Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

jem16 wrote: »

There's no "if" about the 10 years notice. No-one with an 18 month extension had 10 years notice.

So be it. The current rule is 10 years notice. Why should they not have had 10 years notice therefore? Some have had a double whammy of having an additional 18 months and less than 10 years notice. That needed better smoothing out.

jem16 wrote: »

I will not be signing the petition as I do not believe that women of the 1950s who claim to know nothing about the 1995 changes should be compensated for sticking their head in the sand and doing nothing to plan for their retirement.

Lets put this another way. Sure, most people agree that there was sufficient notice time from 1995 to make up any shortfall.

However, lets assume you put some money in the bank 10 years ago at an agreed interest rate of 5%. Each year your money is growing by 5% as agreed.

Then, the bank decides it is going to reduce the interest rate down to 2%. Buttttttttt, the reduction will apply from the time the money was first deposited 10 years ago. I suspect most people would say, woahhh, you can't backdate the reduction, the new rate should only apply from now, not from 10 years ago.

So, in terms of women and their pensions. All women paying NIC's up to 1995 were doing so on the basis of those NIC's paying a pension at age 60. A fairer option by the government might have been to say in 1995, all NIC's paid up to that point will get pension at 60 but from there on, it will be the new spa.

So, any women who had paid NIC's for pension at 60 would have those years up to 1995 honoured. After that, it is the new spa. Any woman who had not paid any NIC's before 1995 would just get the pension from the new spa.

So, while there is no real argument that there was not enough notice since 1995, equally, those who had paid their contributions before then, had done so on the basis of getting pension at 60. Thus like the interest scenario, the government can change the rules, but also applying those changes to backdated years is less popular for everyone regardless of that the situation is.

KimC wrote: »

Men have always known the can retire at 65 as women have had no notice of the change of retirement age. Thats why it is unfair as people need notice to plan.

That is not correct.

The retirement age for most men currently not retired is 66 or 67 with 68 or higher likely to hit many of those. So, any man that has always known they can retire at 65 is wrong. Any woman that thought that is wrong too.

You are right though that people need notice. That is why the changes from 60 to 65 for Women had 20 years notice. Those changes were debated and consulted between 1993 and 1995 and put through parliament in 1995. Plenty of notice.

The increase from 65 to 66 is the area that had little notice for some and that is what the petition should focus on. It does not though and that is why so many won't sign it.

KimC wrote: »

Men have always known the can retire at 65 as women have had no notice of the change of retirement age. Thats why it is unfair as people need notice to plan.

At the recent parliamentary hearing the WASPI founders were unable to give any convincing explanation of what they would have done differently if they had received (formal) notice.

Surely any "plan" should involve checking some basic details, such as when and how much state pension would be available?

dunstonh wrote: »

The increase from 65 to 66 is the area that had little notice for some and that is what the petition should focus on. It does not though and that is why so many won't sign it.

If the petition had centred on the 2011 changes, I think only a handful of people would have signed it - people like many on this thread ( and others like it) who take a measured and considered view after careful assessment.


Many of the people who have signed the petition in it's current format, have done so because they think there's a chance they'll get 'compo'. If the petition was solely about 2011, there probably wouldn't be a whiff of compensation at all, and most of them wouldn't be interested and wouldn't have bothered to sign the petition

saver861 wrote: »

So, in terms of women and their pensions. All women paying NIC's up to 1995 were doing so on the basis of those NIC's paying a pension at age 60. A fairer option by the government might have been to say in 1995, all NIC's paid up to that point will get pension at 60 but from there on, it will be the new spa.

So, any women who had paid NIC's for pension at 60 would have those years up to 1995 honoured. After that, it is the new spa. Any woman who had not paid any NIC's before 1995 would just get the pension from the new spa.

A change like that would probably also have brought an increase in the NI contribution rate much like the public sector pensions where the rate went from around 6% to around 10%.

So fair enough that was one way of doing it so for 1950s women it would be about half a pension at age 60 and the other half at age 60-66 with an increase contribution rate.

Not sure that would have gone down well but you never know.