WASPI ‘victory’

DiamondLil

molerat said:

.........

don't tell them your name Pike

@molerat - thanks for that - cheered me up no end.

hugheskevi

Sarahspangles said:

It’s interesting that 33% of (affected?) women weren’t aware of the changes in the early 2000s and still thought their retirement age was 60. However if there was a similar survey today checking people’s understanding of topics like higher rate tax and common law marriage, would a similar %age be ignorant?

I wonder what % of people could correctly identify their own State Pension age if asked today?

Probably a high % of those with SPA of 66, but I'd expect a very low percentage for those with SPA of 68.

german_keeper

On a slightly different note I wonder what the effect of the publicity, eg leading story on the BBC website and news bulletins, will have on the already swamped DWP pension lines. Already a related question has been asked on this forum. Nothing like a strong suggestion/near promise of a bit of compo to get the calls coming.

JoeCrystal

german_keeper said:

On a slightly different note I wonder what the effect of the publicity, eg leading story on the BBC website and news bulletins, will have on the already swamped DWP pension lines. Already a related question has been asked on this forum. Nothing like a strong suggestion/near promise of a bit of compo to get the calls coming.

Well, we already got one post asking about it on this very sub-forum! 

brewerdave

My wife was one of those "affected" by the 1995 changes. She is not normally in the know re financial issues but she knew ,when she went back to work full time in the mid 90s ,that she wouldn't get her SP until she was nearly 63.
I think her employers (Welsh NHS) included her SP age in information packs re her NHS pension.

Malthusian

The Grauniad reports from the other side of the debate. 

Worked for the government ✅
Was down the corridor from HR ✅
Made a spreadsheet ✅
Checked what State Pension she was actually entitled at any point before she retired in 2009 at 55 (on 30 years of LGPS pension) ❌

The shock discovery meant she had to penny pinch to make her pension lump sum stretch for ten years instead of five. Naturally, she couldn't take on even a part-time job that would have paid half the equivalent of State Pension, because she'd committed to looking after her granddaughter. And nobody employs women in their late 50s, apparently, not even for 16 hours a week on minimum wage. So she put her efforts into campaigning for WASPI, which she describes as "a full-time job".

Er...

(That "who’s going to employ a woman in her late 50s" feels like it should make me quite angry, but I don't know if I'm allowed because I'm not in the demographic.)

sammyjammy

Then there is the story in the media of the woman who had to live in her car and the one who couldn't claim housing benefit or help with council tax support between the ages of 60 and 65 - I wonder if that might have been because to do so she would have been required to seek work.  The media perpetuate these myths with their poorly researched or damn right incorrect examples.  My mum was born in 1950, to be fair she only received her pension three months later than she would have done before the rule change but she knew all along.  I even see people in their early 50s have now jumped on the bandwagon demanding their state pension at 60 

Beyond frustrating

poseidon1

Sarahspangles said:

It’s interesting that 33% of (affected?) women weren’t aware of the changes in the early 2000s and still thought their retirement age was 60. However if there was a similar survey today checking people’s understanding of topics like higher rate tax and common law marriage, would a similar %age be ignorant?

I mean, how many times has someone told you they decided not to go for promotion because they would pay 40% tax on all their earnings and take home less than they do now? Or hear that someone assumed they would inherit or be entitled to a share of a partner’s house on death/relationship split. I don’t think it’s 33% but it’s not 0%.

Or that 4% is a safe withdrawal rate….[wink]

Have to agree, the widespread degree of  financial illiteracy is both deep and profound.  The level of 'self education' required to attain even basic understanding will be beyond many.

booneruk

Here's some perspective from more inequality seekers on the BBC. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-68610680

Straight from the Department of the bleedin' obvious: 'It would have been better had we had a pension from 60'

Though I'd insert the words "for me personally" between the words better and had there.

Referring to the change in pension age as being "robbed" is a bit extreme to say the least. If they think it's a crime, report it to the plod.

sammyjammy

Some woman on the news made a comment of "what have they done with our money, they must have it sitting there somewhere"