- Aug 18, 2014
- 25,283
- 149,134
- Funster No
- 32,898
- MH
- Transit PVC
- Exp
- 16 years since restarting
You obviously heard about it whilst a great majority didn't.
mikebeaches
LIFE MEMBER
I'm not close to this subject, but I think you have got the year WRONG - it wasn't 1959 - it was more like 1951 or 1952 I believe?
mikebeaches
LIFE MEMBER
deleted
EX51SSS
LIFE MEMBER
Hmmmmmm. I read it in the newspaper and TV programmes and on line. If the others didn't, that's unfortunate
Camdoon
LIFE MEMBER
WASPI want to restore the pensions of women born in the 1950's. So if you were a woman born 31/12/59 they are lobbying to have your pension restored to the value of having been paid from the age of 60 (they don't want the pension age changed, they just want the money). If you were a woman born in the 60's they are happy for those pensioners to be paid when they reach 66, it is not their problem. So they complain about the changes but want a 6 year cliff edge - for those born 1 day later on 1/1/60. Hence why they are known as GRASPI.
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
- Oct 12, 2009
- 11,562
- 25,713
- Funster No
- 8,876
- MH
- A Class N+B Arto 69GL
- Exp
- Since 2009
This discussion has centred on the date State Pensions start for individuals.
I do not think the changes in retirement dates and the notice periods for the changes have bee handled well or equitably.
However no account is taken of the average length of time pensions for men and women wil be paid, taking account of longevity differentials of the sexes. Also what is not taken account of is the increasing longevity of all pensioners.
In the past when women received pensions at 60 and had a higher longevity of say 5 years they would have been paid a pension for 10 years longer than a man on average.
Even now, with pensions starting at the same ages, a woman is likely to receive a pension for longer.
Therefore some of the figures quoting what loss people have suffered need to be adjusted down to take acccount of increasing longevity and the consequent overall pension payments received.
When I deferred my State Pension and therefore got an increase of 10.4% per year(under the old rules). I had to take into account what I would lose during 6 years deferrment against the chances of my likelihood of longevity. I currently need to live another 18 months and then I will have made up the loss and be receiving a pension double what it would have been.
Just an example of balancing a later start date with longer payment.
Society, through the Government(of any Party), has to do a similar excercise.
[My goodness, I sound like an Actuary - but is that so bad?]
Geoff
I do not think the changes in retirement dates and the notice periods for the changes have bee handled well or equitably.
However no account is taken of the average length of time pensions for men and women wil be paid, taking account of longevity differentials of the sexes. Also what is not taken account of is the increasing longevity of all pensioners.
In the past when women received pensions at 60 and had a higher longevity of say 5 years they would have been paid a pension for 10 years longer than a man on average.
Even now, with pensions starting at the same ages, a woman is likely to receive a pension for longer.
Therefore some of the figures quoting what loss people have suffered need to be adjusted down to take acccount of increasing longevity and the consequent overall pension payments received.
When I deferred my State Pension and therefore got an increase of 10.4% per year(under the old rules). I had to take into account what I would lose during 6 years deferrment against the chances of my likelihood of longevity. I currently need to live another 18 months and then I will have made up the loss and be receiving a pension double what it would have been.
Just an example of balancing a later start date with longer payment.
Society, through the Government(of any Party), has to do a similar excercise.
[My goodness, I sound like an Actuary - but is that so bad?]
Geoff
dabhand
LIFE MEMBER
Is an over the shoulder boulder holder the same as an upper decker flopper stopper and is the male bits securing equivalent a lower decker knacker jacker?
Southdowners
Free Member
The information you are posting isn't true... no matter how many times you repeat it won't alter that fact.
Camdoon
LIFE MEMBER
I have asked you to tell me what you think isn't true. You saying it isn't true does not alter the fact that it is true.
Please explain GRASPIs position re someone born on 1/1/60 compared to 31/12/59.
Please tell me of any law that the Government has written to you about as an individual.
Here are the tables which shows the breakdown of when people get their pensions dependant on their date of birth.
https://assets.publishing.service.g...attachment_data/file/310231/spa-timetable.pdf
https://assets.publishing.service.g...attachment_data/file/310231/spa-timetable.pdf
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
Southdowners
Free Member
I have already said that everything you have posted about WASPI is untrue. To support this I posted an overview of the WASPI campaign from the Equity website. You obviously didn't read it.
