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 3
    • atush
    • By atush 30th Dec 15, 3:42 PM
    • 16,829 Posts
    • 10,501 Thanks
    atush
    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.
    Originally posted by KimC
    Rubbish. There was 10 years notice of the raise from age 60-65.
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 30th Dec 15, 3:44 PM
    • 13,196 Posts
    • 11,203 Thanks
    zagfles
    And I sincerely hope you had your child in a car seat too or did you not get your letter about that either?
    Originally posted by jem16
    She's 17 so she wouldn't fit. The copper muttered something about seatbelts but as everyone knows you don't have to wear a seatbelt, I passed by test in the early 80's without wearing one and I've had no letter telling me anything's changed.

    Anyway I've run out of fags so I've sent her down the shop to get me some. She obviously won't have a problem as I bought them legally when I was 16.

    She was off out anyway to post a letter to the Sun, her and her mate are hoping to become page 3 models and they're sending topless photos in. Not sure I approve, but there again her Mum appeared topless in the Sun at 16 so we don't want to appear hypocrites.
    • jem16
    • By jem16 30th Dec 15, 3:45 PM
    • 18,595 Posts
    • 11,419 Thanks
    jem16
    Rubbish. There was 10 years notice of the raise from age 60-65.
    Originally posted by atush
    Hopefully that 10 was a typo atush as there was 15 years notice till actual implementation in 2010 but with the full increase to age 65 not happening till 2015 so 20 years.
    • atush
    • By atush 30th Dec 15, 3:45 PM
    • 16,829 Posts
    • 10,501 Thanks
    atush
    *sigh*


    The increase in the pension age to 65 was announced in 1995 - surely 20 years was enough to plan


    If the WASPI campaign centred on the changes announced in 2011, many more people would be interested in signing the petition
    Originally posted by Goldiegirl

    Exactly. If it was about the 2011 changes i would sign it.
    • atush
    • By atush 30th Dec 15, 3:49 PM
    • 16,829 Posts
    • 10,501 Thanks
    atush
    Hopefully that 10 was a typo atush as there was 15 years notice till actual implementation in 2010 but with the full increase to age 65 not happening till 2015 so 20 years.
    Originally posted by jem16
    Yes, typo lol.

    But my point still stands. Kim needs to read up on this before posting. 15-20 years was enough notice of the main change.
    • jem16
    • By jem16 30th Dec 15, 3:52 PM
    • 18,595 Posts
    • 11,419 Thanks
    jem16
    She's 17 so she wouldn't fit. The copper muttered something about seatbelts but as everyone knows you don't have to wear a seatbelt, I passed by test in the early 80's without wearing one and I've had no letter telling me anything's changed.
    Originally posted by zagfles
    That's a shame. Next you'll be telling me that you don't read the newspapers, listen to the radio or watch TV.

    Of course maybe you did actually get a letter and you didn't understand it because they sent you a 3 page letter with the date you had to wear a seatbelt hidden in Page 2, rather than your age in numbers clearly written in a one page letter?

    Or perhaps you're not good with numbers?
    • noh
    • By noh 30th Dec 15, 4:20 PM
    • 5,246 Posts
    • 3,546 Thanks
    noh
    That's a shame. Next you'll be telling me that you don't read the newspapers, listen to the radio or watch TV.

    Of course maybe you did actually get a letter and you didn't understand it because they sent you a 3 page letter with the date you had to wear a seatbelt hidden in Page 2, rather than your age in numbers clearly written in a one page letter?

