Women SPA this week

Seabee42

Life is unfair, this particular change seems sensible all be it phasing it in was unfortunate. People are living longer there is not getting around this fact. So to make the burden of paying pensions manageable you either get less (which with means testing benefits available saves very little) or you start paying it later. If nothing was done the system would fail, we cannot immigrate enough people to pay for it governments have tried.

Paul_Herring

rise-in-womens-state-pension-age-prompts-poverty-concerns

Don't we have mechanisms in place to address poverty itself, where poverty is an actual concern? I feel that this may be conflating two different things:

(1) not getting pensions as soon as expected and
(2) genuine poverty.

Not everyone in (1) will be in (2).

Pollycat

Gers wrote: »

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2018/nov/06/rise-in-womens-state-pension-age-prompts-poverty-concerns

Will that do you?

And for the deluded soul who talked of 'my pity party' should get some facts right. I have never posted in pity or even made comment about any plight in relation to pensions. In fact I was able to take my occupational pension at 60 years and continued to work. If I had any complaint it's about the 2011 accelarated changes although I have not voiced it here apart from stating that I did not get notification.

Of course equality works both ways - can't even be a topic for debate surely?

However pension equality is just the one aspect which has been highlighted and addressed. When will the other areas of equality being given a focus?

I am not part of any group, just an interested woman.

Thank you.
That is - in my opinion, of course - a more relevant article.

I'm sure it has hit some women hard.
The ones who somehow didn't hear or read about the 1995 change.
And the ones who did but were unable to make any significant change to their pension plans/pot.

I don't know if you have read/contributed to any of the other WASPI threads (of which there have been numerous) but a lot of women posters who have been impacted (including me) would have welcomed some sort of bridging benefit to help women in dire financial straits until their state pension became payable.

I don't know how many of the 3.8 million women (according to WASPI) that would include.

From an earlier thread:

Silvertabby wrote: »

I'm a little younger than you, Polly, so the 2011 changes gave me 10 years notice of the change of my SPA from 2021 to 2022 (65 to 66).

Not an unreasonable amount of notice - for me - but I do sympathise with ladies of your age. I would have supported any moves to ease the transition for you and the other 1953/1954 ladies - but GRASPI put the kibosh on all that with their ridiculous demands.

Pollycat wrote: »

Silvertabby
Fortunately for me, the additional 15 months hasn't caused me personally any financial hardship but I know it has done so for some women (not the champagne-swilling, first-class-travelling face of WASPI though) & I too would have supported any financial help for those women in financial need. Even though I would not have benefited myself.

I too have been critical of the 2010 changes that added a further 15 months to the state pension age that I had been working to since 1995.

Neither am I part of any group, just an interested, affected woman.

I did initially sign the WASPI petition that was debated (I think) in 2016 but requested that my signature be removed as the wording of the petition bore little resemblance to WASPI's 'ask' on Facebook.

GunJack

I may be missing something here, but if poverty was to become an issue for some, surely other state benefits (UC/JSA/whatever) would "take up the slack" before SPA anyway?

Pollycat

GunJack wrote: »

I may be missing something here, but if poverty was to become an issue for some, surely other state benefits (UC/JSA/whatever) would "take up the slack" before SPA anyway?

I don't know.
I would think there is.
Or should be.
I wouldn't object to a specifically targeted means-tested benefit for women who are in poverty because of these changes if the existing benefits don't cover them.


I can't remember hearing from anyone who has been actually put into poverty because of these 2 changes (lots of mutterings from WASPI supporters but I know for a fact that some of those have mis-represented their circumstances).

I've never claimed benefits so I'm not sure what options are out there.

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Don't we have mechanisms in place to address poverty itself, where poverty is an actual concern? I feel that this may be conflating two different things:

(1) not getting pensions as soon as expected and
(2) genuine poverty.

Not everyone in (1) will be in (2).

There's a big difference between real financial hardship brought on by these changes in women's state pension age and the WASPI "I want my state pension and I want it now - because I'm 60 today or I want it backdated to age 60 regardless of how much money I've got and how much income I'm getting because that's how it's been for years" - attitude.

Silvertabby

Pollycat wrote: »

I don't know.
I would think there is.
Or should be.
I wouldn't object to a specifically targeted means-tested benefit for women who are in poverty because of these changes if the existing benefits don't cover them.

I can't remember hearing from anyone who has been actually put into poverty because of these 2 changes (lots of mutterings from WASPI supporters but I know for a fact that some of those have mis-represented their circumstances).

I've never claimed benefits so I'm not sure what options are out there.

There's a big difference between real financial hardship brought on by these changes in women's state pension age and the WASPI "I want my state pension and I want it now - because I'm 60 today or I want it backdated to age 60 regardless of how much money I've got and how much income I'm getting because that's how it's been for years" - attitude.

