Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

jamesd

saver861 wrote: »

the original notice was 24 months reduced to 18 months and I have stated many times that was nothing but a bargaining technique.

What is your evidence for that claim?

Anyone who was paying attention at the time would have seen very substantial fuss made about it and that it took considerable effort to get the change.

saver861 wrote: »

If all those who are now stating that the 2011 changes as it stands are unfair then this problem would have been resolved before now, one way or the other.

Hardly. I think that the changes were unfair because the delay was reduced, causing both gender and intergenerational discrimination to remain for longer and adding an extra billion plus to the tax bill. A faster transition with help to claim working age means tested benefits would have been fairer overall - including to tax payers - in my opinion, even though it would have caused more to have a need for means tested benefits.

saver861 wrote: »

Once again, I'm clear on my statement referring to the 18 months extension for some which many take to be unfair. JamesD likes to show that this is not factually correct and that actually there has been a longer extension to a different pension scheme.

Your assertion was clearly intended to give the impression that there was some unusual notice issue when in fact in pensions law there was a longer delay with shorter notice and a five year increase on one day. The women concerned haven't been treated exceptionally badly and the changes are less than those reaching age 50 after the change to 55 have had to deal with.

jamesd

saver861 wrote: »

As many seem to agree there is a case for the needy and those impacted most negatively by the 2011 Act, then what are people doing about that to help sway the government?

What I do is tell people about the means tested working age benefits that are available and how almost anyone who is needy can in addition get £720 a year of tax free income between age 55 and 75. So can a person who is not needy if they have an income within their personal income tax allowance, others get less after tax.

I do think that further help with claiming working age means tested benefits would be desirable for the group affected by the change but little work and no changes to the law are needed overall to do this because the means tested benefits that help the most needy are already in place.

To help sway the government to take this view I do things like disagreeing here, undertaking to help to fund the election campaigns of those who are opposing WASPI supporters in parliament, and undertaking to help fund legal action against the government if the law is changed in a way that increases gender discrimination, breaching European equality law.

mgdavid

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Parallel universe then Jem. Sounds really fluffy and nice and totally removed from the world I inhabited.

........

#chiponshoulder
#victim
#yawn

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

There were certain sectors where equality was greater than others. However, that was far from ideal and many many women did not have the same benefits. Indeed, many places where equality was more prevalent, there was also glass ceilings.

For those less impacted by such inequality, it is less likely to be at the forefront of their thoughts. However, not to be acknowledge there was grave discrimination over the years would be a misjudgement, at best.

I don't believe I have not acknowledged it.

My post was about my own workplace experience in response to the one described by slightlymiffed.

saver861 wrote: »

Unfortunately that is where you are wrong - the online world is full of it, and much much worse.

Too many on here and other areas are of the sheep mentality and follow each other rather than speaking of their own individual opinion. That in turn deters posters from posting a different viewpoint to the 'us' as demonstrated by the said mgdavid post above.

Personally, I find this pretty offensive.

Just because some people have the same opinion as another poster doesn't make them sheep.
I have formed my own opinion about this issue - I am not a sheep.

And I'm a bit fed up with people paying the 'you're bullying me' card when posters disagree with what they are saying.

saver861

mgdavid wrote: »

#chiponshoulder
#victim
#yawn

Constructive debate contribution?

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

Constructive debate contribution?

In fairness to mgdavid, the comment below by slightlymiffed was a tad flippant:

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Parallel universe then Jem. Sounds really fluffy and nice and totally removed from the world I inhabited.

As I've already posted, my experience of working in the 1970s was similar to jem's (without the childcare element as that wasn't relevant to me) and I worked bloody hard - it certainly wasn't the 'fluffy and nice' experience that slightlymiffed seemed to think it was.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

If 'saver' can't win the argument, what chance do I have?

The idea of 'winning an argument' on a public forum is quite bizarre.

bigadaj

There's no herd mentality, it's just a common feeling amongst a range of people who have taken a little time to become fairly informed about the subject.

Most of the posters, particularly me, will have a robust debate about opposing opinions on many subjects across these boards, it's just that objectively extending discrimination seems bizarre. Not mentioning the inter generational issues with younger people.

saver861

Pollycat wrote: »

I don't believe I have not acknowledged it.

