View more on these topics

Recommended

Business-Growth-Drawing-Chart-Performance-700x450.jpg

Which 14 funds have been consistently top quartile?

Sterling corporate bond funds have dominated the small list of funds that have delivered consistently top quartile returns over the last three years, analysis by BMO Global Asset Management shows. Only 14 funds can lay claim to the achievement of consistently ranking in the top quartile for each one year period over the last three years, […]

19

Blog: SJP is not for turning

I rarely look forward to St James’ Place results days. Not because I’m not fascinated by them. Believe me, I am. Or because they are complicated. Believe me, they are, more so than for any other business I have encountered as a journalist. It’s because I know I will be left with the same irreconcilable […]

Directors behind tax avoidance scheme banned

Two people behind a firm marketing a tax avoidance scheme have been banned from acting as directors. Timothy Richard Edmunds and Annette Edmunds were directors of ESP Strategies Ltd. An Insolvency Service investigation found that, before the firm fell into liquidation, it had moved assets out of the reach of creditors by using a tax […]

How to use wills to protect your clients’ wishes

March was Free Wills Month! Free Wills Month brings together a group of well-respected charities to offer members of the public aged 55 and over the opportunity to have their simple wills written or updated free of charge by using participating solicitors in selected locations around England and Wales. Research by the Law Society* highlighted that only 64 […]

Newsletter

News and expert analysis straight to your inbox

Sign up

Comments

There are 38 comments at the moment, we would love to hear your opinion too.

  1. If I was a client I would like to know if my IFA voted against helping a woman to mitigate the effects of her having to wait several more years than she had realised, due to not being informed by the government/DWP. That just seems mean to me.
    Happily most advisers, at the moment, appear to be more sensitive.

    • Several more years? Since when?

      The 1995 changes gave over 20 years warning. The 2011 changes were harsh in their timing. But even there the longest period is 18 months. Not several years.

      I would support a campaign on those hit hardest by the 2011 changes. But not the greedy GRASPI women wanting the 1995 changes unwound.

      • Fro David, I am a WASPI woman, and I can assure you that very few women were given 20 years notice, only some were notified in 2011, there were 6 and 7 years added to there pension age. Many people think that the WASPI women are about lowering it back to 60, well nothing is further from the truth. We are angry about the dramatic rise in years and the lack of notice. We are the only age group that have had this rise thrust upon them, granted many others have had a year rise (not 6/7yrs!!) I personally was put out to work full time the day I left school at 15 (decision made by my mother) I have worked ever since , apart from a few years when I had my children, I have only ever been in very low paid jobs because I had no qualifications because I was not allowed to stay on at school (I wanted to!) My mother had other ideas, namely that I would go out to work in a ‘living in job’ in the city (I was a country girl), my first wage was £5 per week, I had to send my mother £4 every week. (I worked in an old peoples home -now known as Care Homes). I now work as a Special needs Assistant in school, I am 62 years old. These extra 6 years that I have to now work I will not get a pension for. I seriously resent your ‘GRASPI’ women remark. I would be grateful if you could collect some facts before you call us ‘grasp’ again. There are MANY stories like mine, do some research.

        • Oh and by the way, even now in 2017 I still only take home just less than £11,000 per year. (no tea-breaks, lunches or school holidays are paid either!!)

        • “We are the only age group that have had this rise thrust upon them, granted many others have had a year rise (not 6/7yrs!!)”

          Um, what??

          You are aware that women born after 1961 have had their state pension age increased by at least 7 years?

        • I would make the following observations Kay.
          1.) In essence your complaining that you might have to work to the same age as your male peers.
          2.) You have no qualifications, but somehow this is still your mothers fault for pulling you out of school at age 15. You do realise that was 37 years ago and now your just hiding behind an excuse?
          3.) If your a special needs teaching assistant, your either in the teachers pensions scheme or the local government one, or if your not, that’s because you didn’t join it for some reason best known to yourself.
          4.) The state pension is the equivalent of even a teaching assistant or other relatively low paid role working at most 3 days a week. As a teaching assistant, that’s what 6 hours a day?

          The reality is, that you and all the WASPI women are actually complaining that they aren’t going to get the same (unfairly good deal) that those women only a few years older got, you just don’t actually have the nerve to say that’s what your complaining about.