As to your comments on GRASPI and governmental laws... well, I can only say that they don't make any sense to me at all.
- Aug 18, 2014
- 25,283
- 149,134
- Funster No
- 32,898
- MH
- Transit PVC
- Exp
- 16 years since restarting
Yes, with the increase in womens pension age to 65 to equalise with the men's the government stated categorically & in writing that no one retiring at age 65 before december 31st 2020 would have there pension age increased. It also stated that on any pension forecast. They then altered the rules, without even telling me, in the 2011 act
I consider that they have acted exactly the same as the private company ,Equitable life, who stupidly & arrogantly attempted to change the payout rules & when confronted attempted amazingly to try to get the courts to agree with them. We all know what happened there & it is exactly the position that the Uk government have followed.
All & every current MP & all who have served over the last 50 years & or their heirs/inheritors should all be held personally liable for failing to deal with the situation on a yearly basis whilst in office..
EX51SSS
LIFE MEMBER
If the present situation is apparently classed as not lawful, how come nobody has taken the Government to court.
Perhaps its me but I was fully aware of the increases in state pension age and so was my wife and tbf, everyone I know knows. Perhaps everyone lives in a news dead zone or don't watch the news etc.
Perhaps its me but I was fully aware of the increases in state pension age and so was my wife and tbf, everyone I know knows. Perhaps everyone lives in a news dead zone or don't watch the news etc.
- Aug 18, 2014
- 25,283
- 149,134
- Funster No
- 32,898
- MH
- Transit PVC
- Exp
- 16 years since restarting
I can understand what you are saying but the main problem is that they decided to do this in 1995. With very little publication of it.
THIS ; https://assets.publishing.service.g...attachment_data/file/310231/spa-timetable.pdf
did not appear until many years later.
Add to this that in 2005 they then decide for some inexplicable & basically unbelievable reason to reduce the national insurance contribution years required from 44 for men & 39 for women to 30 for everyone.
Then in 2011 they altered the dates & decreased the time periods again.
This was when they also reneged on the written statement that anyone retirng before end of2020 would not be affected.
In 2014 we had the " new one size state pension " introduced payable from april 2016 & an increase of years required to 35 .
The one problem with this is that anyone retiring after 2016 ,like me, cannot pay for any missing years for before 2016 .THEY DO NOT COUNT.
So they have introduced something in 2014 that affects me & leaves me unable to make payments to receive a full pension in the time available.
So we have a system whereby we have people retiring at different times, with different requirements in contribution years ,with 2 different systems.........it is shambolic.
As it stands at the moment i've lost 4 months pension. from original start date.+ with the inability to receive a full pension I have also lost an ongoing 14,3% for as long as I receive it.
My wife expected to receive hers at 60. She, at present , is now 66 so a loss of approx;£32,000.
With the increase in years required she resumed work. Since 2012 she has been losing £8,000/year due to being unable to claim "working tax credits" as I live abroad. There's another £72,000 lost.
Add to this that if she stops work I'm also losing "minimum income pension gtee" of ££7,000/year for the next 3 years.
When you work 13 hours/day + travelling , then you have to eat ,do invoices ,sleep + are on call from when you stopped working until you start again the next morning & you are doing it 7 days a week, reading the paper, watching the scum on the news, isn't as much a priority as trying to get some sleep. Multiply this by 33 years & the fact that until 2009 I had never used the internet finding out information on somethings that I have paid other people to be looking after for me wasn't on the list.
Thanks @Stroppy Bird for that info. As I suspected, I am in the very last group so instead of getting mine at 64 years & some months ie. March 2020 as on the original "taper" I now have to wait until March 2021. And the way they keep changing things Im not holding my breath.
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
Camdoon
LIFE MEMBER
Any NI contributions you make now in Spain would count. Schemes change.
Camdoon
LIFE MEMBER
The Government were elected and changed the law on the basis that the previous Government had left nothing in the bank.Yes, with the increase in womens pension age to 65 to equalise with the men's the government stated categorically & in writing that no one retiring at age 65 before december 31st 2020 would have there pension age increased. It also stated that on any pension forecast. They then altered the rules, without even telling me, in the 2011 act
Camdoon
LIFE MEMBER
You keep saying its untrue but it isn't, GRASPI are doing nothing for women born on 1/1/60 with a retirement date of 66 while wanting every woman born before that date to be treated as though their pension was payable at 60. Keeping saying it's untrue does not make it so. Please explain what WASPI's cut off dates are if you believe that statement to be untrue.