I agree. I'm not a benefits expert either, but I'm sure that help is available to women who are genuinely unable to support themselves.

Trouble is, the WASPI hierarchy are insisting on 'pensions for all' because they themselves are unlikely to qualify for means tested benefits. Some time ago, a WASPI member was being interviewed on TV and gave a tale of woe of not being able to afford the retirement she had banked on. I thought the interview was being carried out in the posh lounge of a very nice hotel - but it turned out to be her own home. Another woman bemoaned the fact that she and her husband had been counting on her State pension (from 60) to fund all the holidays they had planned to take in retirement. And who can forget the news clip of the WASPI leaders swigging champagne and travelling First Class on their way to a protest in London.

Pollycat

They've just been interviewing a woman on BBC News who says she's lost £49,000 (yes! Forty Nine) of state pension payments.

That works out at almost £154 per week over 6 years.

Can any pension expert out there confirm that figure is accurate?

For those people supporting WASPI/Backto60, it will cost £79 billion pounds to pay these women their pension back to age 60.

Perhaps WASPI/Backto60 supporters could answer this question I posed earlier:

Pollycat wrote: »

do you really think it fair that a woman born on 31/12/1959 should get her pension at age 60 and someone born the day after has to wait until age 66?

I think the answer would be 'yes, I do think it's fair' because that is what these groups were/are asking for.

Do WASPI/Backto60 supporters think this £79 billion could be better spent elsewhere?
On the NHS maybe?
Or training for younger people as recently suggested by the House of Lords?


Or do WASPI/Backto60 supporters think it's fair that other people should fund their demands?

Gers

I only 'entered' this conversation as I was highly offended by another poster who wrote such outrageously tasteless and ill-founded comments I couldn't resist!

I'm not part of any group (especially not the 'pity party' which is an awful way to describe anybody's beliefs) and never been involved. Whilst I was affected by the 2011 changes I was cushioned by my final salary pension and so couldn't take part in any charge against change. Huge numbers were / are not so fortunate and to describe them as a 'pity party' is offensive.

I await the decision with interest. Yes, I'm on the fence and have enough rear padding to make it fairly comfortable.

Paul_Herring

Pollycat wrote: »

They've just been interviewing a woman on BBC News who says she's lost £49,000 (yes! Forty Nine) of state pension payments.

That works out at almost £154 per week over 6 years.

Can any pension expert out there confirm that figure is accurate?

As a non-pension expert, I can confirm that £49,000 was a number that was quoted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48520176

Timandra French, a 64-year-old ambulance driver from Margate, said she had just 14 months' notice that she wouldn't get her pension at 60, but instead have to wait until she was 65.

"It makes me feel angry, depressed, put upon," she says.

Ms French says she has struggled to continue in her "physically and emotionally" demanding job, which requires her to carry people up and down stairs as well as heavy bags.

"I'm at the stage now where I'm finding it pretty impossible to continue. I'm struggling," she says.

Ms French calculates that the pension payments she would have received had she retired at 60, would be worth "something like £49,000".

She wants compensation for those payments.

65-60 = 5 years.
£49K/(5*52) = £188.46.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/pensions/types-of-pension/state-pension/ gives the following 'full state pension' amounts:

April '50-April '53: £129.20
April'53 onwards: £168.60.

(Those look like figures for the current tax year.)

I think Ms. French may have thought she's been earning enough to have some SERPS/S2P in there. Or that 65 should be '65 and some months'[1]


===

[1] 5y7m produces £168.77, but that presumes it would be 168.77 for all of that time, when it clearly hasn't been/won't be. The "had she retired at 60" bit gives the impression that a pudding is being a tad over-egged somewhat, if indeed this is the calculation being used.

Silvertabby

Paul_Herring wrote: »

As a non-pension expert, I can confirm that £49,000 was a number that was quoted.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48520176

65-60 = 5 years.
£49K/(5*52) = £188.46.

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/pensions/types-of-pension/state-pension/ gives the following 'full state pension' amounts:

April '50-April '53: £129.20
April'53 onwards: £168.60.

(Those look like figures for the current tax year.)

I think Ms. French may have thought she's been earning enough to have some SERPS/S2P in there. Or that 65 should be '65 and some months'[1]

[1] 5y7m produces £168.77, but that presumes it would be 168.77 for all of that time, when it clearly hasn't been/won't be. The "had she retired at 60" bit gives the impression that a pudding is being a tad over-egged somewhat, if indeed this is the calculation being used.

As an Ambulance driver, this lady will have a NHS pension that she could access now with only a very small reduction for early payment. In view of her age, and job, she must have at least 20 years in the NHS pension scheme, probably more.

Putting my tin hat on now... but if she really can't continue in her job, but can't afford to retire without this extra £150 per week - then something like 3 shifts a week stacking supermarket shelves would plug the gap.