      • My comment is simply lack of notice. I have NO problem with the age increase as women cant fight for equality at a pick and choose option. I am a lady who works in a physically demanding role. I have many health problems which makes this difficult. I do not feel Iam too sick to work and claim benefits but I cannot continue my job for much longer. Who is going to employ me at 60? I only found out last year I would have to wait 6/7 years longer. This has given me no time to prepare ie save enough. Many women of our generation never even heard of private pensions until recently. Again not enough time. I feel we should ALL have been notified as soon as the action was decided and that there should be a sliding scale. I am very frugal and saved hard and done without to provide a tiny buffer for my old age but sadly not enough to retire on.

  2. Robert Milligan 10th August 2017 at 4:48 pm

    I’m Male, just turned 60 and have a Full NI record starting in 1973, so why should I not get a State pension at sixty!! Lets be fair, pay it to both Male and Females, and then answer the question, Where do we get the money from!!

    • I’m a 62year old female and I DON’T get my pension until I’m 66 when do you get your ?

    • Equality for women is one way street. Want it when it suits them but not when it doesnt.

    • there can NEVER be true equality so long as it’s only women that can have babies!!!!
      AND Robert Milligan,I have worked since 15 (1970), and paid my NI, I am working till I am 66, I’m not getting my pension till I’m 66!!! AND it is a fact that men have always had high wages than most women, so how is that fair? I get very frustrated with these flippant comments mostly made by men that do not research the facts!!!

  3. Andy Robertson-Fox 10th August 2017 at 7:48 pm

    I wonder what the percentage of those who have voted are actually affected by the changes..eg are Waspi.

    • I suspect virtually all of them. Personally I voted no, because in essence all they need to do is work part-time for a few more years to get the same income as they would have from the state pension.

      For info I’m one of those affected by the most recent revision of state pension age to 68..am I complaining…? No, the country is broke

  4. As one of said 50s born women, my response is a resounding Yes. Despite assurances to the contrary from Tory Pensions Ministers, notifications of escalation of 3 State Pension age rises were not sent to most of those women affected, hence no notice (certainly not the Cridland Report recommended 10 years but 3 years notice or none) of most commonly a 6 year hike in pension age from 60 to 66. No opportunity to rearrange finances to cover 6 extra years, no benefits for most, no income for many and no jobs or structure to help find employment. Many 50s women in atrociously dire straits despite having worked and contributed to NI for far more than 35 years demanded. No-one can live on fresh air! These are your mothers, sisters, grandparents – please support 50s born women against this injustice.

  5. Christine Van de Zande 11th August 2017 at 8:56 am

    WASPI women have been used as a soft target by the Conservative government which in recent times has added insult to injury by suggesting that we seek re-training via apprenticeship schemes.

    I do not need to re-train I just need my pension to be paid as promised from the age of 63 which is now 3.5 years ago. Shame on this government which will go down in history as one of the great social injustices of our time.

  6. Very, very sexist. Why should women be treated any differently to men? They want equality but on their terms.

    • Sorry, David Brookes, you are also yet another uninformed man. We HAVE been treated very badly, we have had 6 and in some cases 7 years added to our pension age, with no notification for the 1995 hike and can I also remind you that over the years women have consistently been paid much lower wages than men in the same job! Where is the equality there!? The only time (since I was 15 years ) that I did not work was when I had my 2 children, I am still working now and take home just less than £11,000 per year, why don’t you men get some real facts from those affected before you make such flippant comments!

  7. It is of course a nonsense clickbait question.

    What do you mean by “help”? Why would the help only be aimed at women? Why would the help arbitrarily stop for those born after midnight on 1st January 1960?

    I support help targeted at both women and men over the old women’s SPA who are either unable to work or unable to find work. I also support better provision for carers and measures to tackle age discrimination in the workplace.

    I also happen to think that the WASPI campaign is a flaming bag of proverbial.

    “Undecided” I guess it is.

    • Mick, I am a Waspi woman, I don’t think its just us that should get help but please look at the facts and listen to some of the thousands of wasps women’s stories. You may then think differently. I am one of the luckier ones, but here is my story. I was sent out to work by my mother at 15, prior to that I was at school and also helping my single parent mother with my 6 brothers. I (at 15) was sent to a city from a very remote area to a live in job (full time) with a weekly wage of £5, £4 of which I had to send home to my mother. I have worked ever since (apart for a very short break to have 2 children- which a man cannot do!) I have always worked in the caring profession (old folks and special need children) I am still working in this same profession I am now 62 years old, I have paid my taxes and NI. I was given no notice for the 1995 hike. I am happy to continue till I’m 66 as are most women from that group (1950’s) contrary to popular belief we are not campaigning to have it go back to 60! We are just annoyed that we were given NO notice in 1995 (which has been admitted by the DWP) and I get paid now in 2017 just short of £11,000 per year! It is a fact that women generally were paid considerably less than men in the same jobs. It is a fact that there can never be true equality because only women can have babies! Many that had children did not get child benefit or maternity allowance. Please , please listen to some of us women (I’m not the worst off by far) and do some research before you make these flippant remarks.

