WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions
Comments
-
6 years anyone? Still can't find why this is considered unfair.........Gettin' There, Wherever There is......
I have a dodgy "i" key, so ignore spelling errors due to "i" issues, ...I blame Apple
0 -
cross-posts... but I accept your apology
and likewise if you thought my response harsh.
But back on-topic, no answer to the question of the 6-year notice issue? Why is it too short?
Of course apology accepted.
Really GunJack, if you have the time, it is worth researching this subject further...it may affect Mrs GunJack?
You may also find this Guardian article helps?
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/jan/09/state-pension-inequality-cost-women-20000-campaign
I should say here that I am not a Waspi (Women Against State Pension Inequality) but I do support some of their grievances.
I agree that the acronym is inaccurate and should have been 'injustice' and not 'inequality' because no woman I know is against equalising women's state pension age with that of men.
But I am on this forum, expressing my own views and not those of any organisation or campaign. I am not an apologist for Waspi!
Thank you for your interest though GunJack and maybe you will come to appreciate the injustice to some 1950's real women.0 -
ok, read that article.... some points:-
1. won't affect Mrs.G-J, born too late for it to be an issue.
2. the claim that it will cost some people £20k is false, they should be earning more than SP if still working at 60+
3. whenever a change is made to anything, it will affect one group more than others, that's just life.
4. SP should only be one part of retirement, so if all the other parts of your plan remain constant (or better due to working longer) then why is this a problem? (tied in with point 2)
and
5.the 6-year thing is still bugging me, I still don't get why this is not enough notice??......Gettin' There, Wherever There is......
I have a dodgy "i" key, so ignore spelling errors due to "i" issues, ...I blame Apple0 -
PensionTech wrote: »Because you're posting on a public forum. I'm a member of the public, I read this forum, I wanted to say something, and that is my right. If you want a personal discussion with jamesd, why not private message?
I do apologise, I used common sense to make a deduction. You may well personally be in financial need. But if you are, I'm surprised that you aren't beating that drum instead, rather than "other people might be in situations where they can't work".
Nobody, actually. I said you were "deeply concerned" about women in financial need (or rather, to take you literally as we are apparently unable to make reasonable leaps of inference, women who were unable to work).
I said that if you support the WASPI aims, that means you would like to benefit. It does mean exactly that. You have identified yourself as being in the affected cohort of women. If you would like WASPI's aims to succeed, then the consequence is that you yourself will benefit financially. It's not that difficult.
You did:
But not more important than making sexist remarks about your conceived roles for men and women as though that were pertinent to a discussion about state pension entitlement?
Well no, I don't find your remarks funny. Sorry about that.
What I do see the irony in is somebody writing this shortly after calling somebody suspicious for having knowledge or apparent interest in the subject.
My loss, I suppose...
Oh dear! :eek:
Still, you've had your little say....
Thanks for the suggestion of PM'ing jamesd though.0 -
ok, read that article.... some points:-
1. won't affect Mrs.G-J, born too late for it to be an issue.
2. the claim that it will cost some people £20k is false, they should be earning more than SP if still working at 60+
3. whenever a change is made to anything, it will affect one group more than others, that's just life.
4. SP should only be one part of retirement, so if all the other parts of your plan remain constant (or better due to working longer) then why is this a problem? (tied in with point 2)
and
5.the 6-year thing is still bugging me, I still don't get why this is not enough notice??
Sorry GunJack. Work to do - ask one of these pension experts here. They know everything about everything. :rotfl:0 -
slightlymiffed wrote: »
It hasn't helped either with the continual insistence that Waspi 'have not withdrawn' their original ask of rolling back their pension age to 60 which has allowed MP's and others like jamesd here, to propagate the assertion that it would take an outrageous £77 billion to right the wrong(s) which even the most outspoken and critical on this forum are in agreement need to be addressed. I don't believe that this is now their 'ask' but still the misinformation circulates. And I have to question why?
What do you believe the WASPI ask is now? Is it that "63 is the new 60" proposal that a (non-WASPI?) woman has presented to the APPG? Have the WASPI leaders now settled their public spat over their 'ask'?
Why do you reckon WASPI have not withdrawn their 'ask' presented to the WPSC?0 -
What do you believe the WASPI ask is now? Is it that "63 is the new 60" proposal that a (non-WASPI?) woman has presented to the APPG? Have the WASPI leaders now settled their public spat over their 'ask'?
Why do you reckon WASPI have not withdrawn their 'ask' presented to the WPSC?
Sorry Colsten - I am not a representative of Waspi and cannot answer on their behalf.
I realise some here hope they have a 'captive' 'Waspi' they can bully into revealing something of interest but it's not going to be me.
Do enjoy arguing amongst yourselves. Us 1950's women have work to do.... 0 -
I do think it is very unfair that my mum who was born in March 53, has her pension already (From Jan 16 - aged 62 and 10 months), her sister, who was born just 10 months later in Jan 54, won't get hers until she is 65 and 4 months. ( A Full 2 years 6 months older than my mum.)
However I also think its unfair that a man born on the same day as my mum, won't get his pension to 65.
There is no easy answer0 -
slightlymiffed wrote: »It hasn't helped either with the continual insistence that Waspi 'have not withdrawn' their original ask of rolling back their pension age to 60 which has allowed MP's and others like jamesd here, to propagate the assertion that it would take an outrageous £77 billion to right the wrong(s) which even the most outspoken and critical on this forum are in agreement need to be addressed. I don't believe that this is now their 'ask' but still the misinformation circulates. And I have to question why?
There's no insistence about it, it is a simple fact that WASPI have never stated that they have withdrawn or amended their ask.
WASPI's ask is "Waspi ask the government to put all women born in the 50s, or after 6th April 1951 and affected by the changes to the state pension age, in the same financial position they would have been in had they been born on or before 5th April 1950." When did they withdraw this?0 -
I'm sorry, but I still don't get how 6 years notice is detrimental? .
Its detrimental whether its a man or a woman. It is not saying 6 years is detrimental to a woman but not a man - both the same.
Thus why DWP agreed that 10 years notice would be the minimum required for any changes to pensions.
If the DWP had felt 6 years notice was sufficient then thats what they would have stated!!!0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards