Women lose landmark legal fight against state pension age rise - MSE News

Mistermeaner

Fair is an entirely subjective measure

As a 40 year old male with 4 kids to raise i don't think it's fair how much tax and ni i have to pay

seven-day-weekend

thepurplepixie wrote: »

No one is saying it isn't right, what people are saying, well most of them, is that some women got too little notice to prepare for the second change. I was one of the 1953 women, didn't make much difference to me as I was earning £100k and a few extra months part time more than made up for it but it wasn't fair to some women, men always knew they were preparing for SRP at 65. Can you see that changing the rules without enough warning wasn't fair, not the first change but the second one.

Yes, the second change did not have enough warning, but iiuc, these WASPI women are talking about the first change in 1995 as well.

ffacoffipawb

thepurplepixie wrote: »

No one is saying it isn't right, what people are saying, well most of them, is that some women got too little notice to prepare for the second change. I was one of the 1953 women, didn't make much difference to me as I was earning £100k and a few extra months part time more than made up for it but it wasn't fair to some women, men always knew they were preparing for SRP at 65. Can you see that changing the rules without enough warning wasn't fair, not the first change but the second one.

But there was plenty of warning.

1995 to 2010 was 15 years and the full increase to 65 took another 8 years on top of that. That is 23 years.

Dont be fooled. These WASPE knew it was happening. They think that feigning ignorance will earn them a few grand at other taxpayers' expense.

thepurplepixie

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

But there was plenty of warning.

1995 to 2010 was 15 years and the full increase to 65 took another 8 years on top of that. That is 23 years.

Dont be fooled. These WASPE knew it was happening. They think that feigning ignorance will earn them a few grand at other taxpayers' expense.

Some women were affected by the second change with far less than 8 years notice.

I don't agree with people moaning about the first change, there have to be changes, but not unreasonable to expect reasonable notice. Remember the women who got little notice of the second change were possibly still making plans to deal with the first change. As an example as I was an older mother (flatteringly geriatric according to maternity services) my youngest was still at university when I was 62, he was a baby, well toddler, when the first changes were announced so I always said I had less than a year to save up for retirement as I knew he was likely to be finishing uni just before my 62nd birthday. With a new retirement age of 63 and a bit, suddenly I had over a year extra to plan for. As I said above it wasn't a big issue for me but if I had been in a minimum wage job it could have been hard.

If I remember rightly the second change was proposed in 2011 and confirmed in 2012, I was due to retire in 2017 but the date was moved by more than a year to late 2018 so I had 5 years notice of a delay of 15 or 16 months. I think everyone plays around with numbers, it is wrong of the WASPI women to say they had no notice of first change but it is wrong to just say people had decades of notice ignoring the second change or to say "they" had 8 years notice of a change to 65, because that ignores the women who had almost as long a delay but years less to deal with it.

I've said it before but I'll say it again as I think it is important, if the government want people to save and plan for retirement then they need to make people believe they can trust them or people just won't plan. I ran a works pension scheme, I have spent many hours trying to convince young and middle aged people of the advantages of joining the pension scheme, the employers contribution being one that you would think people would like, but it is surprising how many come back with the same reply, "What's the point, granny/uncle Bob/a man in the pub have told me it isn't worth it." People on this site aren't typical, most people on here are savvy about saving and planning, an awful lot of people aren't.

thepurplepixie

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Yes, the second change did not have enough warning, but iiuc, these WASPI women are talking about the first change in 1995 as well.

Yes and I think that was stupid and unfair. They really just made sure the case for the 1953/54 women was lost in the mess. People can be very selfish, personally although I am a 1953 woman I would have no issue with them doing something means tested that wouldn't benefit me at all but would ease the change for some women. I would never think they would just wipe out the change but maybe giving women with low incomes/no savings something, I don't know if that would be a part payment for a few months.

