Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • KimC
    • By KimC 29th Dec 15, 10:18 PM
    • 4Posts
    • 4Thanks
    KimC
    Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair
    • #1
    • 29th Dec 15, 10:18 PM
    Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair 29th Dec 15 at 10:18 PM
    It is unfair how a women aged 61 has to wait until 65 yet a women who turned 62 in October 2015 gets her statepension. How is that fair?

    Search womans pension rise unfair on this page and click on the link and sign the petition for it debated in the House of Parliment.
Page 1
    • KimC
    • By KimC 29th Dec 15, 10:20 PM
    • 4 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    KimC
    • #2
    • 29th Dec 15, 10:20 PM
    • #2
    • 29th Dec 15, 10:20 PM
    Dont forget to spread the word to friends and family as they need 100,000 signitures for it to come to a debate. This page wont let me upload the link but the link is on this webpage when you search for it.
    • ffacoffipawb
    • By ffacoffipawb 29th Dec 15, 10:30 PM
    • 2,457 Posts
    • 1,604 Thanks
    ffacoffipawb
    • #3
    • 29th Dec 15, 10:30 PM
    • #3
    • 29th Dec 15, 10:30 PM
    It is unfair how a women aged 61 has to wait until 65 yet a women who turned 62 in October 2015 gets her statepension. How is that fair?
    Originally posted by KimC
    Because a man aged 61 also has to wait until 65. May even be 66 by now.

    It's called equality.
    • hyubh
    • By hyubh 29th Dec 15, 11:51 PM
    • 2,102 Posts
    • 1,609 Thanks
    hyubh
    • #4
    • 29th Dec 15, 11:51 PM
    • #4
    • 29th Dec 15, 11:51 PM
    It is unfair how a women aged 61 has to wait until 65 yet a women who turned 62 in October 2015 gets her statepension. How is that fair?
    Originally posted by KimC
    See the previous, very long thread on the topic - the majority of people on this board do not, in fact, agree with you.
    • saver861
    • By saver861 30th Dec 15, 12:31 AM
    • 1,378 Posts
    • 800 Thanks
    saver861
    • #5
    • 30th Dec 15, 12:31 AM
    • #5
    • 30th Dec 15, 12:31 AM
    See the previous, very long thread on the topic - the majority of people on this board do not, in fact, agree with you.
    Originally posted by hyubh
    I'm not sure that is correct. How can you ascertain that?

    I'm not sure what the numbers of people on these boards are, however, there was a surge in the petition votes after MSE and Martin gave their support to the cause.

    http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/news/family/2015/12/mps-to-debate-womens-state-pension-changes-as-79000-sign-petition?_ga=1.132075082.434486696.1436005824

    I understand there are over one million subscribers on this board. The thread you refer to suggest the majority of 'posters' on that thread does not agree. However, as it often the case in such situations, there may be a silent majority.

    See my signature - if you or any others happen to agree that the 2011 changes were unfair to some women then you can let your MP know.
    Last edited by saver861; 30-12-2015 at 12:45 AM.
    • Daniel54
    • By Daniel54 30th Dec 15, 1:12 AM
    • 598 Posts
    • 702 Thanks
    Daniel54
    • #6
    • 30th Dec 15, 1:12 AM
    • #6
    • 30th Dec 15, 1:12 AM
    [QUOTE=saver861;69804528]I'm not sure that is correct. How can you ascertain that?

    I'm not sure what the numbers of people on these boards are, however, there was a surge in the petition votes after MSE and Martin gave their support to the cause.

    I understand there are over one million subscribers on this board. The thread you refer to suggest the majority of 'posters' on that thread does not agree. However, as it often the case in such situations, there may be a silent majority.
    /QUOTE]

    For the OP ,the 21 page thread is here .Well worth having a cup of tea and reading through it .
    http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=5378979

    For Saver861,the OP is complaining that transitioning women to equality to men at state pension age 65 or 66 creates inequality between women of different ages.How could it not not be so ? Either the change is phased,or you fall off a a cliff if you are born e.g. 1.1 1960 rather than 31.12.59.( other alternatives welcome !)

    I agree with hybh that that the consensus on the thread ( men and women) was to focus on the 12 /18 month extension without 10 year notice in the 2011 act

    I do not need your help to contact my MP but this will be be my input to her,after the seasonal break) when the subject comes up for debate

    Snowman's well thought out view is the one I would ask her to focus on

    "I would certainly support a revised timescale that limited the increases in SPA for females under the 2011 Act to 12 months, with male SPA set equal to female SPA also (but perhaps only at the point revised female SPA reaches 65 or else you end up with some males with an SPA less than 65 which feels wrong).

    So that would affect women born between 6/10/53 and 5/4/55 and males born from 6/4/54 to 5/4/55.

    Women born between 6/12/53 and 5/10/54 would see a reduction in SPA of 6 months (as their original 2011 increase was 18 months), and other women born in the range 6/10/53 to 5/12/53 and 6/10/54 to 5/4/55 would see a reduction of something under 6 months.

