WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

mystic_trev wrote: »

"areas of policy and pensions" is what she said.

NOT over the Waspi issue and told not to engage'

I hadn't realised that this short 2 minute clip doesn't include all of the interview with Ros Altmann.

If you can find the original programme on BBC iplayer you will hear that she was speaking at length about Waspi and pensions policy and her remarks in that short clip reflect that. I took notes at the time I listened to it.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

So...if you haven't already seen this briefing just released by the Pensions Policy Institute, I believe there are one or several options here which might work for some women:-

http://www.pensionspolicyinstitute.org.uk/briefing-notes/briefing-note-83---how-could-the-effect-of-rises-in-spa-be-mitigated-for-the-most-vulnerable

I was reading that yesterday - I think some of the ideas could be used going forward like having an upper limit to number of NI contributions so those that started work earlier could retire earlier.

However I was also reading the views of some Waspi supporters on this - they weren't greatly impressed as they didn't see how it would help them. Of course it does mention the "most vulnerable" and many aren't interested in only helping the most vulnerable but just want the money for themselves.

What one/s do you like?

slightlymiffed wrote: »

This is all good advice BLB53 but, back in 2011, many/most women were still unaware that their pension age had been changed by the previous Pensions Act 1995 and so would be unlikely to be looking out for a further escalation of their SPA.

As previously asked do you actually have accurate numbers on this rather than what Waspi are claiming?

I've recently found out that a number of LGPS members also received a state pension forecast from the DWP which included accurate information on their new state pension age after the 1995 Act. This was also the case for the Civil Service scheme members who had to opt out of receiving a combined statement - I would guess that most didn't opt out. The Teachers' Pension Scheme informed all members of both 1995 and 2011 increases although didn't contain an actual state pension statement. As many 1950s women were local council workers, teachers and civil servants I would hazard a guess that many did actually know. I would probably also hazard a guess that if these 3 PS schemes did this, them probably all did.

Some women, supported by some MP's and Ros Altmann, did campaign at the time and eventually a £1 billion 'concession' to reduce the maximum (2nd) increase in SPA to 18 months was allowed.

Yes we've said that before. The group are still involved.

If you Google 'Waspi' - you will see that 1950's women have now become engaged and angry and will not give up, however hard politicians try to ignore them.

Unfortunately it still doesn't mean that anything will change. If it does it's likely to be means tested support.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Agreed I do remember Ros Altmann saying she was sent abusive tweets but did not see any myself. I wondering if the Telegraph had sight of any of these? 'Being struck down with cancer' sounds to me to be very extreme and suggests trolling of the worst kind.

I saw that very post and it was on Facebook. It was deleted later but many saw it and also "liked" it. Wendy Eachus, to her credit, decried it.

If it was on Facebook I can quite believe it was also on Twitter and sent to her in emails.

But...there is absolutely no excuse for any kind of vile abuse of the Baroness and women need to remember she may yet be able to help the Waspi campaign far better from the outside now?

She may well be able to do so but certainly her stance has always been to help those in hardship and it has always been about 2011 only.

jamesd wrote: »

That's hardly surprising. Women reaching retirement today will have been in a system which expected them to be primarily responsible for childcare and the home while men were expected to be responsible for providing the income. Beyond that there's part time working, something that women have tended to do more than men. While there has been significant change in this area it's to be expected that a shorter paid working life would result in lower pension pots. A couple of children a couple of years apart would perhaps take a woman out of the work force for 16-18 years and that's a lot of potential pension contributions and compounded growth on them to lose.

Really, as a woman born in 1953 I can't think of a single woman who was out of the workforce for 18 years. Personally I have 4 children, started work at 15 and worked fulltime until I was 58 when I started to reduce my hours.

Eighteen months of provision is about £12,000 of single tier pension income level. Assuming state pension age of 60 and a working life starting at 16 with 18 years taken out of it that's 26 years of working life. Assuming the money is invested in a mixed asset fund delivering 3.5% plus inflation annualised growth to get to that £12,000 requires £23.60 a month after employer contributions and tax relief. Given the probability of some employer assistance it's likely that the net cost would be something between £10 and £15 a month. Without the children time out of work the monthly gross cost would drop to £10.50 a month with net perhaps £4.45 to £6.67.

Are you saying we should have started planning for the 18 months long before anyone knew it was going to happen? When the 1995 changes were announced I had two kids at uni and two still not at school, I was a carer for my husband and working fulltime and money was tight so I didn't start preparing then. Basically I decided I would work a bit longer to cover the 3 years delay in my SRP, I actually retired at 61 just after my youngest graduated. Not alot of opportunity for saving.
If you are saying I should have been saving at net about of £10 to £15 per month can I just point out that when I started work I was earning £28 per month so £15 would have been very significant. I don't think my employer would have entertained making a contribution to the pension pot of a 15 year old female. Lots of women weren't able to join pension schemes back then.

Those costs are so low that even a person on minimum wage can be expected to have done more than that and to have ample beyond it as well. Assuming that they did put any thought into retirement.

I put alot of thought into preparing for my retirement but two increases was a bit much, one fair enough but not enough time for the second.

I don't consider £1,160 a year inflation linked for life to be zilch. That is the expected increase if the money is used to defer a state pension of £8,000 a year for 2.5 hears. It's not strictly an annuity, of course, but since it's a better deal than standard annuities for those in normal good health it's normally going to be the better way to buy income.

Apologies if I have misunderstood. Bad day for carers in this house.

slightlymiffed didn't like this approach so I may try another one later.

[STRIKE]

slightlymiffed wrote: »

No I don't do recanting.

I don't recall saying that?

I linked to your post so it was fairly easy to see what you wrote: "having read it" in reference to the House of Commons Library document CBP-07405 Increases in the State Pension age for women born in the 1950s.. That contained the text I quoted: "Letters to women with a State Pension age determined by the 1995 timetable (born between 6th April 1950 and 5th April 1953) were sent between April 2009 and March 2011".

slightlymiffed wrote: »

If I did, is that quoting from DWP evidence?

From the House of commons library document, which itself sourced it from the official government response to the WASPI petition.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I do know that 1954's like myself did not receive notification until 2012.

Those notifications were sent on a different timetable than the 1995 ones to those born up to 5 April 1953 that I quoted.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

And your point is?

There are at least three points:

1. You made the claim in the post I was responding to: "back in 2011, many/most women were still unaware that their pension age had been changed by the previous Pensions Act 1995". As you have seen, the official government statement is that "Letters to women with a State Pension age determined by the 1995 timetable (born between 6th April 1950 and 5th April 1953) were sent between April 2009 and March 2011" in both the document that you appeared to have written that you wrote and in the response to the WASPI petition that you would presumably have read. Your claim that "most" women didn't know after personal letters had been sent to all affected by the 1995 change using the last address known by HMRC is clearly false and it seems most likely that "many" is also false.

2. Whether you knowingly made a false statement. We've seen that you appear to have claimed to read the library document and presumably read the response to the WASPI petition before your post making the man/most claim. Personally if you did read those I prefer to believe that you just forgot. But in that case the natural thing to do is recant and correct the post.

3. Or alternatively, whether you were asserting that women who have been sent and presumably received those personal notifications would still not have known about the changes. One of the key WASPI claims is that people weren't sent personal notifications. If you assert that most were unaware even after getting such letters, you appear to be asserting that personal notification made little difference.[/STRIKE]