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
    • GibbsRule No3.
    • By GibbsRule No3. 2nd Jun 19, 6:05 AM
    • 30Posts
    • 20Thanks
    GibbsRule No3.
    Women SPA this week
    • #1
    • 2nd Jun 19, 6:05 AM
    Women SPA this week 2nd Jun 19 at 6:05 AM
    https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/Date-set-for-BackTo60-judicial-review.php

    High Court 5-6th June not sure how much press this will get. I expect it depends what the outcome is. If it goes in the Women’s favour it might get a little bit more, because something will have to happen. If found in favour of the Government then no change so probably not newsworthy. Trump and 75th D-Day will be taking up most of the news this week.
    Paddle No 21
Page 10
    • Mistermeaner
    • By Mistermeaner 7th Jun 19, 12:43 PM
    • 2,679 Posts
    • 3,188 Thanks
    Mistermeaner
    slightly off topic but someone else brought it up

    I won an appeal against an hmrc fine for the child benefit thing

    I received said fine in 2013/14 for claiming child benefit when earning over 50K - I was well aware of the changes. What I wasn't aware of was that I was apparently claiming child benefit.

    Long story short my ex-wife who I was at that point fully divorced from and no longer living with was in receipt of child benefit (to her sole account). It transpires that in 2006 when our son was born it was apparently me who phoned to arrange payment of CB and hence HMRC had my name down as the claimant rather than her. When we divorced in 2010 one of us phoned CB to advise them of the split and arranged for the payment to go solely to my ex-wife. The name on the claim was not amended (bare in mind this wasn't even an issue at that time). I earned over 50K for the first time in 2013.

    HMRC refused this basis of appeal and proceeded to 'fine' me anyway.

    I eventually won a dispute with them but only because HMRC were not able to retrieve recordings of the phone calls from 2006 and 2010

    A very distressing and IMO ridiculously unfair approach from HMRC
    Left is never right but I always am.
    • Gers
    • By Gers 7th Jun 19, 12:58 PM
    • 7,699 Posts
    • 52,524 Thanks
    Gers
    This makes interesting reading. Especially:

    On Thursday 13 October 2011, the last possible date, the Government announced its plans. It would cap the delay for women at 18 months. It kept the rise to 65 by November 2018. But would then stretch out the transition from age 65 to 66 for both men and women by an extra six months. It will now be completed in October 2020. The concession will cost £1.1 billion (at 2010/11 prices), half of which will be spent on stretching the timetable for men, none of whom had complained.
    • xylophone
    • By xylophone 7th Jun 19, 1:16 PM
    • 31,326 Posts
    • 19,419 Thanks
    xylophone
    Those with grounds to complain are those affected by the ill advised 2011 changes - the government should have left well enough alone.

    https://citywire.co.uk/new-model-adviser/news/webb-we-made-a-bad-decision-on-state-pension-age-rises/a866283

    And how cowardly of Steve Webb to blame others!
    • hugheskevi
    • By hugheskevi 7th Jun 19, 2:50 PM
    • 2,342 Posts
    • 3,133 Thanks
    hugheskevi
    The DWP published analysis on the issue today. Not amazingly interesting, but it does contain costs of reversing reforms to SPA.

    https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/analysis-relating-to-state-pension-age-changes-from-the-1995-and-2011-pensions-acts/analysis-relating-to-state-pension-age-changes-from-the-1995-and-2011-pensions-acts
    • dibblersan
    • By dibblersan 12th Jun 19, 4:20 PM
    • 451 Posts
    • 1,598 Thanks
    dibblersan
    I, too, wanted to stay on at school beyond the minimum leaving age of 15 - but my parents didn't believe in 'swanning around in school' when I could be out earning, and bringing money into the house. However, that didn't stop me from going to night school the following year.

    I was expected to do what most girls did back then - work for a couple of years, get married, move into a house in the same street as my parents, leave work to have children, etc. I don't consider myself to be anything special - but I knew that life wasn't for me, hence night school and joining the WRAF. Even back then, I did eventually have a choice.
    Originally posted by Silvertabby
    and was no different for us working lads who started working at 14 because bookwork was for girls and rich lads who wanted to keep their hands clean
    One of the hardest of all life lessons is this:

    Just because I feel bad doesn’t necessarily mean someone else is doing something wrong.

    Just because I feel good doesn’t necessarily mean what I am doing is right.
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 12th Jun 19, 6:00 PM
    • 4,653 Posts
    • 7,392 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    and was no different for us working lads who started working at 14 because bookwork was for girls and rich lads who wanted to keep their hands clean
    Originally posted by dibblersan
    During my last year in school (1970/71) we girls did typing and the boys did either metalwork or woodwork.

    One of the boys in my class asked if he could do typing, as he wanted to be a newspaper reporter, like his father. Our (male) teacher laughed in his face and asked him if he was 'a great poof' as only girls typed.