    Men born between 6/4/54 and 5/10/54 would see a reduction in SPA of 6 months and those born between 6/10/54 and 5/4/55 would see a reduction of less than 6 months.

    The only thing wrong with this from a practical viewpoint (if you ignore cost and inter-generational unfairness) is that it would be legislating for increased male inequality for males born between 6/10/53 and 5/4/54.

    What will you be saying to your MP ?"
    Last edited by Daniel54; 30-12-2015 at 1:23 AM.
    • POPPYOSCAR
    • By POPPYOSCAR 30th Dec 15, 1:16 AM
    • 10,942 Posts
    • 23,531 Thanks
    POPPYOSCAR
    • #7
    • 30th Dec 15, 1:16 AM
    • #7
    • 30th Dec 15, 1:16 AM
    Signed.


    Over 96,000 signatures so should soon reach the 100,000
    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/110776
    Last edited by POPPYOSCAR; 30-12-2015 at 1:20 AM.
    • Torry Quine
    • By Torry Quine 30th Dec 15, 1:29 AM
    • 17,171 Posts
    • 26,490 Thanks
    Torry Quine
    • #8
    • 30th Dec 15, 1:29 AM
    • #8
    • 30th Dec 15, 1:29 AM
    I think equalizing the ages and raising it is necessary and won't be signing. Yes there are women who loose out more than others but there has to be a cut off somewhere.
    Lost my soulmate so life is empty.

    I can bear pain myself, he said softly, but I couldna bear yours. That would take more strength than I have -
    Diana Gabaldon, Outlander
    • Daniel54
    • By Daniel54 30th Dec 15, 1:31 AM
    • 598 Posts
    • 702 Thanks
    Daniel54
    • #9
    • 30th Dec 15, 1:31 AM
    • #9
    • 30th Dec 15, 1:31 AM
    Signed.


    Over 96,000 signatures so should soon reach the 100,000
    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/110776
    Originally posted by POPPYOSCAR
    Why ?

    Do you support the petition or the WASPI Facebook campaign ?What do you consider to be the aim of the petition ?

    Not getting at you at all, but how would you aim to equalise retirement ages?

    I
    • saver861
    • By saver861 30th Dec 15, 1:42 AM
    • 1,378 Posts
    • 800 Thanks
    saver861

    I agree with hybh that that the consensus on the thread ( men and women) was to focus on the 12 /18 month extension without 10 year notice in the 2011 act

    I do not need your help to contact my MP but this will be be my input to her,after the seasonal break) when the subject comes up for debate
    Originally posted by Daniel54
    Excellent!!!



    What will you be saying to your MP ?"
    Originally posted by Daniel54
    My message was something very similar to what yours will be it would seem - and as per my signature message!!!! My MP already knows my position - the nice man wrote back to me on lovely yellow House of Commons paper telling me he agreed with me! Wise man! He also told me he would be writing to Baroness Altmann, Minister of State for Pensions on my behalf. When he receives a reply from said Baroness, he will contact me again.

    Should you still be displaying continued curiosity of what said Baroness responded to said MP, I'd be more than happy to enlighten you further! That said, I would be much happier if the Baroness was busy working on revising the 2011 arrangements rather than spending her time writing letters to me.


    For the record, my view is, as a minimum, there should a maximum twelve months wait for all those impacted. However, in addition, the Pension Review rule is that anyone having their spa changed should have a minimum of ten years notice. It seems only fair that those who have had less than ten years have those changes removed.

    If so, some of those with a current eighteen months extension might in fact, have the extension removed totally if they have not had ten years notice.
    • mgdavid
    • By mgdavid 30th Dec 15, 1:53 AM
    • 5,517 Posts
    • 4,820 Thanks
    mgdavid
    I will be urging my MP to support the status quo, and continue the ceaseless and rapid advancement of equality.
    Been saying to wimmin 'be careful what you wish for' for years and years - but they still want it all ways...
    The questions that get the best answers are the questions that give most detail....
    • patanne
    • By patanne 30th Dec 15, 2:48 AM
    • 1,270 Posts
    • 2,553 Thanks
    patanne
    The stated aim of that group is to compensate all women whose state pension age became over 60 with every penny they did not receive. When this discussion overrides any other points made in parliament (which it will) the women who really had too short notice to compensate themselves (ie not be compensated by others) due to the 2011 changes will be the ones who are really disadvantaged. It is a badly worded petition designed by people who didn't manage to figure out in 20 years that their SPA had changed. So yet more attempts at legislation to protect those who make absolutely no attempt to keep up!
    • RickyB2000
    • By RickyB2000 30th Dec 15, 7:20 AM
    • 303 Posts
    • 174 Thanks
    RickyB2000
    This could be argued for almost any change that negatively impacts a group compared to before. Is it fair students today have to pay off student loans when students yesterday didn't? Is it fair someone earning 60k a year and starts a family gets no child benefit when someone who started a family years ago on the same money did. Is it fair that people earning over 150k have to pay more tax than people earning over 150k had to years ago? Is it fair that tomorrow's landlords will pay more tax and more stamp duty than today's?

