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 61
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 12th Jan 18, 6:00 PM
    • 2,880 Posts
    • 4,103 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    No they haven't. A woman born on 1 May 1953 reaches SPA at 63 years and 2 months. A woman born on 30 June reaches SPA at 63 years and 8 months. Half a year is significant, but not nearly a year. You shouldn't believe everything you read on the WASPI Facebook page.

    The cliff edge is in WASPI's demand for a woman born 31 December 1959 to have a State Pension Age of 60 and a woman born 1 January 1960 to have a State Pension Age of 66. A 6 year cliff edge for a one day difference in age.
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    The difference is actually only 4 months - you've counted the age difference as well.
    • POPPYOSCAR
    • By POPPYOSCAR 12th Jan 18, 11:00 PM
    • 11,006 Posts
    • 23,630 Thanks
    POPPYOSCAR
    Bit late. It was debated in December and rejected
    Originally posted by unforeseen
    Yes I know
    • Nual
    • By Nual 14th Jan 18, 6:48 PM
    • 152 Posts
    • 66 Thanks
    Nual
    I am a woman affected by this change - to the tune of around 48k - and am so disappointed by the vitriolic posts here that ignore the following disadvantage that this age group of women have experienced.

    1. The massive disparity between men and women's pay that exists even in the public sector today ie BBC. We still haven't implemented publishing the gender pay gap !
    2. The massive disadvantage the main child carer experiences in terms of reduced hours, promotion etc. Yes there are some men who are house husbands, but not many
    3. Women continue to be the ones who keep the household running and carry the domestic burden in 90%+ of cases
    4. Women continue to be the main carers for elderly/ disabled family members in 90%+ of cases

    Women now in their 20's have better educational outcomes than men. However, when women now in their 60s were in their 20s , what percentage went on to higher education compared to men. What did they earn compared to men?

    Discrimination on the basis of gender has been illegal in the UK since 1975. More than 40 years ago. It is still a long way from being eliminated. Using this legislation to equalise the state retirement age and then raising this for all has had a disproportionate effect on a group of women who have been severely disadvantaged in the workplace for the whole of their adult lives
    • hugheskevi
    • By hugheskevi 14th Jan 18, 7:25 PM
    • 1,989 Posts
    • 2,481 Thanks
    hugheskevi
    I am a man, affected by State Pension age increases announced since 1995 and the reform to single-tier pension, to the tune of about £25,000 to date and probably more as future increases are introduced and the State Pension increases above prices.

    I think those expecting younger cohorts to further subsidise older cohorts should take into account:
    1. My prime working years have been affected by a period of low earnings growth almost unprecedented in history.
    2. House purchase prices being extremely high income multiples, again at historically high levels
    3. Men being expected (allegedly) to shoulder the lion's share of the earnings burden within households
    4. The almost total eradication of Defined Benefit pension schemes in the private sector, being replaced by far inferior Defined Contribution pensions.
    Most of the group who would have State Pensions in excess of the £159.55 single-tier flat rate pension under the previous pension system were men. Changing the State Pension to flat-rate had a disproportionate effect on a group of men who have been severely disadvantaged in the housing and employment marketplace for large proportions of their lives.

    • redux
    • By redux 14th Jan 18, 7:28 PM
    • 18,242 Posts
    • 24,133 Thanks
    redux
    I am a woman affected by this change - to the tune of around 48k - and am so disappointed by the vitriolic posts here that ignore the following disadvantage that this age group of women have experienced.

    1. The massive disparity between men and women's pay that exists even in the public sector today ie BBC. We still haven't implemented publishing the gender pay gap !
    2. The massive disadvantage the main child carer experiences in terms of reduced hours, promotion etc. Yes there are some men who are house husbands, but not many
    3. Women continue to be the ones who keep the household running and carry the domestic burden in 90%+ of cases
    4. Women continue to be the main carers for elderly/ disabled family members in 90%+ of cases

    Women now in their 20's have better educational outcomes than men. However, when women now in their 60s were in their 20s , what percentage went on to higher education compared to men. What did they earn compared to men?

    Discrimination on the basis of gender has been illegal in the UK since 1975. More than 40 years ago. It is still a long way from being eliminated. Using this legislation to equalise the state retirement age and then raising this for all has had a disproportionate effect on a group of women who have been severely disadvantaged in the workplace for the whole of their adult lives
    Originally posted by Nual
    These are things that are discussed in other contexts, but only your last paragraph actually has anything about state pensions.

    Women with career breaks are able to make up missing years of contributions, or qualify on the basis of husband's contributions (as my mother did), and in any case nobody is compelled to have as many years as possible.

    Most of the changes will have been known for about 20 to 25 years by the time the people affected are 60 years old. That seems like plenty of notice.

    It is true that accelerating the process for age equalisation to happen about 2 years earlier than previously foreseen didn't have as much notice given, but even this will be a few years.

    There could be a case for arguing about the fairness of this part, and indeed maybe it would be better tactics to concentrate on this rather than reigniting arguments to span 30 years, but that doesn't add up to £48,000 or £80,000 or whatever numbers are being mentioned.

    But I'm a man, so what I'm saying may be at risk of being declared both ignorant and sexist.
    • molerat
    • By molerat 14th Jan 18, 7:38 PM
    • 18,815 Posts
    • 12,998 Thanks
    molerat
    Discrimination on the basis of gender has been illegal in the UK since 1975.
    Originally posted by Nual
    Precisely, 40 years on and men are still being discriminated against in when they receive their state pensions
    www.helpforheroes.org.uk/donations.html
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 14th Jan 18, 7:46 PM
    • 2,880 Posts
    • 4,103 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    Precisely, 40 years on and men are still being discriminated against in when they receive their state pensions
    Originally posted by molerat
    Exactly. Mr S will get his State pension at 65 - but, if he'd had a twin sister, she would have got her State pension at 63 years and 3 months.
    • k6chris
    • By k6chris 14th Jan 18, 7:47 PM
    • 222 Posts
    • 385 Thanks
    k6chris
    Precisely, 40 years on and men are still being discriminated against in when they receive their state pensions
    Originally posted by molerat
    and on very many things relating to children, one specific example being that still in 2018 unmarried men still have no UK wide automatic parental rights. I would love sex equality in all aspects in the UK, but it needs to be in all aspects.
    EatingSoup
    • POPPYOSCAR
    • By POPPYOSCAR 14th Jan 18, 8:53 PM
    • 11,006 Posts
    • 23,630 Thanks
    POPPYOSCAR
    I am a woman affected by this change - to the tune of around 48k - and am so disappointed by the vitriolic posts here that ignore the following disadvantage that this age group of women have experienced.

    1. The massive disparity between men and women's pay that exists even in the public sector today ie BBC. We still haven't implemented publishing the gender pay gap !
    2. The massive disadvantage the main child carer experiences in terms of reduced hours, promotion etc. Yes there are some men who are house husbands, but not many
    3. Women continue to be the ones who keep the household running and carry the domestic burden in 90%+ of cases
    4. Women continue to be the main carers for elderly/ disabled family members in 90%+ of cases

    Women now in their 20's have better educational outcomes than men. However, when women now in their 60s were in their 20s , what percentage went on to higher education compared to men. What did they earn compared to men?

    Discrimination on the basis of gender has been illegal in the UK since 1975. More than 40 years ago. It is still a long way from being eliminated. Using this legislation to equalise the state retirement age and then raising this for all has had a disproportionate effect on a group of women who have been severely disadvantaged in the workplace for the whole of their adult lives
    Originally posted by Nual

    I agree with you and it is not fair on you.

    You are quite right in all you say and even now as you have pointed out women do not have parity with men on jobs and salaries as has been highlighted in the media very recently.
    • GibbsRule No3
    • By GibbsRule No3 14th Jan 18, 8:59 PM
    • 663 Posts
    • 382 Thanks
    GibbsRule No3
    Exactly. Mr S will get his State pension at 65 - but, if he'd had a twin sister, she would have got her State pension at 63 years and 3 months.
    Originally posted by Silvertabby
    But Mr S knew when he signed up that he would get it at 65 his twin sister would have been told 60, then had it moved to 63 and 3 months and then both would be told now 66, so lucky him he only factor in 1 extra year not suddenly have it changed by 6. So both would have benefitted if his extra year had been phased in.
    Paddle No 21
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 14th Jan 18, 9:12 PM
    • 2,880 Posts
    • 4,103 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    But Mr S knew when he signed up that he would get it at 65 his twin sister would have been told 60, then had it moved to 63 and 3 months and then both would be told now 66, so lucky him he only factor in 1 extra year not suddenly have it changed by 6. So both would have benefitted if his extra year had been phased in.
    Originally posted by GibbsRule No3
    It's still 65 for his State pension (just). However, State pensions didn't factor into our 'signing up' - just our RAF pensions.

    To be fair, the re-equalisation of State pension age should have been part of the 1975 Sex Equality Act - that way the increases could have been phased in much more gradually. Unfortunately, Harold Wilson was only interested in vote winners rather than vote losers.
    Last edited by Silvertabby; 14-01-2018 at 9:17 PM.
    • atush
    • By atush 14th Jan 18, 9:25 PM
    • 16,829 Posts
    • 10,501 Thanks
    atush
    and on very many things relating to children, one specific example being that still in 2018 unmarried men still have no UK wide automatic parental rights. I would love sex equality in all aspects in the UK, but it needs to be in all aspects.
    Originally posted by k6chris
    I agree with this, but conversely there is no automatic system to pay child maintenance married or unmarried.

    Sure there is a department, and there can be judgments awarding same. But HMRC dont deduct it at source for payment to the custodial parent. like some other countires do.


    I'd love to see unmarried men and women and their children to get what is due to them in both financial and visitation terms.
    • k6chris
    • By k6chris 14th Jan 18, 10:31 PM
    • 222 Posts
    • 385 Thanks
    k6chris
    I agree with this, but conversely there is no automatic system to pay child maintenance married or unmarried. .
    Originally posted by atush
    Nothing to do with Child Maintenance, an unmarried father, even when they are part of a fully functioning family, still has no automatic Parental Resposibility. If the woman decides they don't want to marry (for whatever reason) the father has no automatic right to the child across the UK. Bring on genuine equality and base it on facts.

    https://www.gov.uk/parental-rights-responsibilities/who-has-parental-responsibility
    Last edited by k6chris; 14-01-2018 at 10:35 PM.
    EatingSoup
    • zagfles
    • By zagfles 14th Jan 18, 10:49 PM
    • 13,196 Posts
    • 11,203 Thanks
    zagfles
    But Mr S knew when he signed up that he would get it at 65 his twin sister would have been told 60, then had it moved to 63 and 3 months and then both would be told now 66, so lucky him he only factor in 1 extra year not suddenly have it changed by 6. So both would have benefitted if his extra year had been phased in.
    Originally posted by GibbsRule No3
    "Suddenly" meaning being told over 20 years ago about most of that 6 year change.

    Equality doesn't happen suddenly, because there's too many vested interests trying to preserve their privilege. And hypocrites who pretend to want equality except when they benefit from inequality.
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 15th Jan 18, 8:01 AM
    • 20,191 Posts
    • 54,194 Thanks
    Pollycat
    But Mr S knew when he signed up that he would get it at 65 his twin sister would have been told 60, then had it moved to 63 and 3 months and then both would be told now 66, so lucky him he only factor in 1 extra year not suddenly have it changed by 6. So both would have benefitted if his extra year had been phased in.
    Originally posted by GibbsRule No3
    No they wouldn't both be told now 66.

    I'm a late 1953 woman so affected by both Pension Acts (1995 & 2011).
    When I started work aged 17, women's state pensions were paid at age 60.
    Way back in 1995, I was aware that my state pension would be payable at age 63 years and 6 months (3 months later than the woman in your example).
    I was then told in 2010 that my state pension date had been pushed back by 1 year and 3 months to age 64 and 9 months.
    So Mr S's twin sister would still get her pension before her brother.
    And he would get his pension age 65, not 66.
    Last edited by Pollycat; 15-01-2018 at 8:10 AM.
    • GibbsRule No3
    • By GibbsRule No3 15th Jan 18, 10:03 AM
    • 663 Posts
    • 382 Thanks
    GibbsRule No3
    Idly curious why isn!!!8217;t there a !!!8220;MASPI!!!8221; to get the 66 increase phased in? BTW I agree the SP age should have been phased in from 1975 easier all round. The 2011 increase is the raise I have a problem with, the 95 was acceptable and workable.
    Paddle No 21
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 15th Jan 18, 10:09 AM
    • 20,191 Posts
    • 54,194 Thanks
    Pollycat
    Idly curious why isn’t there a “MASPI” to get the 66 increase phased in? BTW I agree the SP age should have been phased in from 1975 easier all round. The 2011 increase is the raise I have a problem with, the 95 was acceptable and workable.
    Originally posted by GibbsRule No3
    I think we all feel that way about the short notice of the 2011 Act.
    And is WASPI hadn't been so GRASPI and had focused on that instead of wanting payment of women's pensions rolled back to pre-1995, they may have had more success.
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 15th Jan 18, 12:31 PM
    • 2,880 Posts
    • 4,103 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    I think we all feel that way about the short notice of the 2011 Act.
    And is WASPI hadn't been so GRASPI and had focused on that instead of wanting payment of women's pensions rolled back to pre-1995, they may have had more success.
    Originally posted by Pollycat
    I'm a little younger than you, Polly, so the 2011 changes gave me 10 years notice of the change of my SPA from 2021 to 2022 (65 to 66).

    Not an unreasonable amount of notice - for me - but I do sympathise with ladies of your age. I would have supported any moves to ease the transition for you and the other 1953/1954 ladies - but GRASPI put the kibosh on all that with their ridiculous demands.
    • LHW99
    • By LHW99 15th Jan 18, 1:44 PM
    • 1,325 Posts
    • 1,223 Thanks
    LHW99
    As I have said before, it needed doing, but I would have preferred there to have been one (maybe larger overall) change for any given age group. It left a bit of a taste to have a second shift thrown in in 2011.
    Having said that, that's the way the cookie crumbled and it certainly doesn't justify the WASPE hoohah
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 15th Jan 18, 2:28 PM
    • 20,191 Posts
    • 54,194 Thanks
    Pollycat
    I'm a little younger than you, Polly, so the 2011 changes gave me 10 years notice of the change of my SPA from 2021 to 2022 (65 to 66).

    Not an unreasonable amount of notice - for me - but I do sympathise with ladies of your age. I would have supported any moves to ease the transition for you and the other 1953/1954 ladies - but GRASPI put the kibosh on all that with their ridiculous demands.
    Originally posted by Silvertabby
    Silvertabby
    Fortunately for me, the additional 15 months hasn't caused me personally any financial hardship but I know it has done so for some women (not the champagne-swilling, first-class-travelling face of WASPI though) & I too would have supported any financial help for those women in financial need. Even though I would not have benefited myself.
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