    Or perhaps you're not good with numbers?
    Originally posted by jem16
    If it was on page 3 he would have seen it.
    • chris_m
    • By chris_m 30th Dec 15, 4:22 PM
    • 6,417 Posts
    • 23,706 Thanks
    chris_m
    If it was on page 3 he would have seen it.
    Originally posted by noh
    Only if it was, ahem, strategically positioned on the page
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 30th Dec 15, 4:26 PM
    • 13,196 Posts
    • 11,203 Thanks
    zagfles
    That's a shame. Next you'll be telling me that you don't read the newspapers, listen to the radio or watch TV.
    Originally posted by jem16
    Of course not. I expect the govt to write to me personally to inform me of any change in any law that affects me. Surely everyone does?
    Of course maybe you did actually get a letter and you didn't understand it because they sent you a 3 page letter with the date you had to wear a seatbelt hidden in Page 2, rather than your age in numbers clearly written in a one page letter?
    Well obviously the letter has to be 1 page. I don't have time to read more than 1 page. Except in the Sun.
    Or perhaps you're not good with numbers?
    Or letters. But surely the govt should still tell people who can't read? Discrimination, that's what it is. I demand equality. And compo.
    • jem16
    • By jem16 30th Dec 15, 4:28 PM
    • 18,595 Posts
    • 11,419 Thanks
    jem16
    Discrimination, that's what it is. I demand equality. And compo.
    Originally posted by zagfles
    Well not before I get it - I want my £37k!!!
    • hugheskevi
    • By hugheskevi 30th Dec 15, 4:46 PM
    • 1,989 Posts
    • 2,481 Thanks
    hugheskevi
    With all this nonsense going on re notice of changes and potential backdating of payments - no-one has answered the Q -HOW would it be paid for?? A massive hike in NI rates ?? An increase in the basic rate of income tax ?? A BIG increase in public borrowing ?? ALL of those would be massive vote losers so DC ain't doing anything about it regardless of how many greedy 60+ women sign !!!
    Originally posted by brewerdave
    Totally agree.

    If the petition limited itself to the 2010 changes, there would only be a small, but vocal, number of potential gainers, females born in 1953 and 1954. By combining the 2010 changes with the 1995 changes there is a much wider base of potential support. Like most policy changes, the majority are not directly affected and so don't engage. This can make campaigns such as this appear to have a lot of support and no significant opposition.

    From a consumer champion's perspective, supporting the campaign gains favour with those arguing for it, whilst those who are not directly don't engage. So a bit like being the Opposition, there is the luxury of arguing in favour of something that would cost money but which is popular amongst those following the debate, without having to worry about saying where the money comes from.

    The changes are largely if not exclusively financial in consequence - taking the average female State Pension of about £120, those who had their State Pension increased lost out by about £9,500 (18 months of £120 p/w). There are other consequences of a higher State Pension age, eg, National Insurance payments and Pension Credit eligibility, but those also end up being a financial consequence and are of much less significance. Clearly if the Government simply financed the change by higher taxes elsewhere that happened to fall exclusive on the group affected there would be no point in making the change, so the campaigners are arguing that resources should be directed from others to themselves.

    The issue therefore is whether it is reasonable to give 6 years of notice that wealth will be reduced by £9,500 (before tax). Whether that is reasonable or not probably depends a lot on whether the view is that the State Pension is an entitlement, paid for by NI contributions over the years, or whether it is a benefit, and so at the whim of the Government of the day. From a legal perspective it is acceptable, so the question comes down to moral views about reasonableness.

    In terms of the practicality of adjusting, those affected have the choice to work longer, save more or accept a lower income. Those still in work have the easiest adjustment as they have the most options available. Those who had already left the labour market should have built up contingencies against various risks, including policy change risk. Those who left the labour market involuntarily still have a benefits system in place to support them. There will always be difficult cases, but that would be the general argument.

    From a social welfare perspective it is difficult to justify a transfer from younger individuals to this age cohort (as younger individuals will be paying the majority of taxation, which would be higher due to this change), who have far greater wealth than those who would be paying the higher taxes required to fund the policy change. They would also be retiring many years later than those they would be paying to retire at 60 - many up to a decade later.

    In an ideal world politics and pensions would be far more stable, well thought out and major reforms to State and private pensions announced a decade in advance. In practice it just doesn't work like that, and given the huge changes across the board announced in 2010 (tuition fee increases, RPI/CPI changes to pension revalorisation, VAT, public sector pay freeze, public sector contribution increase), many of which were announced with little or no notice, giving 6 years notice that some will lose around £9,500 (which is about 5 months of net salary, based on the average full time wage for those 60+, of about £25,000) doesn't seem unreasonable - certainly not ideal, but six years is still a long time.
    Last edited by hugheskevi; 30-12-2015 at 4:49 PM.
    • saver861
    • By saver861 30th Dec 15, 5:06 PM
    • 1,378 Posts
    • 800 Thanks
    saver861

    The issue therefore is whether it is reasonable to give 6 years of notice that wealth will be reduced by £9,500 (before tax). Whether that is reasonable or not probably depends a lot on whether the view is that the State Pension is an entitlement, paid for by NI contributions over the years, or whether it is a benefit, and so at the whim of the Government of the day.
    Originally posted by hugheskevi
    Well it has been determined by the government that it should be 10 years minimum.

