State Pension - differing opinions

bigfreddiel

atush wrote: »

Bull tink. They had been told to wait 5 extra years already and then they got told to wait even longer (more than a year in many cases, a year in others) at short notice.

what a load of old pony! women have had decades to plan for the 5 year increase - so thats nothing to moan about now is it

so all they have to moan about is at tops 2 yrs delay, and most only one year - and as we all know the spis rubbish so you can earn it in a few months - so all women are moaning about is working a few extra months - not too bad now is it.

fj

atush

bigfreddiel wrote: »

what a load of old pony! women have had decades to plan for the 5 year increase - so thats nothing to moan about now is it

so all they have to moan about is at tops 2 yrs delay, and most only one year - and as we all know the spis rubbish so you can earn it in a few months - so all women are moaning about is working a few extra months - not too bad now is it.

fj

You obviously are just a misogenist. Look at all the palaver from PS pension people here, mostly men who are all 'I am not standing for this cr*p' with far less change.

Yes the first change from 60-65 was advised in advance, but to expect a woman in her late 50s who already had that financial shock to have another 1-2 year one on top with little notice is not fair at all.

And gave them no time to plan just like raising tuition fees 3x with only 2 years to go left parents who had the 'luck' to have a multiple births with not enough time to make up the difference. I'll get over it as we have a little time to replace plundered retirment savings, but a late 50's woman on a low salary won't have enough time.

You are resentful it went on as long as it did, as women were resentful that equal pay/conditions took 50 years too long.

hugheskevi

Yes the first change from 60-65 was advised in advance, but to expect a woman in her late 50s who already had that financial shock to have another 1-2 year one on top with little notice is not fair at all.

Crumbs, since that "financial shock" of a higher State Pension age, the Atlanta Olympics were held, the Conservatives lost power, the new Millenium came, the Sydney Olympics happened, the dot.com crisis hit, the Twin Towers came down, the Greek Olympics happened, the bank crisis happened, the China Olympics happened, and the Conservatives regained power (to list just a few events)

Surely they have had enough time to get over the first shock:D?

atush

But not the second.

Let us know what you think when men's pensons are moved 7 years ahead lol.

Oh wait, they have been moved 2 years. Only lol.

bigfreddiel

atush wrote: »

You obviously are just a misogenist. Look at all the palaver from PS pension people here, mostly men who are all 'I am not standing for this cr*p' with far less change.

Yes the first change from 60-65 was advised in advance, but to expect a woman in her late 50s who already had that financial shock to have another 1-2 year one on top with little notice is not fair at all.

And gave them no time to plan just like raising tuition fees 3x with only 2 years to go left parents who had the 'luck' to have a multiple births with not enough time to make up the difference. I'll get over it as we have a little time to replace plundered retirment savings, but a late 50's woman on a low salary won't have enough time.

You are resentful it went on as long as it did, as women were resentful that equal pay/conditions took 50 years too long.

blimy someones upset - but i thought women wanted equality - when you get it you just moan!

and don't get me started on children - if you can't afford them don't have them!

atush

bigfreddiel wrote: »

blimy someones upset - but i thought women wanted equality - when you get it you just moan!

and don't get me started on children - if you can't afford them don't have them!

you are such a misogynist. No one complaining about having children (although I certainly didn't sign up for two at once). I'd be surprised if you had either a wife or children. Whjo would put up with you :eek:

Fair is fair. That is equality but with enough time to plan.

I am not upset for myself really, as the changes don't affect me (apart fromt he tuition thing and if I wanted to be as selfish as some here I might tell them to get loans and pay for it themselves).

What I am upset with is that a certain number of women weren't treated fairly in this instance and it could have been better implemented and more fairly implemented. But implemented all the same.

There would have been hige uproar (more then the whinging PS workers) if men had their retirement raised 7 years so quickly. Here's to hoping when they raise it to 70 for all like many economists say they should, that it will be done with a little more forwarning. Perhaps the new mandatory pension offerings coming in soon are the first sign of that?

mjm3346

atush wrote: »

Yes the first change from 60-65 was advised in advance, but to expect a woman in her late 50s who already had that financial shock to have another 1-2 year one on top with little notice is not fair at all.

There are at least 5 years before the changes start to kick in and state pension at age 66 is not due to complete before 2020 so thats 9 years to plan and hardly "little notice".

mjm3346

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

I find that women are less likely to 'bang on' about things if they are kept busy and occupied.

Many many years ago that was what ironing was invented for.

bigfreddiel

atush wrote: »

.....parents who had the 'luck' to have a multiple births with not enough time to make up the difference. I'll get over it as we have a little time to replace plundered retirment savings, but a late 50's woman on a low salary won't have enough time.

like i said children cost money so if its too much maybe a bit of planning wouldn't have gone amiss

and as for not enough time - well how much is enough 9 years, 15 years, 20 years, 100 years or what

its 9 years till 2020, so in that time all you have to do is to put away £2 a day for the next 7 years, in a cash isa, and you'l have your £6k - what does £2 buy today a copy of the Telegraph and a mars bar - nuff said

datostar

le_loup wrote: »

Yes, a bit of washing up and cleaning works wonders for them, I find.
Fortunately la loup does not come here.

The French language is rather rigid about its masculine and feminine nouns. You cannot have 'la loup' as all wolves are masculine. You could have 'la loupe', however, which would turn her into a magnifying glass and enable her to scrutinise you very closely.