring a bit longer or fund the gap themselves.

colsten

mumps wrote: »

I would be interested the ages of women dismissing the problems for women born in say 1953/54. I suspect they mainly fall into two groups the first being women who got their pension at 60 and the second being women who are much younger and have plenty of time to prepare.

I am one of those who had 18 months added on by the 2011 pensions act.

Do I like it? Not particularly but I have accepted it because I understand the reasons behind it.

Does it put me in financial hardship? No it doesn't as I decided back in the 1980s that I wouldn't/couldn't rely on my state pension in any way.

Do I think nobody else suffers financial hardship before they reach their state pension age? No, I don't think that. Men and women could find themselves in that situation, regardless of when they were born. It is not limited to women, and definitely not to 1950s women.

Am I the only one thinking so? No, I know plenty of others in the roughly the same kind of circumstances who share my views on this.

Do I support WASPI? I most certainly do not as they are making ridiculous claims and should be ashamed of themselves and their selfishness.

colsten

OldBeanz wrote: »

Another point to note is that women (and men) who were born in 1960 could still have their pensions increased this year as well because the Government are undertaking a review of the retirement age.

The review currently underway specifically excludes existing state pension arrangements up to 2028. That means 1960's people should be safe on max 66 and 9 months.

mumps

colsten wrote: »

I am one of those who had 18 months added on by the 2011 pensions act.

Do I like it? Not particularly but I have accepted it because I understand the reasons behind it.

Does it put me in financial hardship? No it doesn't as I decided back in the 1980s that I wouldn't/couldn't rely on my state pension in any way.

Do I think nobody else suffers financial hardship before they reach their state pension age? No, I don't think that. Men and women could find themselves in that situation, regardless of when they were born. It is not limited to women, and definitely not to 1950s women.

Am I the only one thinking so? No, I know plenty of others in the roughly the same kind of circumstances who share my views on this.

Do I support WASPI? I most certainly do not as they are making ridiculous claims and should be ashamed of themselves and their selfishness.

Of course anyone can suffer financial hardship but this was out of their control. I'm not suffering financially as I have a private pension, 2 rental properties and do some consultancy work. I was well paid before I retired but it has been a real blow for some people and I know someone who is in quite poor health and trying to hang on but that 18 months is a long slog.

I do hope that future changes are better planned.

mumps

molerat wrote: »

The only people I have the slightest sympathy for is those that early retired before the 2011 changes were announced (i.e. me and MrsM, yes men are affected) because by then plans were set in stone and will have to somehow fund the gap. Are we bitter, no. We retired in 2009 with me at 55 and our plans were robust enough to cope with a delay of 6 months for me and 13 months for MrsM. Those that were still working just have to put off retiring a bit longer or fund the gap themselves.

Yes they can put off retiring but I have more sympathy for them than people who retired early. If you have had a few years retirement then going back for a few months is probably less of a strain than working an extra 18 months is for someone who has been working for close to 50 years.