Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair
Options
Comments
-
hugheskevi wrote: »
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.
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.0 -
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.0
-
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.
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.0 -
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.
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?0 -
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.0
-
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?
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?
.0 -
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_forecast0 -
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?
.
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?0 -
The government did apply the 1995 changes retrospectively to all the years that were bought up to 1995.
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?0 -
Yes they did but you do not think they should.
Again correct but in this case you think that they should.
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.
Would you like another shot at that?
No .... I'll just refer you back to re-read my post!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards