What do you hope for in the budget?

Who reduced works pensions?

Gordon Brown.

Allira I’m also a bit confused by your comment regarding the reduction of work pensions? Not sure what you mean … or how it would impact the 6 year extension of state pension age for women

It’s the way it was handled, causing women (not men) to lose a significant amount of money, that I take issue with.

Yes.

63 for everyone would have been fair, I think.

That means more jobs for younger people too.

Allira I do blame the government of the day for their mismanagement of the extension of pension age for women.

I have no issue with the equalisation of pension age for men and women - I agree with it. It’s the way it was handled, causing women (not men) to lose a significant amount of money, that I take issue with.

I certainly don’t blame women who received their pension aged 60 - why would I? I just think it’s important to point out that those on the new pension are not necessarily ‘better off’, which often appears to be the misapprehension of some.

Allira

LizzieDrip

Exactly Pantglas2.

That’s the point several of us have been making Mollygo - not everyone on the old pension receives less than those on the new pension.

I have a friend who received her pension at 60, so she’s on the old pension. However, because of SERPs she gets more than I do. No SERPs for me; and my friend received 6 years more pension than I did. At a conservative estimate of £8k per year … £48k!!!

Do you know why?

It's because works pensions were reduced accordingly.

Blame the government, the administrators of pension schemes, not those in receipt of the pensions.

I don't understand what you mean by this.

Who reduced works pensions?

LizzieDrip

Exactly Pantglas2.

That’s the point several of us have been making Mollygo - not everyone on the old pension receives less than those on the new pension.

I have a friend who received her pension at 60, so she’s on the old pension. However, because of SERPs she gets more than I do. No SERPs for me; and my friend received 6 years more pension than I did. At a conservative estimate of £8k per year … £48k!!!

Do you know why?

It's because works pensions were reduced accordingly.

Blame the government, the administrators of pension schemes, not those in receipt of the pensions.

LizzieDrip

Exactly Pantglas2.

That’s the point several of us have been making Mollygo - not everyone on the old pension receives less than those on the new pension.

I have a friend who received her pension at 60, so she’s on the old pension. However, because of SERPs she gets more than I do. No SERPs for me; and my friend received 6 years more pension than I did. At a conservative estimate of £8k per year … £48k!!!

Exactly. That has been pointed out over and over, but ignored to suggest that people on the new pension are better off and consequently don't care about those on the old. The fact that the new pension has been around for ages and nobody has complained until now is 'interesting'. Wasn't it Ed Davey who said that pensioners should wear jumpers and hats indoors to keep warm, when in coalition with the Tories?

Molly Nobody on either pension is laughing all the way to the bank, but to suggest that one is necessarily higher than the other, and that I [sic] too see that there’s an I’m all right Jack^attitude from this who get more, and equally from those who don’t need the WFA. is offensive and unnecessary.

Suggesting that
as I pointed out, people on the old pension receive up to nearly £3000 less, but still pay the same prices is also unnecessary when people had already made the point, and to follow up with the virtue-signalling the point that older pensioners are still paying the same price for food, fuel, living etc whilst having to do that on up to £2688.40 less per year, or £224 less per month or 51.70 less per week evidently bothers me more than it bothers other, perhaps because I’ve seen the impact on people I know makes matters worse. How is it 'evident' that you are bothered more than others? How do you know whether others on the thread are aware of people who will struggle, or whether they will struggle themselves?

Nobody knew what you were talking about, as you were deliberately speaking in code:
If you get it, you get it. If you don’t, you don’t. It’s too late to claim it.

Those who qualify already get it. Those who don’t won’t ever get it, unless the LP or any other government realises how bad it is.

But just imagine what a difference £2400 pa would make for those who don’t get it.

You were asked repeatedly to clarify, but refused, and then suggested that people were deliberately misunderstanding because we are blinkered:
I believe there are people on here who don’t recognise when things are presented in a way that tells a story different from what they want to believe.

What was the point of all that if not to score points? And to what end?

Have it your own way.
Carry on with your own version of point scoring.
I haven’t been point scoring nor do I suggest that others don’t care, but if that’s how you see it-that’s your problem.
Go ahead.

Gotcha? There was no gotcha-unless your post is one. I obviously touched a nerve there.
😂
that's exactly what I was getting at - the constant need to 'catch someone out'. No nerves touched, I can assure you.

I wasn't talking about the government - I was talking about the daft 'riddle' about all the money that 'some people' got and others didn't, that ran on for days, and the statement that you care about those who don't, suggesting that others don't. Would you prefer every statement about the pension to be prefaced by an hour or so explaining all the possible amounts that people might get, depending on their age, marital status, number of contributions, whether they were contracted in/out, paid SERPS or not etc? That has never happened under any government, and I have never seen a complaint until now. The audience would be asleep before they found out what the statement was going to be.

Nobody has said that they don't care. What people have said is that if they are better off on the new pension it is because they have paid extra, or because they worked longer, or both. It has also been pointed out that many on the old pension get more than many on the new, so it's a false equivalence anyway.

It has been specifically stated (including by people other than you) that this doesn't change the fact that those on less still pay the same prices - a fact that is true of all age groups - and AFAIK nobody has defended the way the WFP has been handled.

Everyone seems to be of one mind, so there is no need for the riddles and the point scoring.

Exactly Pantglas2.

That’s the point several of us have been making Mollygo - not everyone on the old pension receives less than those on the new pension.

I have a friend who received her pension at 60, so she’s on the old pension. However, because of SERPs she gets more than I do. No SERPs for me; and my friend received 6 years more pension than I did. At a conservative estimate of £8k per year … £48k!!!

“Those of us who had to wait obviously appreciate the new pension, but as I pointed out, people on the old pension receive up to nearly £3000 less, but still pay the same prices.” Mollygo

Not ALL on the old pension receive less Mollygo. - my husband gets £1000 pa more than me and I get the full new one!

Gotcha? There was no gotcha-unless your post is one. I obviously touched a nerve there.
I don’t make up the figures. The governments carefully do not go into all the reasons why people will or will not receive a full basic pension.
They simply say the full basic pension is . . .
Or The new full basic pension is . . .

Those of us who had to wait obviously appreciate the new pension, but as I pointed out, people on the old pension receive up to nearly £3000 less, but still pay the same prices.

Mollygo

I know about having to wait for your pension and I know that people including me don’t always get the full amount.
The government posts those figures without all the ifs and buts.
I too see that there’s an ^I’m all right Jack^attitude from this who get more, and equally from those who don’t need the WFA.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding, or did you just not read properly?

Several of us are saying that we do not have an 'I'm alright, Jack' attitude, so the 'Gotcha' attempt is lame to say the least. I have no idea what makes you think you are more compassionate than others getting or waiting for the same pension as you get or will get, but it can't be based on anything that's been said here.

What we are saying is that the idea that everyone on the new pension is £200 a month better off than those on the old is misleading at best, and that the coded references to 'if you know you know' about a mismatch of £2600 a year were based on information that may have been just wrong if you hadn't realised the truth, but as you are now saying that you are aware that it is just not true, I'm not sure why you persisted with it for so long.

get

I don’t think we WASPIs will ever compensation🤷‍♀️

What do you hope for in the budget?

Money set aside for all those unfairly treated eg WASPI women.
Rapid, proper compensation for those who have been imprisoned or labelled as thieves by the Post Office.
Compensation to those and their families affected by the contaminated blood scandal.

Wrongs should be righted before anything else is addressed.

LizzieDrip

Thank you Allira.

Of course, I acknowledge that not all GN posters are critical of the WASPI campaign but, when this has been discussed on threads in the past, some have been highly critical.

When you hear on the news that two women, born days apart, get such a different income in retirement, it seems like yet another ill-thought-through decision.

LizzieDrip

Thank you Allira.

Of course, I acknowledge that not all GN posters are critical of the WASPI campaign but, when this has been discussed on threads in the past, some have been highly critical.

I must be a total numpty as I cannot recall whether I was informed officially about the change in getting my pension or I just read it in the press.

I thought I would get it at 65, but eventually got it at 66 last year, despite opting out at one point I still managed to get the full new state pension which is considerably higher than DH who got his at 62 (he deferred for two years).

I hope I am not smug or an all right jack I support the WASPI movement, but have little to no faith in there ever being any compensation.

Proof read after you change things!
are be = is

nanna8

You are lucky in the UK. We don’t get any state pension whatsoever even though we both worked in the public service sector and paid all taxes etc. It is means tested here so if you don’t work or work at a low paid job you will get a full pension.

The tax on income are be higher in Australia, the tax bands are closer, plus Medicare and Superannuation on top of that, so yes, we are better off here, especially on a low income around the new State Pension level of £12,000.

Thank you Allira.

Of course, I acknowledge that not all GN posters are critical of the WASPI campaign but, when this has been discussed on threads in the past, some have been highly critical.

LizzieDrip

I agree growstuff.

One could argue that there was an ‘I’m alright Jack’ attitude amongst women who got their state pension aged 60, when the age was raised by 6 years for the rest of us.

I have read some disparaging comments about the WASPI campaign on GN.

I wouldn't say that.

And I am fully behind the WASPI campaign, that group of women have definitely been short-changed.

I know about having to wait for your pension and I know that people including me don’t always get the full amount.
The government posts those figures without all the ifs and buts.
I too see that there’s an ^I’m all right Jack^attitude from this who get more, and equally from those who don’t need the WFA.

I agree growstuff.

One could argue that there was an ‘I’m alright Jack’ attitude amongst women who got their state pension aged 60, when the age was raised by 6 years for the rest of us.

I have read some disparaging comments about the WASPI campaign on GN.