Women SPA this week

lisyloo

I review my pension planning at least annually so if I didn’t know key facts (such as SPA) then I would check it and find out.
If I were making an important decision or life change (extra child, career change, divorce) then I would also check key facts.

Is it not reasonable to expect people (this point is not gender specific) to do some checking for themselves of their assumptions or keys facts?

Paul_Herring

Is it not reasonable to expect people (this point is not gender specific) to do some checking for themselves of their assumptions or keys facts?

That's a rhetorical question, is it not?

GibbsRule_No3

Gers wrote: »

Previous legislation??

To be fair it was fairly set in stone from around 1940 that women went at 60 and men at 65 (granted not a reason to not check your retirement) so for most of both male and female workers born in the late 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's those were the dates you were likely to be working to. It is only recently that State Pensions have changed, changed and changed again after a lengthy time with no movement. Bit like buying birthday cards, you still get 21 cards but 18 is the age of consent, soon they will be no need for a 65 year birthday card and then no need for a 66 one.

Gers

GibbsRule_No3 wrote: »

To be fair it was fairly set in stone from around 1940 that women went at 60 and men at 65 (granted not a reason to not check your retirement) so for most of both male and female workers born in the late 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's those were the dates you were likely to be working to. It is only recently that State Pensions have changed, changed and changed again after a lengthy time with no movement. Bit like buying birthday cards, you still get 21 cards but 18 is the age of consent, soon they will be no need for a 65 year birthday card and then no need for a 66 one.

That's a very reasonable response to what I felt was an aggressive question. I had no reason to check annually what was set in legislation.

Now we, as a society, are in a constant state of flux which is a relatively new situation. I don't disagree with the pension changes, just the timescale. Mind you, it's significant that in one of the only areas in which men were disadvantaged in comparison to women it has been addressed so quickly.

s

Silvertabby

Of course I feel sorry for the women who are in genuine distress, but some of the stories trotted out at as a result of the review just don't ring true.

There is one lady of 63 who claims that she is unable to buy treats for her grandchildren because 'all they have to live on is her husband's £120 per week State pension'. She is a retired teacher, and her husband is a retired miner. No mention of their income from these pensions.

Another lady said that she had retired at 60, in the expectation of getting her State pension. She is now in dire poverty, but can't return to work because one of her reasons for retiring was to help take care of her 7 grandchildren, thereby enabling their parents (her children) to return to work. No mention of the obvious answer to this - that the children club together to pay mum £150 per week. Win win, she gets the equivalent of her State pension and the children get cheap child care.

Yet another lady says that, having worked all of her life and never claimed benefits, she is now reliant on hand outs from friends and foodbanks. She and all other women who are genuinely unable to work - either because of ill health or because jobs for a 60 year old simply don't exist - are entitled to claim benefits. It's called the Welfare State, and she's paid into it all of her working life. Refusing to claim these benefits through misplaced pride is just cutting off her nose to spite her face.

That said, I'd be one of the first to sign up to a campaign to overturn the 2011 changes in respect of the women hardest hit - those born in 1953/54 - even though I wouldn't benefit.

caveman38

xylophone wrote: »

Indeed - the same for the High Income Child Benefit Charge!

Except, a lot of those fined are now in receipt of rebates as they have proved that they were not informed.


https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/6000-parents-sent-child-benefit-16267826

xylophone

Except, a lot of those fined are now in receipt of rebates as they have proved that they were not informed.

The point I was making was that given the fact that the matter was very widely discussed and covered by TV, newspapers etc, it was difficult not to be informed.

I say this as one not remotely affected by the legislation but who thought it so unfair and illogical that I wrote to my MP saying so!

dunstonh

his would take the form of a bridging pension, not means tested, between our original State Pension age and our new one, with compensation for those who have already reached State Pension age and lost out.  We are not campaigning for the State Pension age to revert to 60.  It is essential for the credibility of the campaign that we remain true to our ‘ask’.

Women born in the early 70s would have started work when the female state pension age was 60.

WASPI are not asking for transitions for those born in the 60s or 70s. They just want those born in the 50s to get compensation. Clearly WASPI women think they are superior to those born in the 60s and 70s who have also seen their state pension age rise not only to 65 or 66 but beyond that to 67 and potentially 68.

This is pure greed by a certain group of loud mouths.

Mistermeaner

slightly off topic but someone else brought it up

I won an appeal against an hmrc fine for the child benefit thing

I received said fine in 2013/14 for claiming child benefit when earning over 50K - I was well aware of the changes. What I wasn't aware of was that I was apparently claiming child benefit.

Long story short my ex-wife who I was at that point fully divorced from and no longer living with was in receipt of child benefit (to her sole account). It transpires that in 2006 when our son was born it was apparently me who phoned to arrange payment of CB and hence HMRC had my name down as the claimant rather than her. When we divorced in 2010 one of us phoned CB to advise them of the split and arranged for the payment to go solely to my ex-wife. The name on the claim was not amended (bare in mind this wasn't even an issue at that time). I earned over 50K for the first time in 2013.

HMRC refused this basis of appeal and proceeded to 'fine' me anyway.

I eventually won a dispute with them but only because HMRC were not able to retrieve recordings of the phone calls from 2006 and 2010

A very distressing and IMO ridiculously unfair approach from HMRC

Gers

This makes interesting reading. Especially:

On Thursday 13 October 2011, the last possible date, the Government announced its plans. It would cap the delay for women at 18 months. It kept the rise to 65 by November 2018. But would then stretch out the transition from age 65 to 66 for both men and women by an extra six months. It will now be completed in October 2020. The concession will cost £1.1 billion (at 2010/11 prices), half of which will be spent on stretching the timetable for men, none of whom had complained.