    Any future changes to State Pension age will, as now, require primary legislation and will be subject to the full scrutiny of Parliament. The review will seek to give individuals affected by changes to their State Pension age at least 10 years’ notice.

    You would have a difficulty in arguing that 6 years notice is reasonable when the government themselves say it should be a minimum of 10.

    On that basis, it is not unreasonable for those given just 6 years notice to feel a sense of unfairness.
    • OldBeanz
    • By OldBeanz 30th Dec 15, 5:20 PM
    • 740 Posts
    • 568 Thanks
    OldBeanz
    Males born in 1955 were given less than 10 years notice of the change in their pension age to 66 so this is not reflected in the petition.
    • RickyB2000
    • By RickyB2000 30th Dec 15, 6:10 PM
    • 305 Posts
    • 174 Thanks
    RickyB2000
    Well it has been determined by the government that it should be 10 years minimum.

    Any future changes to State Pension age will, as now, require primary legislation and will be subject to the full scrutiny of Parliament. The review will seek to give individuals affected by changes to their State Pension age at least 10 years’ notice.

    You would have a difficulty in arguing that 6 years notice is reasonable when the government themselves say it should be a minimum of 10.

    On that basis, it is not unreasonable for those given just 6 years notice to feel a sense of unfairness.
    Originally posted by saver861
    Though I note the wording falls short of guaranteeing 10 years notice....

    Arguably, the notice period should reflect the size and the impact of the change. An increase of 1 year should require less notice than an increase of 5 years as someone would have to save a lot more to cover 5 years compared to 1 year (if we assume people still have to retire at the original age). There may need to be a minimum period to protect those who retired early, I assume the 10 year notice is lined up to match the thinking that the age someone can access a private pension should be 10 years before the state pension.
    • jem16
    • By jem16 30th Dec 15, 6:16 PM
    • 18,595 Posts
    • 11,419 Thanks
    jem16
    Well it has been determined by the government that it should be 10 years minimum.

    Any future changes to State Pension age will, as now, require primary legislation and will be subject to the full scrutiny of Parliament. The review will seek to give individuals affected by changes to their State Pension age at least 10 years!!!8217; notice.
    Originally posted by saver861
    I believe this was decided in April 2013 so after the 2011 changes - please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-state-pension-age

    If that is the case then you are proposing that this should apply retrospectively to the 2011 changes - is that correct?

    However earlier in this thread you said that the 1995 changes should not apply retrospectively and that those who had built up NI contributions for an age 60 state pension age should be allowed to keep them.

    Now either you allow changes to be made retrospectively or you don't. You can't pick and choose when you do apply them and when you don't as you appear to be doing here. For some reason you appear to be happy to accept retrospective changes when it's in your favour but not otherwise - do you not see the problem with that?
    • patanne
    • By patanne 30th Dec 15, 6:32 PM
    • 1,270 Posts
    • 2,553 Thanks
    patanne
    What is the betting that the women who didn't notice the changes to their SPA also didn't notice the changes to tax when their OHs no longer had to pay extra tax if they earned too much. I bet they jumped on that less than 5 seconds after it was announced.
    • saver861
    • By saver861 30th Dec 15, 7:11 PM
    • 1,378 Posts
    • 800 Thanks
    saver861
    I believe this was decided in April 2013 so after the 2011 changes - please correct me if I'm wrong on this.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/2010-to-2015-government-policy-state-pension-age

    If that is the case then you are proposing that this should apply retrospectively to the 2011 changes - is that correct?

    However earlier in this thread you said that the 1995 changes should not apply retrospectively and that those who had built up NI contributions for an age 60 state pension age should be allowed to keep them.

