WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

mumps

GibbsRule_No3 wrote: »

When I started work in 1971 I was not given a choice (luckily), and was put into a Final Salary pension whether I wanted it or not. I was 17 and knew nothing about what this would mean when I got to 60 (women could retire and get the SP at that age then). All I knew was that I would have had a larger take home pay if I had not been in the scheme but I knew what I would take home each month and if I wanted more I could have moved jobs. As time went on and I got nearer to retirement and started taking notice, I planned how to use this pension until the SP kicked in, SP then shifted again, so I am still working three days a week and it is working for me, due to contracted out segment but now I can make up a bit more SP, so I will win financially and three days feels like semi-retirement. It does amaze me that everyone was not put into pensions though, as I agree, people won't necessarily pay money into anything unless they can "see" what they gain when they want things "now".

I am the same generation and I had to join our pension scheme (police force) people have a choice now and some choose not to. I can remember times when I would have taken the money when the children were young and after childcare I didn't have much left but I'm glad now that I wasn't able to do that.

I suppose the argument is that as an adult you should be free to choose but then some people don't make good choices.

Malthusian

Jackieboy wrote: »

And my mother had her application turned down 30 years ago.

Mind you, as she was only just over 70 and with all marbles fully functioning I would no more have done the application for her than she would've dreamed of appealing when turned down. We didn't "do" benefits in my family.

It is standard practice for any kind of health-related benefit to turn almost everybody down who applies. Then they look at those who appeal. If you are not prepared to appeal then there is no point applying in the first place.

(I realise this is moot for you but it is important that people are aware of the general point.)

Jackieboy

OldBeanz wrote: »

I don't think we can pick on this generation. What were the WASPI generation doing about pensions? Also how often do we have fire fighters, policemen and NHS staff on here asking whether they should give up their FS pensions, never mind teachers who really should understand. Should people start pensions in their twenties or wait to get the better tax relief in later years. Ignoring what is going to happen in 40/50 years and that something will work out is not unique to this generation.

Why should teachers understand pensions any more than other public sector workers?

Pollycat

Malthusian wrote: »

It is standard practice for any kind of health-related benefit to turn almost everybody down who applies. Then they look at those who appeal. If you are not prepared to appeal then there is no point applying in the first place.

(I realise this is moot for you but it is important that people are aware of the general point.)

I was totally convinced that they rejected my Mum's AA claim without reading it.

The reasons for rejection were laughable.

I addressed each point and said many times in the appeal "[FONT=&quot]At Qx the claim form clearly stated" and "[/FONT][FONT=&quot]As explained at Qx of the claim form" etc.

And I also trashed the GP's report.
It appeared to be written by someone who didn't know my Mother (lots of 'don't know' answers) instead of the doctor who'd treated her for 30 years.
[/FONT]

Jackieboy

mumps wrote: »

My mother also had all her marbles and was mid 70s and had never had benefits. Unfortunately her hands were crippled with arthritis so she couldn't hold a pen. I did the appeal as she was entitled to the benefit, opinion of doctor, specialist and eventually the DWP. I can't see the issue with appealing if an incorrect decision has been made.

Presumably your family did "do" benefits, otherwise why did she apply?

My parents were very proud of the fact that neither of them had ever claimed benefits, even through the Depression. They were mortified to find that they had less money coming in than people who had been in and out of work for years so finally succumbed when my mother's OA made it seem necessary. When she was turned down, their reaction was to tell them to stuff it rather than going through the indignity of appealing.

(You did say that you'd been successful in getting AA for your mother which sounded as if you'd actually done the application for her as opposed to filling in the application form for her but in her own words.)

Jackieboy

Malthusian wrote: »

It is standard practice for any kind of health-related benefit to turn almost everybody down who applies. Then they look at those who appeal. If you are not prepared to appeal then there is no point applying in the first place.

(I realise this is moot for you but it is important that people are aware of the general point.)

I'm sure my parents didn't know that and it may not even have been the case at the time, other friends of theirs who also claimed it never mentioned needing to appeal.

