WASPE "On Brink Of Defeat"

Pat38493

Pollycat said:

A leaflet attached to your pay slip does not constitute personal advisement. 

In my opinion, yes it does - your payslip is a private document that is sent only to you, so I guess people might have different opinions about this statement.

Pollycat

Pat38493 said:

Pollycat said:

A leaflet attached to your pay slip does not constitute personal advisement. 

In my opinion, yes it does - your payslip is a private document that is sent only to you, so I guess people might have different opinions about this statement.

But not everybody got a payslip.
So not everybody got personal notification.

Pollycat

Qyburn said:

Pollycat said:

A leaflet attached to a pay slip is not a notification, because of course, a lot of women at that time were housewives and didn't work so didn't have a pay slip.

I seems quite obvious that it was a notification to that particular person. Or is the claim that these didn't count because not everyone got one? The campaign claims that every single person within the affected age range (plus another 300 odd thousand outside that range) have all been forced into financial hardship. That figure includes all those who became aware, by whatever means, so is making the assumption that they continued to rely on getting their pension at age 60 even after being told they wouldn't.

But not everybody was notified.

I don't know what WASPI claims to count regarding notification.

Do WASPI claim that "every single person within the affected age range (plus another 300 odd thousand outside that range) have all been forced into financial hardship"?
They didn't ask me.
It did affect my long term plans (I'd already taken early retirement in 2003 aged 50 with the expectation my pension would be paid at age 63 years and 6 months (that was the impact of the 1995 Pension Act).
And my retirement date was put back a further 15 months when I was 7 years from the original date. 

Qyburn said:

Pollycat said:

A leaflet attached to a pay slip is not a notification, because of course, a lot of women at that time were housewives and didn't work so didn't have a pay slip.

And again, what about those born in 1960 or later? Born before 1960 = everyone entitled to rely on SP at age 60 and should be compensated. Born after 1960 = should have been perfectly aware and tough luck if they didn't plan accordingly.

WASPI decided to concentrate their campaign on women born in the 1950s.
I don't know why.

Qyburn said:

Pollycat said:

A leaflet attached to a pay slip is not a notification, because of course, a lot of women at that time were housewives and didn't work so didn't have a pay slip.

I guess the main players in the campaign includes those born were born late 1959, and the campaign crafted accordingly.

The women most affected by the 2 changes were women born in 1953/1954.

If the WASPI campaign had concentrated on the later change, I would have supported it.

molerat

The 2011 change affected men as well, hardly able to shout inequality on that one.

Pollycat

molerat said:

The 2011 change affected men as well, hardly able to shout inequality on that one.

Yes, it did affect men.

But it only added a maximum of 1 year to their pension age i.e. from age 65 to age 66.

That change added 15 months (in addition to the 3 years and 6 months from age 60 to the revised 1995 retirement date) for me.

LHW99

Certainly the 2011 change felt unfair, as it was hitting the same group twice over. I have no problem with equalisation - probably should have been done years before, but I would have preferred to have known about all the changes at the beginning.

Grumpy_chap

Qyburn said:

The campaign claims that every single person within the affected age range (plus another 300 odd thousand outside that range) have all been forced into financial hardship. 

I have seen that idea that everyone in the age range is now in financial hardship.
That clearly has to be nonsense. 
Some in the age range will be in financial hardship.
In some of those cases, the root cause will be the changes to pensions.
Some in the age range will have ample means from other sources and not in financial hardship.
This might even be the majority.

Pollycat

Grumpy_chap said:

Qyburn said:

The campaign claims that every single person within the affected age range (plus another 300 odd thousand outside that range) have all been forced into financial hardship. 

I have seen that idea that everyone in the age range is now in financial hardship.
That clearly has to be nonsense. 
Some in the age range will be in financial hardship.
In some of those cases, the root cause will be the changes to pensions.
Some in the age range will have ample means from other sources and not in financial hardship.
This might even be the majority.

I recall that some of the founder members of WASPI were/are certainly not in financial hardship because of the changes.

Qyburn

Pollycat said:

Do WASPI claim that "every single person within the affected age range (plus another 300 odd thousand outside that range) have all been forced into financial hardship"?

Yes, given in the article quoted ..

"It is estimated that around four million women were pushed into financial hardship as their retirement plans were knocked off course."

vs as cited earlier, an actual population of 3.6 million in that age range.

Qyburn

Grumpy_chap said:

I have seen that idea that everyone in the age range is now in financial hardship.

That clearly has to be nonsense. 

Even more so because their argument seems to that this hardship was caused by lack of notification. Yet they can't surely claim that not one single affected person was made aware.