My post was about my own workplace experience in response to the one described by slightlymiffed.

Sure, there are many who had better workplace experiences than others, both women and men.

However, women have for many years had a considerably less fortunate presence than men. Women suffered direct and indirect discrimination.

My point was that many of those women who had a more fortune existence did not do enough to help those less fortunate. Had they done so, the discrimination would not have been as prevalent.

This pension issue has thrown up issues where some women have been treated unfairly in the opinion of many, i.e. 2011 Act.

What is less evident is a cohesive response to that predicament from women. These threads are repeatedly negative response to WASPI rather than anything constructive to assist those women who many think have been unfairly treated.

Thus its often the opinionated stating their opinions rather than the action oriented providing action. Meanwhile, those in greatest need are inconsequential, as were those who were discriminated persistently all those years ago.

Pollycat wrote: »

Personally, I find this pretty offensive.

Just because some people have the same opinion as another poster doesn't make them sheep.
I have formed my own opinion about this issue - I am not a sheep.

And I'm a bit fed up with people paying the 'you're bullying me' card when posters disagree with what they are saying.

Nobody is bullying me on here .... so I'm not saying that. Yes, there are many of the sheep mentality and those who wish to breast beat feed their egos, to such an extent those who may have a contrary opinion decide not to post or move on.

Pollycat wrote: »

In fairness to mgdavid, the comment below by slightlymiffed was a tad flippant:

OK - if mgdavid comment was a flippant comment then haha. If not then its as per the tone mentioned above.

You choose.

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

My point was that many of those women who had a more fortune existence did not do enough to help those less fortunate. Had they done so, the discrimination would not have been as prevalent.

So what would you have suggested women such as me and jem should have or could have done to help those less fortunate women back in the days of sexual discrimination?
How could we have made sure the discrimination was less prevalent than it apparently was?

saver861 wrote: »

Nobody is bullying me on here .... so I'm not saying that. Yes, there are many of the sheep mentality and those who wish to breast beat feed their egos, to such an extent those who may have a contrary opinion decide not to post or move on.

I read opinions from both sides.

saver861 wrote: »

OK - if mgdavid comment was a flippant comment then haha. If not then its as per the tone mentioned above.

You choose.

I have chosen.
mgdavid's comment was no less and no more flippant than the one expressed by slighlymiffed.

saver861

jamesd wrote: »

Your assertion was clearly intended to give the impression that there was some unusual notice issue when in fact in pensions law there was a longer delay with shorter notice and a five year increase on one day. The women concerned haven't been treated exceptionally badly and the changes are less than those reaching age 50 after the change to 55 have had to deal with.

As I have said, the discussion is about the state pension age rise for women and the bigger extension applied to some women. If you want to pull something else out from an entirely different scheme that gives a contrary fact then feel free. You know full well what is being discussed and the extension of 18 months from the 2011 Act. Changes to other pensions is not part of it.

If it means that much to you to 'win the point' then have it. I'm not going to explain in detail every point I make - if you want to dissect my posts to find something to trump it then feel free - it seems like it is important to you. However, I'll not be playing.

jamesd wrote: »

What I do is tell people about the means tested working age benefits that are available and how almost anyone who is needy can in addition get £720 a year of tax free income between age 55 and 75. So can a person who is not needy if they have an income within their personal income tax allowance, others get less after tax.

I do think that further help with claiming working age means tested benefits would be desirable for the group affected by the change but little work and no changes to the law are needed overall to do this because the means tested benefits that help the most needy are already in place.

To help sway the government to take this view I do things like disagreeing here, undertaking to help to fund the election campaigns of those who are opposing WASPI supporters in parliament, and undertaking to help fund legal action against the government if the law is changed in a way that increases gender discrimination, breaching European equality law.

So if your opinion is that there is no unfairness in the changes, in particular the 2011act, then thats fine. If you wish to take steps to oppose any further concessions to these changes then I'd fully respect that. That's your opinion and you do as you see fit.

If all those who 'do' think that there is some unfairness, were to be similarly active for their belief then something might move. It would seem from comments, a significant number if not the majority, believe the 2011 act is unfair to some degree.

However, that is not what is happening and for many it is just being publicly opinionated rather than any form of action for what they say they believe.

In other words, for many its nothing more than just being loud at the mouth!