Back to 60's Judicial Review Outcome

LHW99

Hopeless123 wrote: »

Why's that, please? They're not talking about bringing the state pension age back down, just compensating the people (and their partners/families) who were badly affected by not being told, and not given time to plan properly. Successive govts really mucked up and this would just go some way to righting the wrong.

This is a "wrong" for all those men since the 1970's when equality legislation didn't address the issue of different retirement ages. There was plenty of notice for the initial raising, the poor decision IMO was to hit the same group twice (which includes me). Nevertheless, if you believe in equality, you cannot support the idea that the raising of the age was incorrect.
In addition, this is the state pension we are talking about. It is not money belonging to any individual, it is general (NI / tax) government money for the benefit of all. If there is a group that may need compensation, IMO it is those who will lose out on GMP indexing due to the introduction of the NSP.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-7676597/Why-Guaranteed-Minimum-Pension-not-rising-line-inflation.html

kinger101

Hopeless123 wrote: »

Why's that, please? They're not talking about bringing the state pension age back down, just compensating the people (and their partners/families) who were badly affected by not being told, and not given time to plan properly. Successive govts really mucked up and this would just go some way to righting the wrong.

This costs £58 billion. There is no indication of how it will be paid for.

If I were inclined to vote for a social democratic party, I'd hope if was one who could;

(a) be honest enough to say that £58 B had to be paid for out of current taxation;
(b) be fair enough to put the burden of the taxation onto the majority of income tax payers* rather than the top 5%
(c) work out that that £58 B is much better spent on something like the NHS or proper social care for the elderly rather than handing it out to a small group of women who can solve their problem by just working until 65 (like men).

*that's how social democrats operate in NW Europe

Hopeless123

I think it's correct to equalise retirement age, always have done, and anyone mid-way through their career now will know what their retirement age is because we all are far more informed, much of it thanks to the internet.

As someone affected by the Equitable Life debacle, who basically had to start again, I thought I at least had my state pension to fall back on. I was told by the govt department I telephoned when I asked how much of a shortfall I would need to make up for full pension that my retirement age was 62! I had already read it in the press too, so of course I never doubted it. You may think otherwise, but I'm an intelligent person, yet I've been called thick for not knowing.

There are, I agree, a multitude of other things that need addressing, but this is one that should make a difference to a lot of people, and I would like to request that you don't begrudge it.

[Deleted User]

kinger101 wrote: »

This costs £58 billion. There is no indication of how it will be paid for.

If I were inclined to vote for a social democratic party, I'd hope if was one who could;

(a) be honest enough to say that £58 B had to be paid for out of current taxation;
(b) be fair enough to put the burden of the taxation onto the majority of income tax payers* rather than the top 5%
(c) work out that that £58 B is much better spent on something like the NHS or proper social care for the elderly rather than handing it out to a small group of women who can solve their problem by just working until 65 (like men).

*that's how social democrats operate in NW Europe

The truth is that Labour will be able to afford this. McDonnell has a cunning plan in two steps. Step 1. Make the money worthless. Step 2. Pay out a whole lot of nothing. :beer::beer: Smart!

DairyQueen

LHW99 wrote: »

If there is a group that may need compensation, IMO it is those who will lose out on GMP indexing due to the introduction of the NSP.
https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-7676597/Why-Guaranteed-Minimum-Pension-not-rising-line-inflation.html

Governments are really good at using complexity to avoid accountability. Most of those affected haven't a clue that they are being shafted. Hiding this cut deep within the rules of the nSP was a masterly piece of engineering as the majority will never realise. Explains the lack of campaign and media coverage. The thisismoney article was a rare exception.

I tried to find stats on the numbers affected but no luck.

Triumph13

Most of us wouldn't begrudge it if it was done fairly and in a way that only addressed genuine hardship. That would require a) any 'solution' to be means tested eg allowing the women impacted to apply for pension credit if they otherwise qualify; and b) no cliff edge - you can't possibly think it's fair that a women born on 31/12/59 should get payout and one born a day later should get nothing.

