MSE News: Women's state pension petition gathers over 50,000 signatures
Options
Comments
-
missbiggles1 wrote: »Surely, if you were near the breadline you'd just carry on working? I appreciate that might not be what you want to do but it doesn't mean that you'll starve.
Ah right .... problem solved ... now why did I not think of that.
Course, there will be some who have health issues, or their family with health issues, so it might not be such an easy option.
hmm ... there will be some who may lose their jobs or have reduced hours imposed etc ... the choice may not be so readily available ....
but it is only a certain group of women who are impacted as such more so than others, so .... yeah, they can carry on working to make up for it. Simples ....
Problem solved in one ....0 -
I really have no idea what you're on about. My point is quite simple. Those who made solid plans based around a particular expected state pension age are the ones who are affected. Those who didn't make plans are in no worse a position than a man of the same age.Update: It now transpires that it seems 59% have not said they were unaware and it was only actually 27% that said they were unaware.
But your point is a little bit nonsensical from your own volition. Your view was that those who said they were unaware were likely to be those not making any plans for pension in any case.
So there's no issue then.As above - by your references, 0% would have been adversely affected. Don't need no survey.0 -
I really have no idea what you're on about. My point is quite simple. Those who made solid plans based around a particular expected state pension age are the ones who are affected.
Well, lets see if we can keep it a bit more simplified.
Mrs Smith was told in 1995 her retirement age was now going to be 64.
Mrs Smith was then told in 2011 her retirement age is now not 64, but 65 and 6 months.
Mrs Smith has to either accept the new age and work to it or make plans to redress the balance so she can retire at 64.
Either way, Mrs Smith either has to work an extra 18 months or make new plans to make up the shortfall. Even if she had not made any plans between 1995 and 2011, she will have to from 2011 or work extra 18 months.
Her sister, Mrs Jones, is a few years younger. She has been aware since 1995 that her pension age is 65. Then, in 2011, she finds out, nope, pension age is not 65, its gonna be 66. An extra 12 months.
Mrs Smith has an extra 18 months to wait and has around 6 years or so to make up shortfall or carry on working.
Mrs Jones has just an extra 12 months to wait and has around 12-14 years to make up the shortfall or carry on working.
This is unfair.
Your point is that those who have made plans between 1995 and 2011 are affected - those that did not are not impacted differently anyhow.
This is true.
However, both Mrs Smith and Mrs Jones face a longer working life or make plans from 2011.
When it came to those who were unaware of the changes for whatever reason, your contention was that those who were unaware of the changes would likely be those that had not made any plans anyhow thus they would not be impacted.
This is an assumption. Thus, by your assumption, nobody would be adversely affected.0 -
So she's in exactly the same boat as Mr Smith, who was born on the same day.Well, lets see if we can keep it a bit more simplified.
Mrs Smith was told in 1995 her retirement age was now going to be 64.
Mrs Smith was then told in 2011 her retirement age is now not 64, but 65 and 6 months.
Mrs Smith has to either accept the new age and work to it or make plans to redress the balance so she can retire at 64.
Either way, Mrs Smith either has to work an extra 18 months or make new plans to make up the shortfall. Even if she had not made any plans between 1995 and 2011, she will have to from 2011 or work extra 18 months.
Yes, if she had made savings plans around the earlier retirement date. If she hadn't, then she's exactly in the same position as Mr Smith born on the same day.Her sister, Mrs Jones, is a few years younger. She has been aware since 1995 that her pension age is 65. Then, in 2011, she finds out, nope, pension age is not 65, its gonna be 66. An extra 12 months.
Mrs Smith has an extra 18 months to wait and has around 6 years or so to make up shortfall or carry on working.
Mrs Jones has just an extra 12 months to wait and has around 12-14 years to make up the shortfall or carry on working.
This is unfair.
But this sort of notice isn't new. Like the 7 years notice people got that they'd have to wait an extra 5 years for their personal pension. When the govt announced in 2003 that the personal (& most workplace) pensions won't be payable till age 55, instead of 50.
Glad you agree.
Your point is that those who have made plans between 1995 and 2011 are affected - those that did not are not impacted differently anyhow.
This is true.
I thought that was talking about the 1995 changes, which apparently some people were unaware of.However, both Mrs Smith and Mrs Jones face a longer working life or make plans from 2011.
When it came to those who were unaware of the changes for whatever reason, your contention was that those who were unaware of the changes would likely be those that had not made any plans anyhow thus they would not be impacted.
This is an assumption. Thus, by your assumption, nobody would be adversely affected.
Like I said before, there is a point re the 2011 change and notice period. Just like the personal pension age, which people did whinge about - but it didn't have the gender element to it so it got ignored.0 -
Ah right .... problem solved ... now why did I not think of that.
Course, there will be some who have health issues, or their family with health issues, so it might not be such an easy option.
hmm ... there will be some who may lose their jobs or have reduced hours imposed etc ... the choice may not be so readily available ....
but it is only a certain group of women who are impacted as such more so than others, so .... yeah, they can carry on working to make up for it. Simples ....
Problem solved in one ....
There are always going to be people with exceptional circumstances but that's just what they are - exceptions.
I imagine that the men having to delay talking their SRP will just carry on working for another year or two as well.
And yes, I would've been p!ssed off if I'd been in that group but I wouldn't have considered it to be a gender issue nor would I have denied all knowledge of the changes just to make a campaigning point.0 -
To be debated in Parliament in the New Year (not directly as a result of the petition):
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=53805970 -
But this sort of notice isn't new. Like the 7 years notice people got that they'd have to wait an extra 5 years for their personal pension. When the govt announced in 2003 that the personal (& most workplace) pensions won't be payable till age 55, instead of 50. Glad you agree. I thought that was talking about the 1995 changes, which apparently some people were unaware of.
As I pointed out earlier, but I don't think you commented on, the big difference is they had a delay in getting their personal pension but they still had all the money, the 18 month additional delay is a loss of over £10,000 for many women which they will not get back.Sell £1500
2831.00/£15000 -
-
Goldiegirl wrote: »Seriously, I have no interest in what does or doesn't cut it for you.
No .... I did not think you would.Goldiegirl wrote: »And your instincts are 100% wrong.
Maybe .... when I read something that suggests I am wrong then my instinct will no doubt change ..... until then, I remain.0 -
So she's in exactly the same boat as Mr Smith, who was born on the same day.
You are continually comparing this to men - the unfairness in this is not just comparing men and women. A certain group of women have had a greater deal of unfairness from this compared to other women.
As for Mr Smith - his spa was always 65. It was then changed to 66, 67, etc. There was just one change for men.But this sort of notice isn't new. Like the 7 years notice people got that they'd have to wait an extra 5 years for their personal pension. When the govt announced in 2003 that the personal (& most workplace) pensions won't be payable till age 55, instead of 50.
You are comparing apples and pears again ....
The personal pension is optional. Everyone had a choice on whether they paid into it or not. There was no loss of money as a result of this change. It only impacted those who chose to retire before 55. There was no change to other conditions, e.g. retiring on ill health etc.
The current agreement is that any state pension changes should be more than 10 yrs from spa. The women being impacted most severely were 6-8 years from their 1995 spa.Like I said before, there is a point re the 2011 change and notice period. Just like the personal pension age, which people did whinge about - but it didn't have the gender element to it so it got ignored.
As I said above - the personal pension pension rises are not the same thing. Neither is the unfairness of those women being impacted most severely with 2011 changes a gender issue. All of my examples are comparing one woman's circumstances against another.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards