Back to 60's Judicial Review Outcome

Hopeless123

jem16 wrote: »

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.

It was over the telephone.

Mortgagefreeman

So Labour’s help for 50’s women is going to cost £58bn :eek: or to put it another way an additional £1,900 for every Tax payer!

Hopeless123

kinger101 wrote: »

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

Not at all, if I'd known about it I would have planned very differently. My private pension provider only ever went on about the fact I could retire at 55 and take my pension early, so that didn't give me a clue either. Actually if I had I'd have got about £2000pa.

[Deleted User]

Mortgagefreeman wrote: »

So Labour’s help for 50’s women is going to cost £58bn :eek: or to put it another way an additional £1,900 for every Tax payer!

Nope.Thats not your total cost, UK already runs a large deficit, which is funded by foreign inflows. Remember, this is just one of spending commitments. The others will be funded by “billionaires” who have made plans to move their assets and companies elsewhere. Once the budget deficit blows up, the interest rate on UK Government debt will go up too. The debt is around 2,000 billion. One percent extra interest adds 20 billion in costs. Over 5 years the extra cost will be over 100 billion in interest payments (compounded).

The trick is to get foreigners to fund this blown up deficit, otherwise you get what happened in Venezuela. Something tells me investors won’t be lining up.

jem16

Hopeless123 wrote: »

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.

Official notice is the passing of the Act itself and the JR agreed with it. There simply is no other way as personal letters are neither practical for numerous reasons nor foolproof.

Pollycat

Hopeless123 wrote: »

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.

That's very much a 'I'm all right, Jack, but bu&&er the rest of the women born after 31/12/1959' attitude.

WASPI and 'Back to 60' are groups of inconsiderate women who want, want, want for themselves and don't care about anyone else.

So - even though I'm in the WASPI/Back to 60 age bracket I do not support - and have never supported - their ill-thought out proposals.

I think anyone who votes Labour on the back of this 'pledge' is naive.

Hopeless123

jem16 wrote: »

Official notice is the passing of the Act itself and the JR agreed with it. There simply is no other way as personal letters are neither practical for numerous reasons nor foolproof.

But I got a personal letter in 2013, (and then another in 2014), always easily contactable via tax details and NI

Hopeless123

Pollycat wrote: »

That's very much a 'I'm all right, Jack, but bu&&er the rest of the women born after 31/12/1959' attitude.

WASPI and 'Back to 60' are groups of inconsiderate women who want, want, want for themselves and don't care about anyone else.

So - even though I'm in the WASPI/Back to 60 age bracket I do not support - and have never supported - their ill-thought out proposals.

I think anyone who votes Labour on the back of this 'pledge' is naive.

ok, we're all entitled to our own opinions and have our own experiences.

jem16

Hopeless123 wrote: »

But I got a personal letter in 2013, (and then another in 2014), always easily contactable via tax details and NI

HMRC and DWP databases were not tied up in 1995. Almost impossible for personal notice then.

Silvertabby

Pollycat wrote: »

That's very much a 'I'm all right, Jack, but bu&&er the rest of the women born after 31/12/1959' attitude.

WASPI and 'Back to 60' are groups of inconsiderate women who want, want, want for themselves and don't care about anyone else.

So - even though I'm in the WASPI/Back to 60 age bracket I do not support - and have never supported - their ill-thought out proposals.

I think anyone who votes Labour on the back of this 'pledge' is naive.

I'm with Pollycat on this one. This last minute 'bung' (note it isn't in the manifesto) smacks of desperation on the part of Labour. Frankly, I'm insulted by the idea that Labour thinks that we 1950s women are so thick, we can't see through this. Vote Labour and immediately get £15K or even £30K ? I don't think so. More 'a little bit of jam today because we're going to screw you for that and more over the next 5 years'. Unbelievably, they are saying that it won't really cost £58B, because they'll get a lot of that back in taxation. Is this an early indication of their plans to rocket up taxes?

And note the 'taper' for women born from 1955 onwards. What's the betting that women born in 1959 would only get a few hundreds of £s, if that. Be interesting to see what the grabbing WASPEs make of all this.

ADD: Bumped into an old LGPS colleague a few days ago. She is just a few months older than me, and she 'assumed' that I was also a 'WASPE' woman. I told her that I was not, as I had known about the increases since the mid 1990s - and I asked her how she could claim to be one, as she most certainly knew about the re-qualisation of State pension ages when she worked for the LGPS 20 years ago as it already factored in some of our calculations.

Her reply? She had been told by WASPE that she must state that she had never been informed of the changes, in order to get her payout.