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
    • 31Posts
    • 21Thanks
    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 11
    • jem16
    • By jem16 14th Jun 19, 5:06 PM
    • 18,718 Posts
    • 11,560 Thanks
    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!
    Originally posted by Gers
    A few in your age group are miffed and rightly so as the 2011 Act was much too short notice for you. The 1995 Act should have been allowed to finish first in 2020 before further changes. It would still have caught me but that's life.

    I just don't agree that the solution is to give all 50s' women their pension back to 60 regardless of circumstances and basically to hang with those who will pay for it.

    Needless to say that has not made me very popular amongst the campaigns.
    • Mnd
    • By Mnd 14th Jun 19, 5:09 PM
    • 1,402 Posts
    • 2,161 Thanks
    Mnd
    I asked because Gers says she is Feb 54. Any changes that she is hoping for, shold apply equally to males and females, or it cannot be described as equal.

    I will own up and say I was born may 54, but I don't agree with any backdating
    • Pollycat
    • By Pollycat 14th Jun 19, 7:11 PM
    • 23,678 Posts
    • 63,866 Thanks
    Pollycat
    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.
    Originally posted by Silvertabby
    And I can't believe that so many people think that that is acceptable.
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 14th Jun 19, 8:04 PM
    • 4,675 Posts
    • 7,415 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    And I can't believe that so many people think that that is acceptable.
    Originally posted by Pollycat

    I really can't believe that anyone would think that a 6 year cliff edge between women born on or before 31 December 1959 and women born on or after 1 January 1960 is acceptable. If the re-equalisation of State pension ages really had been made law on that basis, there would have been rioting in the streets !
    Last edited by Silvertabby; 14-06-2019 at 8:12 PM.
    • tempus_fugit
    • By tempus_fugit 14th Jun 19, 11:53 PM
    • 767 Posts
    • 723 Thanks
    tempus_fugit
    Neither I nor my wife think the state pension age for women born before 1/1/60 should be returned to 60, even though we'd be quids in if it happened as she was born just before then. It would certainly boost the finances but I just don't believe the rest of the country should pay for that. Oh, and yes, she knew full well years ago that she wouldn't get her pension until age 66, so people saying they didn't know are lying or just weren't paying enough attention.
    Retired at age 56 after having "light bulb moment" due to reading MSE and its forums. Have been converted to the "budget to zero" concept and use YNAB for all monthly budgeting and long term goals.

    Pedant point: There is no such word or construction as "I's", the word to use is "my".
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 15th Jun 19, 1:10 AM
    • 6,808 Posts
    • 11,005 Thanks
    Malthusian
    I really can't believe that anyone would think that a 6 year cliff edge between women born on or before 31 December 1959 and women born on or after 1 January 1960 is acceptable.
    Originally posted by Silvertabby
    A sizable proportion of the population thinks that gay people should be taken out into the street and have rocks thrown at their heads.

    Others think that everyone should earn the exact same wage regardless of what they contribute to society.

    People can think whatever they want to think. In both senses of "can".

    The important thing is that this particular think has absolutely no chance of becoming reality.
    • Gers
    • By Gers 15th Jun 19, 11:46 AM
    • 7,729 Posts
    • 52,736 Thanks
    Gers
    Any changes that she is hoping for, shold apply equally to males and females, or it cannot be described as equal.
    Originally posted by Mnd
    I'm not hoping for anything - not part of any campaign and not voicing any complaints apart from being 'miffed' - I'm miffed about a lot of things lately - must be an age thing.