Pollycat

thepurplepixie wrote: »

Yes and I think that was stupid and unfair. They really just made sure the case for the 1953/54 women was lost in the mess. People can be very selfish, personally although I am a 1953 woman I would have no issue with them doing something means tested that wouldn't benefit me at all but would ease the change for some women. I would never think they would just wipe out the change but maybe giving women with low incomes/no savings something, I don't know if that would be a part payment for a few months.

I - and a number of other posters - have said the same on different threads.

The last time, someone replied with this (6/19):

p00hsticks wrote: »

Buit surely there are already a whole host of means tested benefits already available for the women in that situation who have not yet reached their (new) pension age - JSA / ESA / Universal Credit / Working Tax credit / Carers Allowance / Housing benefit and Council Tax reduction to name a few off the top of my head and depending on their particular circumstances.

So do some of the woman who say they are are financial difficulties specifically because of the equalisation of state pension age not qualify for any of these benefits?

Pollycat

thepurplepixie wrote: »

Some women were affected by the second change with far less than 8 years notice.

I don't agree with people moaning about the first change, there have to be changes, but not unreasonable to expect reasonable notice. Remember the women who got little notice of the second change were possibly still making plans to deal with the first change. As an example as I was an older mother (flatteringly geriatric according to maternity services) my youngest was still at university when I was 62, he was a baby, well toddler, when the first changes were announced so I always said I had less than a year to save up for retirement as I knew he was likely to be finishing uni just before my 62nd birthday. With a new retirement age of 63 and a bit, suddenly I had over a year extra to plan for. As I said above it wasn't a big issue for me but if I had been in a minimum wage job it could have been hard.

If I remember rightly the second change was proposed in 2011 and confirmed in 2012, I was due to retire in 2017 but the date was moved by more than a year to late 2018 so I had 5 years notice of a delay of 15 or 16 months. I think everyone plays around with numbers, it is wrong of the WASPI women to say they had no notice of first change but it is wrong to just say people had decades of notice ignoring the second change or to say "they" had 8 years notice of a change to 65, because that ignores the women who had almost as long a delay but years less to deal with it.

I've said it before but I'll say it again as I think it is important, if the government want people to save and plan for retirement then they need to make people believe they can trust them or people just won't plan. I ran a works pension scheme, I have spent many hours trying to convince young and middle aged people of the advantages of joining the pension scheme, the employers contribution being one that you would think people would like, but it is surprising how many come back with the same reply, "What's the point, granny/uncle Bob/a man in the pub have told me it isn't worth it." People on this site aren't typical, most people on here are savvy about saving and planning, an awful lot of people aren't.

My original state retirement date was April 2017 (aged 63-and-6 months).
I received a letter dated January 2012 that advised me of my revised state pension date of 6th July 2018, adding 15 months onto my original (revised from age 60) date.
So yes, some people had 'far less than 8 years notice'.

But because I was aware of the 1995 change, it wasn't the 4-years and 9-months change that some women claim they were hit with.

thepurplepixie

Pollycat wrote: »

I - and a number of other posters - have said the same on different threads.

The last time, someone replied with this (6/19):

So do some of the woman who say they are are financial difficulties specifically because of the equalisation of state pension age not qualify for any of these benefits?

I imagine some do but I don't know. Because of my age I obviously have friends/family in the age group but I don't know anything about their finances, it isn't something we discuss so there is no way I would know that about women I've never even met.

thepurplepixie

Pollycat wrote: »

My original state retirement date was April 2017 (aged 63-and-6 months).
I received a letter dated January 2012 that advised me of my revised state pension date of 6th July 2018, adding 15 months onto my original (revised from age 60) date.
So yes, some people had 'far less than 8 years notice'.

But because I was aware of the 1995 change, it wasn't the 4-years and 9-months change that some women claim they were hit with.

Great, we agree it wasn't 8 years notice.

Bogof_Babe

Mistermeaner wrote: »

Fair is an entirely subjective measure

As a 40 year old male with 4 kids to raise i don't think it's fair how much tax and ni i have to pay

Your choice to have four kids.