    I believe he learned typing at night school.
    Last edited by Silvertabby; 12-06-2019 at 6:02 PM.
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 13th Jun 19, 10:00 AM
    • 6,734 Posts
    • 10,930 Thanks
    Malthusian
    This is pure greed by a certain group of loud mouths.
    Originally posted by dunstonh
    In Money Marketing (IFA trade rag) a few days ago the Director of Public Policy at LEBC Group is demanding her £30,000 cheque for being born in the 1950s, along with some of the standard WASPI tropes about patriarchal oppression and the imaginary National Insurance Fund.

    LEBC Group is a nationwide firm of financial advisers. Despite the obvious responsibility of financial advisers to stay up to date with changing pension and tax legislation, one of their most senior directors claims that she should get a £30,000 cheque because the Government failed to communicate the 1995 Pensions Act (which it didn't).

    LEBC Group's 2018 accounts shows that the 11 directors earned a total of £1.5 million between them in directors' emoluments, an average of just shy of £140,000 a year.

    She dismisses an earlier opinion piece that the nation cannot afford to send 1950s-born women a £30,000 cheque on the grounds that it came from a "millennial man".

    Could not make it up.
    • jem16
    • By jem16 13th Jun 19, 3:56 PM
    • 18,718 Posts
    • 11,560 Thanks
    jem16
    I 'believe' (though not 100% certain) that I was unaffected by the 1995 act as I recall discussing this with a colleague who is six months younger than me.
    Originally posted by Gers

    If you are female ( and I think you confirmed that earlier ) and affected by the 2011 Act then yes you were affected by the 1995 Act.

    The 1995 Act increased your SPA to just under 64 and then the 2011 Act increased it by another 18 months.

    The 1995 Act was fair and gradual with plenty of notice. The 2011 Act was the unfair one for those born late 53 and most of 54 as the notice was too short. Not all were disadvantaged by it though.

    It should have been the Act to campaign against but all too late now due to the greed of the campaigns. There is nothing special about 50s' born women.

    http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_changes.pdf
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 13th Jun 19, 4:47 PM
    • 25,440 Posts
    • 13,635 Thanks
    lisyloo
    It should have been the Act to campaign against but all too late now due to the greed of the campaigns. There is nothing special about 50s' born women.
    Originally posted by jem16
    Do you think the greed of the campaigns will stop the much smaller number of genuinely disadvantaged from getting the result they deserve?
    • jem16
    • By jem16 13th Jun 19, 5:11 PM
    • 18,718 Posts
    • 11,560 Thanks
    jem16
    Do you think the greed of the campaigns will stop the much smaller number of genuinely disadvantaged from getting the result they deserve?
    Originally posted by lisyloo
    Unfortunately I do. The Government has dug its heels in now and I don't see them moving.

    Men, who have lost access to Pension Credit from age 60, are never mentioned. It's all about 50s' born women, many of whom are anything but struggling. You just need to look at their FB profiles to see them just back from cruises and visits to Disneyworld Florida. Many of them are on Public Sector index-linked DB pensions.

    Basically they want the lot for women born up to 31/12/59 and everyone else can be thrown under a bus to pay for it.

    As a 50s' born woman, I'm totally ashamed of them. If, in the very unlikely event, they win and my cheque is in the post I will immediately be handing it to my sons and their families who will end up paying for it.
    • atush
    • By atush 13th Jun 19, 6:21 PM
    • 17,950 Posts
    • 11,397 Thanks
    atush
    Do you think the greed of the campaigns will stop the much smaller number of genuinely disadvantaged from getting the result they deserve?
    Originally posted by lisyloo
    I do. It is appalling the greed of some.
    • brewerdave
    • By brewerdave 14th Jun 19, 9:14 AM
    • 5,746 Posts
    • 2,577 Thanks
    brewerdave

    As a 50s' born woman, I'm totally ashamed of them. If, in the very unlikely event, they win and my cheque is in the post I will immediately be handing it to my sons and their families who will end up paying for it.
    Originally posted by jem16

    My wife who was born in 1953 agrees with you wholeheartedly - if by any chance these campaigns bear fruit, the money will go straight to the grandchildren as they will end up with the bill!
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 14th Jun 19, 9:33 AM
    • 23,602 Posts
    • 63,643 Thanks
    Pollycat
    My wife who was born in 1953 agrees with you wholeheartedly - if by any chance these campaigns bear fruit, the money will go straight to the grandchildren as they will end up with the bill!
    Originally posted by brewerdave
    I'm a 1953 woman too and although I don't have any children who would bear this cost, I also agree.

    I and a number of women in my position would have supported a means tested benefit for those women left in financial need by these changes even though I/they wouldn't have benefited.