    The argument for making these changes is often that these people earn enough (or will earn enough) so can compensate for them. Is that fair? The country needs the money! I would agree, the only reason to look at this is if not enough time was allowed for people who HAVE to retire at 60 (not sure why people would be in this position) to make alternative plans.
    Last edited by RickyB2000; 30-12-2015 at 7:22 AM.
    • jem16
    • By jem16 30th Dec 15, 8:57 AM
    • 18,592 Posts
    • 11,418 Thanks
    jem16
    If so, some of those with a current eighteen months extension might in fact, have the extension removed totally if they have not had ten years notice.
    Originally posted by saver861
    There's no "if" about the 10 years notice. No-one with an 18 month extension had 10 years notice.

    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. Judging by the conversation I had with one former colleague last week, there are many who did know about the changes but who are now conveniently forgetting.
    Last edited by jem16; 30-12-2015 at 9:00 AM.
    • Goldiegirl
    • By Goldiegirl 30th Dec 15, 9:14 AM
    • 8,318 Posts
    • 48,797 Thanks
    Goldiegirl
    The stated aim of that group is to compensate all women whose state pension age became over 60 with every penny they did not receive. !
    Originally posted by patanne
    That's only 1950's women they are campaigning for.

    If you are born after 1/1/60, WASPI aren't interested

    I still await anybody who supports WASPI to give a satisfactory explanation as to the fairness of someone being born 31/12/59 should get full compensation, and a person born 1/1/60 should get nothing and wait until age 66 until they collect their state pension.

    WASPI campaign against 'unfairness', yet if they got their way, they'd just ensure that a different group of people were treated even more unfairly!
    Early retired - 18th December 2014
    If your dreams don't scare you, they're not big enough
    • jem16
    • By jem16 30th Dec 15, 10:30 AM
    • 18,592 Posts
    • 11,418 Thanks
    jem16
    It is unfair how a women aged 61 has to wait until 65 yet a women who turned 62 in October 2015 gets her statepension. How is that fair?
    Originally posted by KimC
    Do you actually know what you're talking about?

    A woman born 31st October 1953 - ie turns 62 in October 2015 - gets her state pension when she is 64 years, 8 months and 6 days so she won't have got her state pension yet as she's not due to get it until 6th July 2018.
    • dunstonh
    • By dunstonh 30th Dec 15, 10:46 AM
    • 92,183 Posts
    • 59,345 Thanks
    dunstonh
    there was a surge in the petition votes after MSE and Martin gave their support to the cause.
    MSE and Martin are going to support it. MSE needs to remain a good guy in the eyes of the consumer. So, rather than explain the situation and say the 1995 changes are fair and equality is fair but the more recent increase was too quick, its easier just to support the petition as it is.

    In effect, the WASPI petition is arguing for inequality. So, for all those women that signed the petition, get back in the Kitchen where you belong and lets take away your right to vote (and therefore carry out petitions).
    I am an Independent Financial Adviser (IFA). Comments are for discussion purposes only. They are not financial advice. If you feel an area discussed may be relevant to you, then please seek advice from an Independent Financial Adviser local to you.
    • atush
    • By atush 30th Dec 15, 10:58 AM
    • 16,637 Posts
    • 10,340 Thanks
    atush
    i wont be signing, and wont be contacting any MPs.

    The petition is flawed, as is the argument. As said above, the small number of women (and men) adversely affected should be supported in asking for a revised timescale. Nothing else.
    • KimC
    • By KimC 30th Dec 15, 11:16 AM
    • 4 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    KimC
    Notice is the resson for the petition
    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.
    • saver861
    • By saver861 30th Dec 15, 11:28 AM
    • 1,378 Posts
    • 800 Thanks
    saver861
    MSE and Martin are going to support it. MSE needs to remain a good guy in the eyes of the consumer. So, rather than explain the situation and say the 1995 changes are fair and equality is fair but the more recent increase was too quick, its easier just to support the petition as it is.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    Wrong. As I said on the other thread, Martin and MSE have an image to uphold. That image is the thrust of their business. Martin may be a good guy, but he is also a shrewd guy!! He will not support anything that will tarnish his image, or not that of MSE. Thus, if the campaign was so far out, he would not be supporting it, nor would it have gotten anything like the signatures it has received.

    Not agreeing with it is one thing - being blind to it is something different.

    In effect, the WASPI petition is arguing for inequality. So, for all those women that signed the petition, get back in the Kitchen where you belong and lets take away your right to vote (and therefore carry out petitions).
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    Do you really think that is what MSE and Martin are supporting?
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

2,593Posts Today

8,443Users online

Martin's Twitter