Women SPA this week

lisyloo

Gers wrote: »

Huge numbers were / are not so fortunate.

What does fortune (whether male or female) have to do with this matter (the one at court today) of whether this change was correctly communicated? (Most say they knew about it).

I’m sure there are men who were unfortunate and some of those who got a pension at 60 and some of those born after the cliff edge of 1st jan 1960 who were also unfortunate.

I’m not claiming there are no unfortunates but asking how it’s related to whether the change was properly communicated or not?

It would only surely make a difference to those who would have had the means to make a difference to their pensions of their job/career choice if they’d known about it?

p00hsticks

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?

Paul Herring's done a good analysis above that shows she's rather 'over-egging the pudding'.

One other point is that it would be interesting to know what the persons NI record is like.At the time that the woman's State Pension Age was 60, they also needed 39 full years of contributions to get the full basic amount of pension - more than is required now. So it would only seem fair that if you want to revert the pension age back to time gone by, you also revert the NI qualification requirements. If you did, it would be interesting to see how many WASPI womens actually ended up no better off, because their pension entitlement was lower even if they got it for longer.

Ganga

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.

If she is telling the truth she states that she has lost £49,000 from the age of 60 to the age of 64 so that would mean she would be getting £235 a week!

Ganga

Also if the people concerned get a lump sum of £30,000:

a) How will the country afford it

b) Will they get hammered with tax as i presume most are still working so have an income before this windfall.

Paul_Herring

Ganga wrote: »

If she is telling the truth she states that she has lost £49,000 from the age of 60 to the age of 64 so that would mean she would be getting £235 a week!

Bear in mind that this is the BBC reporting this. and given the closeness of my (somewhat presumptive) calculations to the current state pension, I'm fairly certain that £49K figure isn't covering the period of [turning 60] to [when the interview happened] and is indeed supposed to cover the period from [when she expected/wanted the pension] to [when she'll actually get it unless something changes before then]

Ganga

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Bear in mind that this is the BBC reporting this. and given the closeness of my (somewhat presumptive) calculations to the current state pension, I'm fairly certain that £49K figure isn't covering the period of [turning 60] to [when the interview happened] and is indeed supposed to cover the period from [when she expected/wanted the pension] to [when she'll actually get it unless something changes before then]

Sorry, i can see what you mean now.

Silvertabby

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Bear in mind that this is the BBC reporting this. and given the closeness of my (somewhat presumptive) calculations to the current state pension, I'm fairly certain that £49K figure isn't covering the period of [turning 60] to [when the interview happened] and is indeed supposed to cover the period from [when she expected/wanted the pension] to [when she'll actually get it unless something changes before then]

It does sound like she's taken the current single tier pension rate and just multiplied that by the number of weeks from age 60 until SPA.

However, as a (presumably) member of the NHS pension scheme, she will have been contracted out from her first day of service until April 2016, and so would only have been entitled to the old basic State pension (which was about £112 per week 5 years ago) plus another £4.50 (ish) per week post 2016.

crv1963

Silvertabby wrote: »

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.

To further add, at her age she would be in the 1995 NHS Pension Scheme, so would be able to retire without a reduced pension at 60.

Then it falls to how many years she has been a member of the scheme accumulated at the rate of 1/80th per year. Also even if she did not have a "full pension of 40/80ths" she would get something many others would like- secure pension with index linking and a TFLS that does not reduce pension.

If she did not have a full NHS pension by 60 then she is still accumulating and so increasing her eventual pension.

She also could at 60 have retired and returned in a part time capacity or sought a different employment all together.

Gers

lisyloo wrote: »

What does fortune (whether male or female) have to do with this matter (the one at court today) of whether this change was correctly communicated? (Most say they knew about it).

I’m sure there are men who were unfortunate and some of those who got a pension at 60 and some of those born after the cliff edge of 1st jan 1960 who were also unfortunate.

I’m not claiming there are no unfortunates but asking how it’s related to whether the change was properly communicated or not?

It would only surely make a difference to those who would have had the means to make a difference to their pensions of their job/career choice if they’d known about it?

No idea what you're on about - again!

You're the one who was talking about why shouldn't women have an equal pension date and bleating on about poor men who had to work five years more and lecturing us IN A LOUD VOICE about having choices despite being a woman! Nothing about lack of commumication.

lisyloo

I don’t know what you mean by loud.

I will clarify. The case here
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-48520176

Is about women not being given enough time to make adjustments.
I am asking what the relevance of fortune is to this.
Indeed the only people who would have been able to make adjustments would be those fortunate enough through health and/or skills to make adjustments.
The most unfortunate would not have been able to whether informed or not.

which being a woman are open

Your sentences aren’t making too much sense.
What were you absolutely prevented from doing? (Apart from fighting in the front line) and did you protest at the time?