    But that wasn't on the WASPI/Backto60 agenda.
    • p00hsticks
    • By p00hsticks 14th Jun 19, 10:58 AM
    • 7,147 Posts
    • 7,898 Thanks
    p00hsticks
    I
    I and a number of women in my position would have supported a means tested benefit for those women left in financial need by these changes even though I/they wouldn't have benefited.
    Originally posted by Pollycat

    Buit surely there are already a whole host of means tested benefits already available for the women in that situation who have not yet reached their (new) pension age - JSA / ESA / Universal Credit / Working Tax credit / Carers Allowance / Housing benefit and Council Tax reduction to name a few off the top of my head and depending on their particular circumstances.
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 14th Jun 19, 11:02 AM
    • 4,653 Posts
    • 7,392 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    I'm a 1953 woman too and although I don't have any children who would bear this cost, I also agree.

    I and a number of women in my position would have supported a means tested benefit for those women left in financial need by these changes even though I/they wouldn't have benefited.

    But that wasn't on the WASPI/Backto60 agenda.
    Originally posted by Pollycat

    Me too (apart from being born in 1956). We already give our winter fuel allowance to a couple of family members who need it more than we do, but I bet the WASPI founders see that £200 as their 'champagne allowance'.
    Last edited by Silvertabby; 14-06-2019 at 11:05 AM.
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 14th Jun 19, 11:28 AM
    • 23,602 Posts
    • 63,643 Thanks
    Pollycat
    Buit surely there are already a whole host of means tested benefits already available for the women in that situation who have not yet reached their (new) pension age - JSA / ESA / Universal Credit / Working Tax credit / Carers Allowance / Housing benefit and Council Tax reduction to name a few off the top of my head and depending on their particular circumstances.
    Originally posted by p00hsticks
    So why are these women going on about being in dire financial need?
    They are either telling the truth and the range of benefits don't cover their situation.
    Or they are misrepresenting their financial situation.
    I'm giving (some of) them the benefit of the doubt and accepting that they really are in dire financial straits and don't qualify for any benefits.
    • lisyloo
    • By lisyloo 14th Jun 19, 11:41 AM
    • 25,440 Posts
    • 13,635 Thanks
    lisyloo
    So why are these women going on about being in dire financial need?
    They are either telling the truth and the range of benefits don't cover their situation.
    Or they are misrepresenting their financial situation.
    I'm giving (some of) them the benefit of the doubt and accepting that they really are in dire financial straits and don't qualify for any benefits.
    Originally posted by Pollycat
    They might not qualify for benefits if they are part of couple, whereas they would have had state pension in their own individual right.
    I can certainly envisage situations where in practice the financial sharing of income does not work as well as it should on paper.
    • Gers
    • By Gers 14th Jun 19, 4:09 PM
    • 7,699 Posts
    • 52,524 Thanks
    Gers
    If you are female ( and I think you confirmed that earlier ) and affected by the 2011 Act then yes you were affected by the 1995 Act.

    The 1995 Act increased your SPA to just under 64 and then the 2011 Act increased it by another 18 months.

    The 1995 Act was fair and gradual with plenty of notice. The 2011 Act was the unfair one for those born late 53 and most of 54 as the notice was too short. Not all were disadvantaged by it though.

    It should have been the Act to campaign against but all too late now due to the greed of the campaigns. There is nothing special about 50s' born women.

    http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_changes.pdf
    Originally posted by jem16
    I'm Feb '54 which is what makes me affected by the 2011 Act - thanks for confirming the 1995 Act impact for me.

    I am not in dire financial need and agree with equal pension age - just miffed!
    • Mnd
    • By Mnd 14th Jun 19, 4:27 PM
    • 1,388 Posts
    • 2,117 Thanks
    Mnd
    So, to clarify, should a man, born the same day as you, get any backdated payment, and is this being considered
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 14th Jun 19, 5:00 PM
    • 4,653 Posts
    • 7,392 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    So, to clarify, should a man, born the same day as you, get any backdated payment, and is this being considered
    Originally posted by Mnd
    No, not part of the legal case as WASPI/Backto60 couldn't give a flying fig about 1950s men or women (and men) born from 1 January 1960.

    They won't win - but, if they did, then I'm assuming that equal rights laws would mean that 1950s men's pension credit ages would also have to be back-dated to 60. I don't know if the costings already floated include the costs of this - remember that even the men who wouldn't qualify for means tested actual pension credit would still get the winter fuel allowance, NI credits, etc, so we're not talking peanuts.

    To clarify, Mr S's pension credit age was 63 and some months - being the age his twin sister (if he had one) would have received her State pension. We obviously don't qualify for means tested pension credit/any other benefits, but he did get the winter fuel allowance and, as he had already retired, 'free' NI credits for 2016/2017 and 2017/2018 thereby adding another £9 per week to his State pension at 65.
    Last edited by Silvertabby; 14-06-2019 at 5:09 PM.
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

1,935Posts Today

7,469Users online

Martin's Twitter