[Deleted User]

As someone affected by the Equitable Life debacle, who basically had to start again,

As someone also affected by the EL debacle, I know that the funds did splendidly in the end even though it looked quite bad for a while.

jem16

Hopeless123 wrote: »

I was told by the govt department I telephoned when I asked how much of a shortfall I would need to make up for full pension that my retirement age was 62! I had already read it in the press too, so of course I never doubted it.

Unless you were born around 1952 it was never 62 for you and if you were you were not affected by the 2011 Act. If you have evidence of that wrong information you should make a claim for maladministration.

There are, I agree, a multitude of other things that need addressing, but this is one that should make a difference to a lot of people, and I would like to request that you don't begrudge it.

It will also make a difference to a lot of people who simply don't need it, me being one of them. I knew in 1993 after the Budget announcement that my SPA would be 65 and I prepared for it. I also knew in 2011 that it was now going to be 66. I'd rather it wasn't but it won't make any difference to me.

That payment of say £80pw for me (I'm guessing as it doesn't say what the taper is for those born April 55 onwards) will have to come from somewhere and reports say Labour will borrow to pay for it. That borrowing will have to be paid back by my children and grandchildren. I'd rather that didn't happen, thank you.

The biggest problem I have though is that those really struggling but born in the 2nd half of the decade are still going to be struggling as they will be getting the lowest payout - may even be as low as £10/£20pw. Meanwhile those born before April 55 and who will have their state pension already, or will have by April 2021, will get the biggest payment of £100pw.

Apart from the fact that Labour has clearly misunderstood the Pension Acts of 1995 and 2011 as well as totally ignoring their own pension Act of 2007, this has not been well thought out. Paying out around £80pw to Theresa May born 1956 and nothing to a homeless 50s' man or younger woman is not going to go down well. She had 21 years' notice of the 1995 Act ( I'm sure she knew about it beforehand just like I did) and 10 years' notice of 2011 so you can hardly say she's missing out.

Help should have been given where it was needed for both men and women.

Hopeless123

Triumph13 wrote: »

Most of us wouldn't begrudge it if it was done fairly and in a way that only addressed genuine hardship. That would require a) any 'solution' to be means tested eg allowing the women impacted to apply for pension credit if they otherwise qualify; and b) no cliff edge - you can't possibly think it's fair that a women born on 31/12/59 should get payout and one born a day later should get nothing.

I do understand what you're saying, but I have had to sell my house to give me money to live on. I live as simply as I possibly can, but then I've never been much of a spender anyway, so that doesn't bother me. That wouldn't put me in the hardship / means-tested category, but my life has changed considerably and I no longer have the safety net I worked all my life for. I've worked since I left school, while also bringing up 2 kids as a single parent, never relied on anyone else and never claimed benefits in my life. What's happened with both private and state pension has been a real kick in the teeth.

There has to be a cut off point somewhere and that cut off should be the point that people became aware, i.e. were told officially, that they'd need to plan differently. I genuinely don't know and can't work out when that should be and would be severely !!!!!! off if I was born in Jan 1960. I'm not saying any of it is perfect, obviously.

kinger101

Hopeless123 wrote: »

I think it's correct to equalise retirement age, always have done, and anyone mid-way through their career now will know what their retirement age is because we all are far more informed, much of it thanks to the internet.

As someone affected by the Equitable Life debacle, who basically had to start again, I thought I at least had my state pension to fall back on. I was told by the govt department I telephoned when I asked how much of a shortfall I would need to make up for full pension that my retirement age was 62! I had already read it in the press too, so of course I never doubted it. You may think otherwise, but I'm an intelligent person, yet I've been called thick for not knowing.

There are, I agree, a multitude of other things that need addressing, but this is one that should make a difference to a lot of people, and I would like to request that you don't begrudge it.

I wouldn't say you're thick. You're just operating to a set of double standards. You think pension age should be equalized provided it doesn't include you.

You're right. It will make a difference to an awful lot of people. The people who'll have to repay the £58 B required to cover this. Most of these will have a state retirement age in their late sixties.

To put this into context, raising income tax by 1 % raises about £7B. This will cost £12 B a year for five years.