MSE News: Retirement age hike has left women hundreds of pounds worse off

boo_star

Despite the changes, the IFS found no evidence of 'material deprivation' (a measure of whether someone can afford important essential items) which it suggested meant the women had managed to adjust their spending to the delay in receiving their state pension.

Presumably because they carried on working.

I clearly don't understand this issue, were men also worse off because they couldn't claim a pension until 65? Even if they were, it wasn't seen as a problem as far as I can tell. Why is it a problem now?

It appears that the feminists don't appreciate being treated equally when it's not in their interest. Oh well, let's move on.

Goldiegirl

TrustyOven wrote: »

I am not a GRASPI supporter.
However, not sure your point is logical.

Perhaps they have lots of money and dont need SP early. So what?

What about those that have no voice, who do "need" the SP early. GRASPI will be campaining for those without a voice.

For example of the concept I am talking about:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tzhb3U2cONs#t=1m30

Isn't it always that those who are wealthy are able / have the means to campaign for those that are not wealthy or have the ability? Think about any kind of charity or Foundation, similar concept.

Still, I think your point is invalid, just as GRASPI's campaign is.

The Waspi leadership have repeatedly rejected suggestions that focus on those in most need, presumably because they wouldn't qualify.

I don't think the leadership are being driven by altruism - their actions smack of self interest

colsten

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

But it is £5bn less than it would have been otherwise.

No, I would not.

The £5bn is made up of £0.9bn additional tax and NI revenue to the Exchequer, and £4.1bn benefits that did not have to be paid from the NI Fund. As all money in the NI Fund comes from NI contributions, it's the people & companies who pay NI who did not have to find the £4.1bn. Money from the NI Fund never gets used to pay down national debt, or to reduce the UK deficit. It is ringfenced exclusively for state pensions and working age benefits.

colsten

Silvertabby wrote: »

I suspect that many of those who are now claiming not to know may have simply ignored this information on the grounds that 'it only applies to pensioners'.

They have moved away from "I did not know" to "The DWP did not tell me" as they must have realised that hundreds of thousands of women actually did know.

It can be argued that people should have been personally informed but it's a fact that we don't get personal notification of changes to the law, and the DWP have not had, and do not have, any legal obligation to write to people.

Pollycat

SuiDreams wrote: »

To me it just feels like a lack of proper retirement planning. People need to learn to plan and check what they are entitled to. Having to wait till I'm 68 to get my state pension I have no problem with, my issues are with companies that pay women doing the same jobs as men less. There should be total equality.

I disagree with this.

I'm a late 1953 woman.
I was well aware back in 1995 that I wouldn't get my state pension at age 60. Instead, I would get it aged 63-and-a-half.
It was actually due in April 2017.
That was included in my retirement plans (I retired early aged 50).

Then in 2011, I (and thousands of other women around the same age were affected) was told that because of the move to pay state pension at age 66 instead of 65, my state pension would be pushed back to age 64-and-three-quarters. That's 15 months later than I had planned on and known about since 1995.

By then, I'd already done my 'proper retirement planning' and they left me with a 15 month delay in my state pension date with 6 years notice.

I did check what I was entitled to.

You may have no problem with getting your state pension at age 68 but how would you feel if at age 62, you were told you'd be nearly 70 when you get it?

I agree that some people haven't done 'proper retirement planning' - some because they haven't been able to afford to pay into a pension - but some people have done 'proper retirement planning'.

It's generally acknowledged that this change in 2011 was unfair to those women in my age bracket.
In fact I believe that the Government have said they'll give 10 years notice of a change in state pension age in future.

My view is that it's only fair - and equal - that women and men get their state pension at the same age, so I don't support WASPI.

On the subject of the MSE article, I'm downright sick of presenters/newspeople presenting the change in women's state pension age from age 60 as a complete surprise when it has been in the public domain for over 20 years.

surreysaver

What about all the money men have lost out on by having to work until 65 when women could always retire at 60? Its only the equality that women have always demanded catching up with them.

Pollycat

surreysaver wrote: »

What about all the money men have lost out on by having to work until 65 when women could always retire at 60? Its only the equality that women have always demanded catching up with them.

This has been debated on the many WASPI threads.
Women fought for equality with men.
I don't think it's helpful for some women to want to cherry-pick which bits of equality they want.

My view is that a woman and a man born on the same day should get their state pension on the same day.

No surprise that I'm not a WASPI supporter....:D

jamesd

colsten wrote: »

Money from the NI Fund never gets used to pay down national debt, or to reduce the UK deficit. It is ringfenced exclusively for state pensions and working age benefits.

But it's topped up from the general taxation fund when it runs short. Until the recent top up the last time was in 1997/8. The recent top up - £4.5 billion in 2014-15 and £9.6 billion in 2015-16 - is why there's currently a surplus that some advocate spending, creating the need for another top up and really grabbing money from general taxation by the back door, well, if they aren't just forgetting that £16 billion is the minimum working balance needed by the fund (both per its Great Britain 2015-16 accounts), which is two months of spending. Assuming the blog post is reliable, as of 2014:

"An information note National Insurance Fund: 1975-2014 placed in the House of Commons Library dated 20 May 2014 estimates that the government grant will need to be activated in 2014/15 to the tune of £1.3 billion followed by £8.6 billion in 2015/16, £2.2 billion in 2016/17, £35 million in 2017/18 with no government grant in 2018/19."

The reduction in need to top up the fund from general taxation is how it helps with deficit and national debt issues.

PasturesNew

This isn't news.... whenever there are changes somebody will always "lose out". It's unfortunate and annoying .... and yes, you can put a figure on it .... but it had to be done.

I am one of those affected .... life sucks, but you do just get on with it.

Worse things happen at sea ... and all money has to come from somewhere, it doesn't just come from nowhere.

Some of us weren't able to build a private pension - that's tough, that sucks... but, you know, you just get on with it, because that's life.

Malthusian

TrustyOven wrote: »

What about those that have no voice, who do "need" the SP early. GRASPI will be campaining for those without a voice.

WASPI solicit money from those who are "in need", those who can barely afford it, to fund spurious legal challenges, first class train tickets and champagne. They refuse to inform their members who are genuinely in need about the existing state benefits they can claim to alleviate that need: such as carer's allowance, ESA, PIP etc. WASPI instead takes money off them on the hopeless promise that in exchange they'll get them their State Pension at 60 with a backdated lump sum - something that is morally not far off from advance fee fraud.

WASPI do not campaign for those who are in genuine "need" (not of an early SP, but of the relief that is available to those under state pension age), they exacerbate their situation by telling them to put their faith in - and give money to - a hopeless political campaign rather than claim the relief that already exists. They rob from the poor to give to the rich.