Discrimination against 3.8 million women

nanna8

Now I said it was ‘different ‘, not ‘bad’ I quite liked living there but I was also quite glad to get back to that big island at the top! We were living in a wild bit so if you lived down in Hobart it was probably more like how most of us live.

We really enjoyed a holiday there and visited friends of friends down in the very wild part - an island off an island!

Hobart was civilisation 🙂

Now I said it was ‘different ‘, not ‘bad’ I quite liked living there but I was also quite glad to get back to that big island at the top! We were living in a wild bit so if you lived down in Hobart it was probably more like how most of us live.

Elusivebutterfly

Those of us born from 1951 to early 1953 had to work a couple of years longer and only get the old lower state pension. They should have a staged increase for us, just as there was a gradual increase in retirement age.

Yes, that is an anomaly which should be corrected.

Those of us born from 1951 to early 1953 had to work a couple of years longer and only get the old lower state pension. They should have a staged increase for us, just as there was a gradual increase in retirement age.

nanna8 and notgran … so what (apart from being rather discriminatory towards the people of Tasmania)! Dr Scutt, and other representatives of CEDAW, are speaking out against the unfair discrimination of millions of women. Good for them!

nanna8

Tasmania? Not even part of the mainland. They call the rest of us 'the other island'. Things are different down there.At least when I lived there they were- very different.

I have a former work colleague who had lived there for many years and used to say the same. However as it was just hearsay I didn't want to mention that here. Dr Scut's qualifications I'm sure are genuine but a small fish in a big pond who now in her 70's is a councillor in a small Cambs Ward and trying to add something else to her CV is how it looks, but I wish she would qualify such titles as "Anti Discrimination Commissioner", it's rather disingenuous, I feel.

Tasmania? Not even part of the mainland. They call the rest of us 'the other island'. Things are different down there.At least when I lived there they were- very different.

I agree with you Callistemon, especially as the amount received sometimes has no correlation with the amount paid in. It's based on number of contributions rather than the level of payments, which is why higher earners were advised to opt out.

For some people, there's no incentive to make up missed contributions because their pension is topped up anyway and Pension Credit opens the door to some other benefits.

It was a mess!

It was and still is!

However, those women who receive a lower old state pension and get a reduced pension for fewer than 39 years of contributions did start receiving it at 60.

It's swings and roundabouts.

There were a couple of years when people had their pension age raised slightly, but still received the "old" state pension. There was also a short time when people only needed 30 years contributions and, of course, received credits for years when they were bringing up children. It was a mess! I actually think the news system is fairer, especially as people with public service pensions can't opt out and pay reduced contributions. In the end, the government is being quite crafty because it means it will have to pay fewer means-tested pension credits.

I've given up looking over my shoulder and seeing unfairness. I know what I get and just try to make the best of it. Life's too short to be jealous and bitter.

I do not get a higher pension than those who got their pension aged 60 - obviously, I can’t speak for everyone, but the people I know get a similar pension to me

It is higher.

The full basic State Pension is currently £141.85 per week based on 39 years of contributions for a woman born before 6 April 1950.

A woman born on or after 6 April 1953 will receive £185.15 per week based on 35 qualifying years.

If you were born before 1953, 35 qualifying years means you receive a reduced amount.

Delila

Can people on the new pension claim housing benefit, particularly those who aren’t entitled to pension credit?

Yes.

growstuff

LizzieDrip

Yes I suppose it carries no weight with the powers that be. As far as I’m concerned that doesn’t negate the discrimination perpetrated against 3.8 million women.

I actually think WASPI discriminates against those born on 1 January 1960 and later (and they don't care).

I might have supported them, if they'd have fought a different battle to support all women as they approach retirement.

That's how I always feel, as an early '61 baby, I know we had more notice of the changes but we still have to work till 67 when for most of our working life we expected to retire at 60.

Forgot to say … when you receive pension credit it opens up lots of other ‘benefit doors’ which, of course, are firmly closed to me!

The "new" state pension has meant that fewer people are now eligible for Pension Credit. Anybody on the new system and receiving the full amount or nearly the full amount is eligible for nothing or a very small amount. People receiving the "old" state pension who are in need can be means-tested and their pension topped up the new amount.

You’ve explained that far better than I could Growstuff. Because I receive just below the ‘new’ full state pension, I’m not eligible for any benefits upgrade. However, I have friends on the ‘old’ pension who receive pension credit (I think it’s called that) bringing the amount they receive up to match the ‘new’ pension. Upshot - I worked and contributed for 6 years longer to receive a lower pension!

Can people on the new pension claim housing benefit, particularly those who aren’t entitled to pension credit?

LizzieDrip

Yes I suppose it carries no weight with the powers that be. As far as I’m concerned that doesn’t negate the discrimination perpetrated against 3.8 million women.

I actually think WASPI discriminates against those born on 1 January 1960 and later (and they don't care).

I might have supported them, if they'd have fought a different battle to support all women as they approach retirement.

The "new" state pension has meant that fewer people are now eligible for Pension Credit. Anybody on the new system and receiving the full amount or nearly the full amount is eligible for nothing or a very small amount. People receiving the "old" state pension who are in need can be means-tested and their pension topped up the new amount.

The new system means that people with a full contributions record receive more without having to be means-tested eg having savings taken into account.

The changes were supposed to be cost neutral, which means that some people will benefit and some will lose out. There are some safety nets for those who lost the most. On average, if people have an average life expectancy, they'll end up with the same.

Yes, very frustrating to work towards a pension at a certain age, only to have the goalposts moved, plans disrupted etc.

Yes I suppose it carries no weight with the powers that be. As far as I’m concerned that doesn’t negate the discrimination perpetrated against 3.8 million women.

I don't get a full state pension either because I was "opted out" for a number of years. Although, like everybody with public service pensions, I paid reduced NICs, it wasn't made clear in 2011 that we wouldn't receive the full pension. I also lost my SERPs. I spotted it in the "small print", but nobody took any notice at the time. They were too busy jumping up and down claiming they didn't know about the increase to 65 and moaning about the unfairness for different groups.

The other issue which people ignored was the changes to Universal Credit for the over 60s age group, which made it more difficult to do part-time work as people were approaching retirement.

Lizziedrip, not all women on the lower rate receive full pension either. I should think similar factors are taken into consideration in both cases.

Thanks. I found it. It's not an official report and I'm afraid carries no weight.

The figures quoted on here relate to the full state pension. Not all WASPI women qualify for a full pension, so they aren’t all necessarily receiving a higher amount than women born earlier, whilst having to work and contribute for an extra 6 years. I don’t get a full state pension, despite working until I was 66.

Growstuff the report is available on the CEWDAW website and Dr Scutt’s presentation is on YouTube. Sorry I tried to get it as a link but couldn’t.

growstuff

I knew in the mid 1990s that my state pension wouldn't be paid until I was 65 (ie equalised with men). I remember being miffed in 2011 when it was raised by an extra year to 66. It wasn't a shock to me. Surveys showed that about 70% of women were aware of the changes.

Me too, and I was very miffed by the 2011 change.

No pension until I'm 67 and no bus pass either, grrr.