    Now either you allow changes to be made retrospectively or you don't. You can't pick and choose when you do apply them and when you don't as you appear to be doing here. For some reason you appear to be happy to accept retrospective changes when it's in your favour but not otherwise - do you not see the problem with that?
    Originally posted by jem16
    To be clear, I said that those who had paid their NIC's up to 1995 on the basis of getting pension at 60 should have stood for those years. The new 1995 changes then be applied from 1995 onwards, and not to any years built up before 1995.

    But .... at the risk of pointing out the obvious .... you answer your own question with your own logic!!

    The government did apply the 1995 changes retrospectively to all the years that were bought up to 1995. They did not apply the changes to the 10 year rule retrospectively to the 2011 changes!!

    So, if we take your logic, with the same examples, then it should either be retrospective or not.

    As it stands, the government has done exactly what you say should not happen. If I may be so bold, do 'you' not see the problem with that?

    .
    • jem16
    • By jem16 30th Dec 15, 7:18 PM
    • 18,595 Posts
    • 11,419 Thanks
    jem16
    Talk about selective information from WASPI.

    From this document that they want emailed to every MP;

    2.4.1 Automatic State Pension Forecasts (APF): Freedom of Information Response 3470 states “DWP has a Public Service Agreement, the aim of which was to combat poverty and promote security and independence in retirement for tomorrow's pensioners. It aimed to help people make informed decisions, by providing clear and accurate forecasts of their pension entitlement. As a result DWP issued un-prompted State Pension Forecasts to working age people who had not received any type of forecast within the preceding 12 months.”

    Yet this Letter makes NO reference to increases to women’s State Pension Age, despite many opportunities to do so.
    Note that they want to highlight that the letter mentioned in response 3470 makes no reference to increases in women's state pension age - an observation which is totally correct.

    However they omit to tell us that with the letter there was a leaflet called "A Quick Guide to State pensions" ( APF1 ) which was clearly mentioned that state pension age for women was between age 60 and 65 depending on your date of birth.

    This is a fuller explanation of response 3470 - now why would they omit that I wonder?

    https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/automatic_state_pension_forecast
    • RickyB2000
    • By RickyB2000 30th Dec 15, 7:27 PM
    • 305 Posts
    • 174 Thanks
    RickyB2000
    To be clear, I said that those who had paid their NIC's up to 1995 on the basis of getting pension at 60 should have stood for those years. The new 1995 changes then be applied from 1995 onwards, and not to any years built up before 1995.

    But .... at the risk of pointing out the obvious .... you answer your own question with your own logic!!

    The government did apply the 1995 changes retrospectively to all the years that were bought up to 1995. They did not apply the changes to the 10 year rule retrospectively to the 2011 changes!!

    So, if we take your logic, with the same examples, then it should either be retrospective or not.

    As it stands, the government has done exactly what you say should not happen. If I may be so bold, do 'you' not see the problem with that?

    .
    Originally posted by saver861
    I don't read it as a 10 year rule. It is worded more like a guideline or recommendation. In which case, is it not up to the discretion of the government on whether they do give 10 years notice and therefore they could argue they have good reason to implement changes faster than 10 years?
    • jem16
    • By jem16 30th Dec 15, 7:36 PM
    • 18,595 Posts
    • 11,419 Thanks
    jem16
    The government did apply the 1995 changes retrospectively to all the years that were bought up to 1995.
    Originally posted by saver861
    Yes they did but you do not think they should.

    They did not apply the changes to the 10 year rule retrospectively to the 2011 changes!!
    Again correct but in this case you think that they should.

    So, if we take your logic, with the same examples, then it should either be retrospective or not.
    Absolutely. So it's either;

    We allow retrospective changes for both;

    1. 1995 changes stand and 2011 changes do not.

    OR we don't allow non retrospective for both;

    2. 1995 changes don't stand and 2011 do stand.

    As it stands, the government has done exactly what you say should not happen. If I may be so bold, do 'you' not see the problem with that?
    Would you like another shot at that?
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

1,653Posts Today

8,343Users online

Martin's Twitter