      • WASPI are campaigning for a bridging pension payable from age 60 (backdated), with compensation for those who have already reached state pension age, payable to all 1950s women and no-one else.

        Regardless of what individual supporters may say, the campaign does not “support equalisation”, and does not care about anyone outside of their cohort. If it did, the aims and approach would be completely different.

        We all have a story to tell and obstacles we’ve had to overcome. The mistake a lot of supporters are making is believing that their challenges are unique, and that the taxpayer should automatically compensate them for this.

        As said above, I support help for those who genuinely need it, regardless of gender, and believe carers should be better supported for the important role they perform. However, the WASPI aim of indiscriminately paying ££££ to all 1950s women, and discriminately expecting everyone else to pay for it, is a complete nonsense and a barrier to progress.

  8. No. They should not receive any support. The 1995 changes had ample notice and were covered well in the media at the time. Pension providers also gave notifications as did financial advisers. The 2011 changes were rushed and more time and support should have been given to those. However, the WASPI campaign is too focused on the 1995 changes and that is why I do not support it.
    BTW, the poll has been linked on the WASPI site. So, its obviously a flawed poll now given the bias that will now exist through volume of WASPI members voting vs tiny number of others that view this site normally.

    • why are these men not listening to us Fiona? We had NO notification in 1995, our pension age was raised to 66 and 67 from 60, mens was raised from 65 to 66, men invariably had considerably higher wages than most women, women had breaks to have children ( which men can’t do!!) where is the fairness in all this? The DWP admitted that many women were not notified adequately, are the many thousands of Waspi women around the British Isles all wrong? Are we all ”Graspi” to quote David above? Are we all liars with regards to getting NO notification (bearing in mind the only main mode of notifications was by letter- where are these letters now?) I despair, little wonder we have such a fight on our hands, I should thank the David’s of this world they make certain that the fight will continue. Of course if the boot were on the other foot this wouldn’t have happened back then, as government was mainly made up of men and they took care of themselves, with their higher wages etc. Chauvinism is indeed alive and well, still. Did you go to the huge Waspi march in London Fiona? Sadly there was no media coverage of that either, I wonder why!!!! Oh well onwards and upwards.

      • Kay – you accuse others of not doing “research”, yet are claiming that women’s pension age was raised to 66 and 67, at the same time men’s was raised to 66.

        No woman born in the 1950s has a state pension age higher than 66. No woman of any age has a state pension age higher than a man born on the same date.

        The DWP have made no admittance that anyone was “not notified adequately”, as there is no legal obligation for anyone to be sent a letter regarding changes in law.

        For all the talk about pension equalisation being male-driven, the minister responsible for the 1995 Act was actually a woman (Ann Widdecombe).

        The relevant question is not why “men” are not listening to you, but why you are not listening to any legitimate objections to WASPI from either men or women? It’s far easier to dismiss any points as chauvinism, than it is to actually deal with the point itself.

  9. I am 63.When I had my children childcare, job-share and maternity allowance were not available so I had to resign from my full-time job.I could only return to low paid part-time work when my two children started school. I believe this is why women were allowed an earlier pension date than men. I have never had any information sent to me about my pension although I returned to my job as a health professional at 40 and retired at 58. I had searched on-line for a pension date and found it be 62 so I reckoned I could manage on my NHS lump sum and £360/month pension until 2015. On enquiring by phone I now find I’m not due to receive my state pension until March/April 2018. I feel that the co-hort of women born in the 50’s have been treated very unfairly and have heard of some who are now in dire straits.

    • The reduction in women’s state pension age to 60 had little to do with any of that. It was originally a political concession to Spinsters rather than acknowledgement of the woman’s traditional role in a family.

      You have a state pension age of around 64.5, which is earlier than a man born on the same date, and two and half years earlier than a man or woman born in the 1960s. Surely a woman born in 1961 has been treated more unfairly than those born in the 1950s?

  10. There should certainly be support for men and women who find themselves in difficult circumstances due to challenges such as job losses, relationship breakdown and ill health. The benefits system needs to provide a safety net to help the vulnerable at such times. An indiscriminate “bridging pension” to a particular group would be completely wrong.