- Aug 18, 2014
- 25,283
- 149,134
- Funster No
- 32,898
- MH
- Transit PVC
- Exp
- 16 years since restarting
Yes & they would come under the EU pension rules meaning an increase on any state pension received from each country of between 25 & 30% with no minimum amount of pay in years required .Unfortunately I never had.
Every election has always been the same. They are all lying two faced scum that have no interest in doing the job correctly, which is to work for the benefit of the country.Nothing else.
It makes me that angry with there inability to do anything right .
With most jobs if something needs fixing no one leaves until it is all working again ,end of. Look at the scum now, extend the ****it to october & all **** on holiday.They should be forced to be there 24/7 until sorted, same with anything else. I'm glad I live here as if I met one , even now, they wouldn't get out alive. Scum all of them!!!
& no it isn't any different here or any other country . they come from the same mould.
Camdoon
LIFE MEMBER
"Coppola, in one of her blogs, explains she is against their cause because the Waspi women are actually campaigning for the state pension age to be reverted back to 60 for all women born in the 1950s, but increased to 66 for any women born from 1 January 1960 onwards. "...
"At this point, my interpretation of their statement is that women born in the 1950s should receive their state pension, or a sum of money equal to receiving their state pension at 60; and those born after 1 January 1960, should receive it at 66 upwards. To me that isn’t fair.
...
" It definitely isn’t fair to shift the whole burden onto 1960s women, just because 1950s women weren’t told of the changes. "
https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/BLOG-Making-sense-of-the-Waspi-campaign.php .php
"At this point, my interpretation of their statement is that women born in the 1950s should receive their state pension, or a sum of money equal to receiving their state pension at 60; and those born after 1 January 1960, should receive it at 66 upwards. To me that isn’t fair.
...
" It definitely isn’t fair to shift the whole burden onto 1960s women, just because 1950s women weren’t told of the changes. "
https://www.pensionsage.com/pa/BLOG-Making-sense-of-the-Waspi-campaign.php .php
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
Camdoon
LIFE MEMBER
So what's stopping you getting "stamps" in Spain?
EX51SSS
LIFE MEMBER
Ha ha ha ha. Wait till you start full time
In all fairness, just because you don't have the ability to keep up with the news, not everyone can use that excuse
OP
OP
42208
Deleted User
Some great responses. The other 'bummer' is that it was my wife's OAP that shot from 60 to 66, mine only went from 65 to 65 3/4, I would rather mine had gone out to 70 and my wife's remain at 60 because as soon as I get my pension I will have to pay a decent % of it straight back to the government whereas my wife is a non tax payer and will keep it all. The whole issue is controversial and it would have to be equalised at some stage I think it was the speed it went in, whether woman knew or not, it just didn't give time to change their plans and re evaluate their retirement just left an overwhelming feeling of unfairness.
EX51SSS
LIFE MEMBER
You are allowed to off set your tax by using your wife's allowance or part of it thus reducing your liability to tax threshold
- Aug 18, 2014
- 25,283
- 149,134
- Funster No
- 32,898
- MH
- Transit PVC
- Exp
- 16 years since restarting
I give mine to the wife as I've no income to use it on & when state pension starts it still won't be needed
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
OP
OP
42208
Deleted User
Good point, however, don't think I am eligible for that, although we can of course decide whose name to put some savings into to reduce the tax burden
EX51SSS
LIFE MEMBER
Marriage Allowance lets you transfer £1,250 of your Personal Allowance to your husband, wife or civil partner. This can reduce their tax by up to £250 every tax year (6 April to 5 April the next year). To benefit as a couple, you need to earn less than your partner and have an income of £12,500 or less.
Apply for Marriage Allowance - GOV.UK
OP
OP
42208
Deleted User
Thanks, very worth while doing, however, think there are some exceptions, will check again, a while since I looked.
EX51SSS
LIFE MEMBER
OP
OP
42208
Deleted User
Thank you, clears it up nicely
Subscribers do not see these advertisements
Join us or log in to post a reply.
To join in you must be a member of MotorhomeFun
Join MotorhomeFun
Join us, it quick and easy!
Log in
Already a member? Log in here.
Latest journal entries
-
Alcoceber or Bust! Autumn Awaycation 2024
- InvictaMoto
- Entries: 23
Latest entry: Day 17 - Homeward Bound,