Post by exile on Mar 24, 2024 17:51:03 GMT 1
Exile said "And that relates to the WASPI case. From my perspective as a male, during the last 10 years or so, the number of qualifying years need for a full pension changed from 40 years, to 30 years and then 35 years"
Yes it changed for me as well concerning the number of years required for a full pension but as I left the UK with just 25 years or so paid in I was told when asking for a pension forecast that I could purchase further years by paying so much to gain those lost years. After much thought I decided to not bother for the amount I would pay back just to get a few pounds more.
I think that is a fair point, I cashed in a private pension that I was saving for retirement and reinvested it here.
A small but important modification.
From my link relating to the facts about the timetable for the changes:
The impact assessment for the 2011 Act (published in November 2011, when the legislation came into effect), set out how the Government intended to communicate changes to State Pension age, including:
ensuring that information about the changes was available on its website and in its leaflets and guides, and
writing individually to 800,000 individuals born between 6 April 1953 and 5 April 1955 (those affected in the transitional period prior to State Pension age reaching 66, plus those who would have been affected in the transition to 65 under the original timetable).
All sounds good except:
According to a Work and Pensions Committee Report (2016), 1.1 million women were affected by equalisation of women’s State Pension age under the 1995 Act alone. A further 2.7 million women have had their State Pension age increased by both the 1995 and 2011 Acts.
So with 800k informed by the government by letter, and 3.8 million affected, that means 3,000,000 would have had to proactively look at the government website or to have picked up a guide to find out that their plans were changing.
It is worth remembering that the speed of implementation and changes meant that some found that instead of retiring at 60, some in the identified but poorly communicated group of women found that their pension age had increased by six years rather than the five originally set out under the equalisation program. That change was made after the process of increasing the pension age had started. Hardly a lot of time to reprogram a planned retirement.
That women's pension age had to rise should not be in debate. That pension ages in general had to and have to increase should equally not be a surprise. The criticism is linked to the speed of change and the patchy at best communication.
A further example of the poor communication was with respect to that change in contribution years to get a full pension. I found out be accident that it had changed from 40 years to 30. I received no government communication. However for me this was good since like you while I fell sufficiently short of the 40, that making self contributions was not really something I would consider, 30 brought me into the full pension umbrella. When this was raised to 35, I was again not informed. Had I been so while still working, I might well have paid to make up the shortfall.