    Life expectancy has increased significantly since the State Pension was originally introduced, this is not “a lie” as some are claiming, citing a particular friend or relative who died below State Pension age as supporting evidence. Government actuaries must look at the complete picture as it relates to the population as a whole, and plan accordingly. Individual notification of Government policy is not required.

    To look at what would have been received under the old system of a SPA of 60 and calculate the difference to the new SPA is purely arbitrary. A women born in 1971, now 46, could equally claim to not know her SPA, and claim to “have lost £104,972” (figures assume continuation of triple lock, which may of course disappear) by having 8 years added. The large numbers involved demonstrate exactly why SPA had to rise.

    Everyone needs to accept that the State has no money of its own, taxes raised from the population are what pays pensions and benefits, and the numbers simply do not stack up without raising the SPA for all new retirees.

  11. Some of the comments on this article are just unbelievable.

    This is nothing to do with women trying to fight equality.

    This is about the amount of notice women born from 1950 onward were given about sharp increases in their state pension age, that directly led to inequality for some women in comparison to other women!

    My Mother was born in 1955. By 2011, she was still expecting to receive her state pension from 2015, age 60. She now has to wait until 2021. The Government’s own brochure says, “in general, 10 years notice of SPA increases is deemed appropriate”.

    Well this wasn’t 10 years notice. Yes, it’ll be 10 years since 2011 that she will receive her first payment, but it was only 4 years away from when she was originally expecting to get her state pension.

    Any decent Adviser will tell you that 4 years to plan and save to cover a shortfall of approx. £50,000 worth of extra income is simply unreasonable for most people.

    What’s more, the way these changes were phased in means my Mother has friends that are just 2 years older than her, that will receive their state pension 5 years before she does. How is that fair? How is that equality?

    Most women affected by these changes will not argue that Men and Women’s SPA shouldn’t be the same. Equality means equality.

    But the way these changes were introduced and the botched transitional arrangements have led to a huge disparity within women of a certain age and as a result the women affected the most should be in some way compensated.

    • So despite the fact that you are an IFA, your mother was oblivious to the rises in state pension age until 2011?

      Ignoring your mothers apparent ignorance of what was well publicised and common knowledge, do you not provide your mother with advice? If so, why had you not made sure she was aware?

      Your “story” seems riddled with gaping holes..

      • Actually, a lot of ordinary women were not notified or aware of the original changes proposed in the 1995 Pensions Act, until the communication following the 2011 changes when their pension age was further increased to 66.

        Calling it ignorance is probably just a very rude way of saying she was unaware of the changes, as she had not been notified like thousands of other women. If that’s the terminology you want to use then I suppose all clients are guilty of ignorance until they are furnished with the knowledge to be able to understand a situation.

        Whilst it may have been well publicised and common knowledge to a lot of people, there were still an awful lot of people for whom it was not publicised enough until it was too late.

        Had I have been an IFA in 2011 (or previously), I certainly could have made her aware of the situation!!

        But thanks for your constructive comment!

        Sadly, the “story” you refer to is the harsh reality for thousands of working-class women who were born in the 1950s.

  12. I would hazard a guess that this poll has been hijacked.

  13. I think there was a flaw in the implementation.

    Imagine the view FOS would take if you were promised a benefit at 60 then told it would not arrive until 65 or later.

    So I think it would have been preferable to have said all benefits earned to date (whether 1995 of 2011) are payable at one age and benefits earned from then would be payable later.

    Could that have been done with 1995 technology? Probably not. By 2011, it could have been. However, we are where we are.

    I do not accept the argument that not having been written to individually makes this unfair. My wife knew full well that it was changing without me telling her.

    In the end, though, it is not the “W” of “WASPI” that is the problem. It is the Against State Pension Inequality.

    It was never fair that men had to wait five years longer for their State Pension.

    It is not fair that men do not live as long as women – so even with the State Pension Age equalised they will get less out of it than women.

    And whilst it is not fair that women have historically earned less than men (and apparently still do at the BBC), that is an issue about employment inequality, NOT State Pension inequality.

    • You make some good points. Particularly the idea about future accrual from 1995/2011 being delayed until 65/66 and accrued benefits still being paid from 60. This would have been a much fairer way to go.

      If it were WASPE (Women Against State Pension Equality), I agree, that would be a problem!

      But they do not have an issue with equality, it is inequality that they are against!

Leave a comment