My husband's AA application went through without a hitch, even though a DM had to ring us up and query a few things when the application was received.

Pollycat

OldBeanz wrote: »

I am of your generation.
We are all richer now and products tend not to be recycled. My parents had loads of stuff which appeared to last a lifetime which we tend to replace every few years. In real terms much housing furnishing is far cheaper (does anyone sell second hand televisions or rent them) in real terms. Besides how did this generation learn to be like they are?
As for pensions. Most occupational pensions reward those that work for the same employer. Jobs are no longer for life.
I can remember women, pre-marriage, looking forward to the lower NI married rate they could pay despite equal pay and the impact later in life. People who joined the Civil Service but who were going to bail out before 4 years because they could reclaim their pension payments. There was also the stramash when Thatcher stopped the link between pay and pensions. It was obvious in the 1980's that pensions were going to be minimalist (not helped by other later reforms).

We just live in a throw-away society.
Not so much about buying 2nd hand TVs but more about 'having to have' the newest 4D 70" (or whatever) because the 12 month old 3D 55" is no longer 'the newest thing out'.
And forget about paying cash for it, let's put it on credit card that we'll pay the minimum off each month.
A friend of mine's daughter was pushing for an iPhone 7 - at £70 per month contract. She's 16 and obviously still at school.
I've no idea how this generation got to be like they are.
I don't have kids so I've not contributed to it.

molerat

Pollycat wrote: »

I've no idea how this generation got to be like they are. I don't have kids so I've not contributed to it.

I think a lot of us born in the 40s/50s/60s did not want their kids to have to put up with some of the things we had to and some just overdid it, they now expect everything to just appear in front of them just like it did when mum and dad got it for them. I remember a family treat being sharing a mars bar between mum, me and my brother - can you imagine that now !

Malthusian

mumps wrote: »

Good luck, after a career in HR and trying to persuade people that joining the pension scheme is a great idea because the boss contributes and so does the taxman I don't rate your chances.

Your might feel the changes don't discourage people from planning and of course it shouldn't but my experience is that it does.

People don't choose not save into a pension because the government has changed the State Pension Age. They choose not to save into a pension because they're undervaluing their future happiness and they know it. We know they know it because when you ask them why they're not saving into a pension and why they're taking a voluntary pay cut they don't say that they'd rather spend it on iPhones or coffee, they come out with nonsensical non-sequitur reasons like "the government keeps changing the state pension rules".

I don't envy your job attempting to persuade people to save into a pension. If people aren't prepared to value the future then it doesn't matter how persuasive the reasons you give them are, since they all relate to the future. It requires a change in mindset which is unlikely to be accomplished in a meeting with HR.

Silvertabby

People don't choose not save into a pension because the government has changed the State Pension Age. They choose not to save into a pension because they're undervaluing their future happiness and they know it. We know they know it because when you ask them why they're not saving into a pension and why they're taking a voluntary pay cut they don't say that they'd rather spend it on iPhones or coffee, they come out with nonsensical non-sequitur reasons like "the government keeps changing the state pension rules".

I don't envy your job attempting to persuade people to save into a pension. If people aren't prepared to value the future then it doesn't matter how persuasive the reasons you give them are, since they all relate to the future. It requires a change in mindset which is unlikely to be accomplished in a meeting with HR.

Posted by Malthusian

I retired earlier last year, but a chunk of my job as a LGPS administrator was dealing with opt out requests. I can perhaps understand the 5 hour per week dinner ladies, but I'm actually talking about people in their 20s and 30s in full time employment. It was part of my job to ask them why they wanted to opt out, and to point out the benefits they were giving up - but it was mostly a waste of time. Some of the reasons for opting out were corkers - one of my 'favourites' was the chap who reckoned that the LGPS final salary scheme was a rip off because we were charging him £100 per month whilst a stakeholder pension cost just £20 per month. " It's just another council tax - I'm not paying it if I don't have to" was another common one.