WASPI - Early day motion EDM

Mortgagefreeman · 14 July 2017 at 8:00AM

The GRASPI's are enraged. They've had their EDM amended, and it now includes this.

after 'a' delete to 'that' in line 3 and insert 'a cost-neutral early retirement option'.

This is NO use to them whatsoever, as they know they'll never be able to get that with the estimated 77bn of tax payers money that will be needed to fund their demands.

They've been showing their 'true colours' over on twitter.

https://mobile.twitter.com/WASPI_Campaign?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor

These are the same GRASPI woman who'll be crying foul, when there's no money left in the NHS, to pay for their welfare in their old age.

Archi_Bald · 14 July 2017 at 9:50AM

The amendment is bizarre, as he seems to still be asking for compensation, and as an early pension is by definition only attractive to those who also have other means and don't exclusively rely on their state pension. As to cost-neutral: nobody can tell whether it was cost-neutral until after the death of the person receiving the money. What is obvious is that it would, in the short and medium term, require additional taxpayer funds - thus is anything but cost-neutral in that time period.

Frank Field has been on about a cost-neutral early pension on and off for about a year. Either he is not smart enough to figure out the flaws in his proposal, or he is consciously trying to conceive.

The reaction of your typical WASPI is very telling, though. The very last thing they are interested in is any proposal that doesn't give everyone last one of them maximum moollah. Ghastly women.

bmm78 · 14 July 2017 at 10:32AM

The option for (all) people to take a reduced pension has flaws, but it is something worth exploring and debating.

It's irrelevant what the GRASPIs think of it. The government doesn't need to run any state pension ideas by them, any more than they need to anyone else.

Mortgagefreeman · 14 July 2017 at 12:05PM

They've been given the bum's rush again!

DEr9ZWPXkAAoFaL?format=jpg

Silvertabby · 14 July 2017 at 12:32PM

The option for (all) people to take a reduced pension has flaws, but it is something worth exploring and debating. Posted by bmm78

I think this has been considered, but rejected on the grounds that only the 'better off' would be able to access their (reduced) State benefits early.

The minimum income guarantee at State pension age would still apply, so taking reduced benefits early would be conditional upon having other household income/pensions from State pension age which would negate the need for a means tested top up.

bmm78 · 14 July 2017 at 12:58PM

Silvertabby wrote: »

I think this has been considered, but rejected on the grounds that only the 'better off' would be able to access their (reduced) State benefits early.

https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/inquiries/parliament-2015/early-drawing-pension-15-16/

I don't think the enquiry got to the point where it got rejected. Frank Field set up a debate that if I recall correctly got cancelled and didn't go any further.

The responses to the enquiry were dominated by WASPI-prompted diatribes about imaginary contracts and not getting a letter. One legendary response seemed to blame the OJ Simpson trial for the lack of coverage of state pension equalisation.

I'm not sure the early state pension idea is a good one, but I think there's a bit of unfinished business there in terms of bottoming out the pros and cons. It has to be more constructive than another pointless exercise in political grandstanding like all the previous debates.

colsten · 14 July 2017 at 2:32PM

The State Pension is intended to provide a minimum acceptable level of income in retirement. Paying a reduced State Pension would, by definition, mean that individuals would receive less than a minimum acceptable level of income. There would then need to be some sort of a top-up, say with Pension Credit. Which makes the whole package anything but cost-neutral.

I fail to see why people are trying to solve the problems of working age people with benefits only available to people of state pension age. I further fail to see why only women of a given decade should be the only ones a solution should be found for. The problems caused by unemployment or illness will be just the same for men and for younger people. It is quite unbelievable that MPs ignore those.

JezR · 14 July 2017 at 2:50PM

Other countries with the possibility of taking a pension early at a reduced rate tend to find that the in the public's mind the earliest possible date becomes the standard retirement date, and the reduced pension rate becomes the standard rate. Leading to complaints ultimately that this is too low.

This was all gone through in the early 90s when the age equalisation arguments were played out.

Mortgagefreeman · 14 July 2017 at 4:14PM

The 'fun' continues, as Frances Coppola makes her feelings known.

Not poking fun at 1950s women in general. Just at the disgusting #WASPI campaign and its rich privileged directors.

#WASPI campaign has no morals, no honour and no integrity.

https://mobile.twitter.com/Frances_Coppola/status/885875984930676736

She's letting 'em have it with both barrels.

Pollycat · 15 July 2017 at 7:40AM

#WASPI campaign has no morals, no honour and no integrity.

+1 to this ^^^^

ffacoffipawb · 15 July 2017 at 10:00AM

Pollycat wrote: »

+1 to this ^^^^

They are also against Equality with men, not Inequality.

If they get what they want, expect legal action from men who will be being discriminated against.

WASPI - Early day motion EDM

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free