    As I have said, my situation is not dire, I am well provided for financially and have weathered the gap without problems. Roll on 06 July though!!
    • Paul_Herring
    • By Paul_Herring 15th Jun 19, 11:48 AM
    • 6,944 Posts
    • 3,622 Thanks
    Paul_Herring
    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 - they've only costed taking it back to 65 - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?p=75925772&utm_source=MSE_FS&utm_me dium=Email&utm_term=11-Jun-19#184
    Conjugating the verb 'to be":
    -o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries
    • jamesd
    • By jamesd 16th Jun 19, 6:16 AM
    • 23,460 Posts
    • 15,800 Thanks
    jamesd
    I really can't believe that anyone would think that a 6 year cliff edge between women born on or before 31 December 1959 and women born on or after 1 January 1960 is acceptable.
    Originally posted by Silvertabby
    The groups seem to believe that it's acceptable and desirable for 50s twins with the same birth date to have that difference. Just because one is or becomes female and the other is or becomes male.
    • GibbsRule No3
    • By GibbsRule No3 16th Jun 19, 9:14 AM
    • 775 Posts
    • 423 Thanks
    GibbsRule No3
    The groups seem to believe that it's acceptable and desirable for 50s twins with the same birth date to have that difference. Just because one is or becomes female and the other is or becomes male.
    Originally posted by jamesd
    Playing DA. Was it fair that the brother had 47 years to save and plan, so he could retire at his sisters age but she had less time to rearrange her finances?
    Paddle No 21
    • ffacoffipawb
    • By ffacoffipawb 16th Jun 19, 9:32 AM
    • 2,921 Posts
    • 2,052 Thanks
    ffacoffipawb
    Playing DA. Was it fair that the brother had 47 years to save and plan, so he could retire at his sisters age but she had less time to rearrange her finances?
    Originally posted by GibbsRule No3
    Playing DA to your DA ...

    Because 15 - 25 years warning obviously not enough I guess.

    Equalisation at 65 starting very gradually in 2010 and ending in 2020, later revised to 2018, was passed in 1995.
    Retired: Financial Independence achieved in June 2019.

    Cofiwch Dryweryn
    • Terron
    • By Terron 16th Jun 19, 10:53 AM
    • 521 Posts
    • 569 Thanks
    Terron
    Playing DA. Was it fair that the brother had 47 years to save and plan, so he could retire at his sisters age but she had less time to rearrange her finances?
    Originally posted by GibbsRule No3

    I was born in 1959. My sister was born 11 months later in 1960 but lets assume she was a twin.
    We were teens when the equal pay act was implemented, so it has applied for all our working lives. Equalizing pension entitlement was an obvious consequence, though after a delay. Forty years after the implementation seemed fair, so that would have been 2015. It happened last year, a little late but close enough.
    Given that the European court ruling against unequal retirement ages was in 1992 and the goverment acted in 1995, there was plenty of notice. The only excuse for not realizing it was changing is stupidity and being penalised for that is natural and fair.


    I planned to retire at 60 from in my 20s, but that was using private pensions that were also available to women (though the terms may have been slightly worse due to their longer life expectancy). But the inequality of it being easier for men to get private pensions does not justify the separate inequality of state pension ages.



    That is the answer to your question. It is not fair that men had longer to plan, but that in no way justifies inequalirty in the state pension ages.
    • ffacoffipawb
    • By ffacoffipawb 16th Jun 19, 10:59 AM
    • 2,921 Posts
    • 2,052 Thanks
    ffacoffipawb
    I was born in 1959. My sister was born 11 months later in 1960 but lets assume she was a twin.
    We were teens when the equal pay act was implemented, so it has applied for all our working lives. Equalizing pension entitlement was an obvious consequence, though after a delay. Forty years after the implementation seemed fair, so that would have been 2015. It happened last year, a little late but close enough.
    Given that the European court ruling against unequal retirement ages was in 1992 and the goverment acted in 1995, there was plenty of notice. The only excuse for not realizing it was changing is stupidity and being penalised for that is natural and fair.


    I planned to retire at 60 from in my 20s, but that was using private pensions that were also available to women (though the terms may have been slightly worse due to their longer life expectancy). But the inequality of it being easier for men to get private pensions does not justify the separate inequality of state pension ages.



    That is the answer to your question. It is not fair that men had longer to plan, but that in no way justifies inequalirty in the state pension ages.
    Originally posted by Terron
    It was well publicised at the time apart from GRASPIs with selective amnesia.

    Ignorance of the law is no defence, the Government does not have to notify individuals.

    What if they reduced the alcohol limit for driving? They would not write to people to tell them. Would drunk drivers caught out try the same argument?

    Hope Mansfield and the GRASPIs get their just deserts.
    Retired: Financial Independence achieved in June 2019.

    Cofiwch Dryweryn
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 16th Jun 19, 1:22 PM
    • 4,675 Posts
    • 7,415 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    The groups seem to believe that it's acceptable and desirable for 50s twins with the same birth date to have that difference. Just because one is or becomes female and the other is or becomes male.
    Originally posted by jamesd

    Hmmm - They won't win, of course - but just think what would happen if they did. What would be the cost of paying pensions from 60 to 'men who identify as women' ? And would 'women who identify as men' (sorry, really struggling for current pc terms here!) refuse payment until they reached male SPA ?
    Last edited by Silvertabby; 16-06-2019 at 2:16 PM.
    • ffacoffipawb
    • By ffacoffipawb 16th Jun 19, 2:36 PM
    • 2,921 Posts
    • 2,052 Thanks
    ffacoffipawb
    Hmmm - They won't win, of course - but just think what would happen if they did. What would be the cost of paying pensions from 60 to 'men who identify as women' ? And would 'women who identify as men' (sorry, really struggling for current pc terms here!) refuse payment until they reached male SPA ?
    Originally posted by Silvertabby
    Is Mansfield helping the GRASPIs for free or are they going to get a big bill which they will claim poverty to avoid paying?
    Retired: Financial Independence achieved in June 2019.

    Cofiwch Dryweryn
    • Silvertabby
    • By Silvertabby 16th Jun 19, 6:24 PM
    • 4,675 Posts
    • 7,415 Thanks
    Silvertabby
    Is Mansfield helping the GRASPIs for free or are they going to get a big bill which they will claim poverty to avoid paying?
    Originally posted by ffacoffipawb

    I believe the GRASPI funding is from member contributions, who have been conned into thinking that a few £s now will be repaid by £30K cheques when they 'win'..
    • jamesd
    • By jamesd 16th Jun 19, 6:44 PM
    • 23,460 Posts
    • 15,800 Thanks
    jamesd
    a lot of women posters who have been impacted (including me) would have welcomed some sort of bridging benefit to help women in dire financial straits until their state pension became payable.
    Originally posted by Pollycat
    There already were and are provisions for that case. All adults prior to their state pension age are entitled to the range of working age benefits, whether for those who are seeking work - including if no job is available - or due to inability to work. Many women will also have made arrangements to pool their resources with another person, often via marriage, and the working age benefits system also respects that choice.

    If a person is solely relying on the working age benefits, basic state pension or single tier state pension it follows that they can be described as living in [relative] poverty. This is because relative poverty is defined as an income less than 60% of the median. This includes people before pension credit age with untouched five million Pound pension pots or at any age owning five million Pound homes because those aren't income so the person can simultaneously be both poor and rich.

    Of course there can also be definitions of dire that benefits can't help sufficiently with, like a person unable to make high enough mortgage payments.
    • Terron
    • By Terron 17th Jun 19, 11:30 AM
    • 521 Posts
    • 569 Thanks
    Terron
    If a person is solely relying on the working age benefits, basic state pension or single tier state pension it follows that they can be described as living in [relative] poverty. This is because relative poverty is defined as an income less than 60% of the median. This includes people before pension credit age with untouched five million Pound pension pots or at any age owning five million Pound homes because those aren't income so the person can simultaneously be both poor and rich.
    Originally posted by jamesd

    That was me after I lost my job at 54, though my pension pot was only about £600k. I did have significant other savings, I was on benefits (contributory JSA then NEA) for about 9 months as I got into BTL to provide me with an income. For the tax year that started after I lost my job my income was less than £12k.
    • Mortgagefreeman
    • By Mortgagefreeman 20th Jun 19, 8:55 AM
    • 438 Posts
    • 962 Thanks
    Mortgagefreeman
    Is Mansfield helping the GRASPIs for free or are they going to get a big bill which they will claim poverty to avoid paying?
    Originally posted by ffacoffipawb
    Backto60 have had numerous crowdfundings. Please note, they don’t use crowdjustice, which would ringfence monies just for Legal action. Backto60 appear to be able to use any monies raised for films and blogs and other ‘expenses’ ?
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 20th Jun 19, 9:11 AM
    • 6,808 Posts
    • 11,005 Thanks
    Malthusian
    Backto60 appear to be able to use any monies raised for films and blogs and other ‘expenses’ ?
    Originally posted by Mortgagefreeman

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

151Posts Today

1,386Users online

Martin's Twitter