WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

molerat

mumps wrote: »

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.

But men had to do it !

mumps

molerat wrote: »

But men had to do it !

Yes but then they had time to plan. No one is saying that is fair but then men's NI gave them protection for their family if they died (widow's pension) but women had to pay privately for that (I did as my death would have left my husband with a big mortgage and children to look after without any support.)

There are anomalies and it is right that they are sorted out but if you want to encourage people to be responsible and plan for the future (which is what we need people to do) then don't change the rules at the last minute. Alot of younger people will tell you it isn't worth planning for retirement because you don't know what will happen.

colsten

mumps wrote: »

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.

Poor health doesn't automatically put people into financial hardship. I fully support all efforts to provide additional help for people in hardship but that's not what WASPI is about. They shamelessly exploit the cases of people in financial hardship for their own publicity purposes but they have never once asked that those people should be given any sort of priority. It's a case of "look how badly she does, therefore I need more money" - it just doesn't wash.

colsten

mumps wrote: »

Alot of younger people will tell you it isn't worth planning for retirement because you don't know what will happen.

That is the worst position they could possibly take and they need to be educated about the need to save as much as they can, as early as they can.

atush

Flog Horse Dead

mumps

colsten wrote: »

That is the worst position they could possibly take and they need to be educated about the need to save as much as they can, as early as they can.

Of course they do but it isn't how alot of them feel.

mumps

colsten wrote: »

Poor health doesn't automatically put people into financial hardship. I fully support all efforts to provide additional help for people in hardship but that's not what WASPI is about. They shamelessly exploit the cases of people in financial hardship for their own publicity purposes but they have never once asked that those people should be given any sort of priority. It's a case of "look how badly she does, therefore I need more money" - it just doesn't wash.

I don't agree with WASPI as they are fighting the first change, most people don't have a case regarding the first change but I do think the second change is different.

Poor health doesn't automatically put people into financial hardship but it doesn't help particularly if you are borderline to start off with. My husband is disabled and had to retire in his 40s but he has a good pension, I had a well paid job till I was 61 and I have a pension and rental income so I do know about health problems and planning for retirement.

Pollycat

mumps wrote: »

I don't agree with WASPI as they are fighting the first change, most people don't have a case regarding the first change but I do think the second change is different.

If WASPI had concentrated on the later change instead of banging on about what happened in 1995, I think they would have had a lot more support and may even have got somewhere with their campaign.

As it is, they were more GRASPI than WASPI and couldn't even agree on what they actually wanted.

Malthusian

mumps wrote: »

Of course they do but it isn't how alot of them feel.

Then they should stop feeling and start thinking. If they choose not to, it's a free country.

The changes to women's State Pension age are an excellent illustration to the young (including me) of why it is important to save for your retirement. The State giveth and the State taketh away again. Blessed be the name of the State. The more you save for yourself, the less it will affect you if the State Pension is taken away to some degree.

I do not take the extreme position of some who assume that there will be no State Pension when they retire. But it is a mathematical fact that the more you have in your own name, the less pain you will feel if government benefits are reduced, delayed or otherwise messed around.

The government changing the rules at the last minute does not discourage people from planning for retirement, it does entirely the opposite.

merrydance

Yes JackieBoy I do have 2 part time jobs actually, what has that to do with living frugually? I know one thing, one of these jobs would be gone now if I had my pension coming. 6 years is a long time to wait. As stated in previous post I have a medical problem at the moment which mean both my jobs are difficult to do. But as stated yesterday I may have a way out, because of my husbands health.