Campaigners raise £65,000 for legal challenge to women's state pension changes

atush

OldBeanz wrote: »

A lot of mention of women born in the fifties. Women born after April 1962 are having to wait until they are 67 for their pensions and may be affected further by a review in 2017. Waspi ignoring those more impacted fifteen months after their cut-off date.

Well yes, there are many of us so affected, including myself. But A, we read news and B, we were prepared, but C Waspi could have as well but they dont care about anyone other than themselves.

What is scandalous about the pension equalization is Waspi and their ill thought out and discriminatory plans.

colsten

OldBeanz wrote: »

A lot of mention of women born in the fifties. Women born after April 1962 are having to wait until they are 67 for their pensions and may be affected further by a review in 2017. Waspi ignoring those more impacted fifteen months after their cut-off date.

WASPI have put an arbitrary end date of 31/12/59 to the cohort that in their view deserves what they call transitional arrangements. Meaning that you could have twins, one born just before midnight on 31/12/59 and the other one just after midnight on 1/1/60., where the first one would get WASPI transitionals, the second one would get nothing for 6 entire years.

If this sounds ridiculous, it's because it is - the WASPI have not thought their own ideas through. It may have to do with the fact that the registered WASPI Directors were born June 1953 and January 1955

atush wrote: »

What is scandalous about the pension equalization is Waspi and their ill thought out and discriminatory plans.

Couldn't agree more. They think of nobody but themselves. They don't even think about the tax increases and/or the debt they'd lumber their own children with.

What is even more staggering is that MSE seem to have morphed into a 1950s women support group, at the expense of all other age groups and genders.

seven-day-weekend

Pension age rise is inevitable as people live longer. There are always going to be those who feel hard done to.

I am very lucky because I was one of the last to get it at 60 (born January 1950), but for ages before I drew my pension I knew about the changes for those younger than me.

It is a disappointment yes, but surely anyone can see that it is inevitable?

You can keep saying 'but I was promised it would be 60' all you like - that attitude means that no changes can be made without a lifetime's notice!

jamesd

colsten wrote: »

Meaning that you could have twins, one born just before midnight on 31/12/59 and the other one just after midnight on 1/1/60., where the first one would get WASPI transitionals, the second one would get nothing for 6 entire years.

And of course the WASPI2 don't bother to mention that they are advocating a six year difference in state pension for two people born just a second apart, as well as to keep for many the five year difference between two people, one man and one woman, born on the same day had that the 1995 change is reducing.

One-Eye wrote: »

Why not use the current "deferred pension" calculations to allow people (of any gender) to take their state pension at any time from age 60. Under existing rules, pension is increased by 5.8% for every year you delay taking your pension.

Something of that sort might be workable but there are some issues to deal with:

1. It must be for both men and women.
2. It must be genuinely actuarially neutral at an individual level, not relying on cross-subsidy from other pensioners like the fake actuarially neutral proposal that some have advocated, which just passes the cost to others.
3. The state pension amount must not be allowed to drop below the Pension Credit level with some safety margin on top, because the single tier pension is set at a level to achieve that. If it's allowed to go below in any reasonable time after starting to take it there will be a subsidy from means tested benefits, giving an incentive to do this then rely on benefits.
4. Those with shorter than expected life expectancies can be expected to do it. You would see someone diagnosed with a year to live opting to do it and getting say 25 years of state pension over one year. Or half of the near to state pension age population of Glasgow say, where typical life expectancies are shorter than the national average. But not those in SE England where they are longer than average - so it's also a discrimination problem. And I'd be telling them in the forum to do it because that is probably best advice for them - but not for tax and NI payers overall who rely on the cross-subsidy from those who die early to the long-lived. This one is a serious design issue that has to be tackled.

What this means is that many of those truly in absolute financial need or just on means tested benefits today won't be able to do it because their state pension won't be high enough to allow it to be taken early.

Broadly some scheme to allow the state pension to be taken early and to allow a higher one to be purchased in a lump sum instead of gradually while deferring would be a good move IMO. But it's nowhere near as simple as it seems once you realise that those with shorter life expectancy could be expected to opt for it en mass as a result of say MSE campaigning for them to do it.

jamesd

It's not really true that "all your donations" will go directly to Bindmans. Both the site and the payment processor will take a cut first and the site estimates that "~92% of the total funds successfully raised on the platform go towards your legal case" with about 6% + VAT going to the site and about 1.9% + 20p going to the payment processor.

What is true is that the remaining money will initially be paid by the site to Bindmans. If there is an amount beyond the actual costs and Bindmans returns the money the "owner" of the case - [STRIKE]WASPI Ltd[/STRIKE] Women Against State Pension Inequality Ltd. in this one - is supposed to return the excess to the site (unless it's a charity or non-profit) so that it can be returned to the people who donated it if they select that, for those who don't select that it'll be used to fund other legal causes selected by the site.

Archi_Bald

jamesd wrote: »

If there is an amount beyond the actual costs and Bindmans returns the money the "owner" of the case - WASPI Ltd. in this one

WASPI Ltd (company number 07897774) is a company with no connections to the WASPI campaign.

The name of the WASPI campaign's company is Women Against State Pension Inequality Ltd (company number 10380633)

I don't think the campaign company has been set up as a charity or a non-profit organisation. I.e. WASPI could tell Bindmans at any time their services are no longer required and have any remaining funds returned to Women Against State Pension Inequality Ltd.

jamesd

Thanks. If it's not a charity or non-profit the money is supposed to be returned to the fund raising site by the "owner" of the case.

bigadaj

So this could be an almost unique case of lawyers being the most deserving recipients of money raised by public appeal?

Mortgagefreeman

bigadaj wrote: »

So this could be an almost unique case of lawyers being the most deserving recipients of money raised by public appeal?

The GRASPI women are really clueless and becoming a complete embarrassment. This their latest posting.

As Crowdjustice approaches its target, govt’s intransigent stance means they will burden the taxpayer with defence costs?

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

A few quid spent showing the GRASPI's the door is money well spent.

greenglide

So GRASPI's greed burdens government with unnecessary defence costs surely?