Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

colsten

bmm78 wrote: »

What's the cost of that? How would it be funded, and by whom? NI increases? Reduction of other benefits payments? Other?

Why would men put up with a delay in equalisation?

jem16

bmm78 wrote: »

It's interesting to see that WASPI supporters on twitter are now looking towards constructive solutions.

I think some are actually understanding the difference between WASPI petition and WASPI Facebook ask.

Many of their supporters are mostly upset with the 2011 changes but there are still the nutters who just want compensation back to age 60 as it's their right.

While it may seem unfair to speed up increases for future generations to spread equalisation over a 30 year timetable, this apparently isn't a problem as they will have "notice" and time to "prepare".

Provided they get a personal letter I suppose seeing as it was originally equalisation over a 25 yr timetable.

colsten wrote: »

Let's increase the NI working people (incl. my kids, and may be even incl. myself) pay so I can leave my kids some money and don't have to use my rainy day funds.

Perfect logic.

WASPI logic!

colsten

jem16 wrote: »

Provided they get a personal letter I suppose seeing as it was originally equalisation over a 25 yr timetable.

Can you imagine the precedence it would create if WASPI won on the basis of not having received a personal letter about a change in law? The cost of reliably providing everyone with a letter about changes in law that would/might affect them is astronomical.

How were those women able to hook up to Facebook and Twitter, launch and sign petitions, start crowd-funding, some even have their own online business, but have never thought about putting "how much state pension will I get" into Google? I am very sorry, but they have zero credibility with any thinking person.

bmm78

colsten wrote: »

What's the cost of that?

Maybe a few zillions. But it's about fairness you see. The cost is irrelevant. The bankers should really have thought about that before they stole everyone's pension.

colsten wrote: »

How would it be funded, and by whom?

It can all be paid for by stopping foreign aid, scrapping trident, taxing google, cutting down on Dave and George's wine bill and stuff like that.

colsten wrote: »

NI increases?

What good would that do? NI goes into an individual pot that pays for our pensions. Increasing NI would just mean bigger pensions for everyone else. Or something.

colsten wrote: »

Reduction of other benefits payments?

What do you mean by "other" benefits? A state pension isn't a benefit dammit!

colsten wrote: »

Why would men put up with a delay in equalisation?

They haven't had to face inequality all their working lives. And we can just send them a letter beforehand so it's all ok.

bmm78

Returning to Planet Earth, below is a link to the oft-referenced successful Dutch case.

http://uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl/inziendocument?id=ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2015:5585

Key text as I see it (obviously making allowances for the translation)

17. Plaintiff has stated that in this context there will be big financial problems because she faces a 'AOW gap of 21 months (given under paragraph 8 above amendment so now 24 months). The burden for the plaintiff is disproportionate, given her circumstances. It is not possible for her to take measures / provisions to respond to the shift, given its age, its great distance from the labor market and its state of health. Plaintiff has a number of chronic diseases that are progressive in nature and as a result takes quite some time no longer in employment. For that reason, the husband of the claimant at the time chose a Surviving Dependants Act (ANW) -hiaatverzekering to close at the highest possible insurance sum, according to the plaintiff.


Individual circumstances appear to be the key. It was not possible for her to to take measures to respond to the change in pension age. It doesn't go into specifics about her state of health, but "progressive" and "chronic" do suggest that these were not mild conditions.


If the ruling stands, and if it has any potential ramifications for the UK, it pretty much underlines what the majority of people on the forum have been suggesting is the way forward - some kind of transitional help for those worst affected by the 2011 changes. Just my interpretation, but the Dutch case seems to be more about the wider benefit system than purely about the rise in state pension age.


WASPI supporters and a couple of pro-WASPI MPs have suggested that this case supports a class action on behalf of 1950s women. I'm not sure how anyone reading the ruling can come to that conclusion.

atush

merrydance wrote: »

Well the equal pay act was brought into force in 1970. Therefore shouldn't all the women who have received their pensions at 60 from that date pay in back and have to wait until they are 66 like a lot of us will have to. After all "fair is fair".

sure, when they receive the same salary for the same job (still dont all these years later). Backdated if we take your post into acct?

It might have helped if the equal pay act was ever actually enforced.

Nick_C

atush wrote: »

sure, when they receive the same salary for the same job (still dont all these years later). Backdated if we take your post into acct?

It might have helped if the equal pay act was ever actually enforced.

Of course women get paid the same as men for doing the same job.

The average pay for women is less than average pay for men.

These facts do not contradict each other.

Malthusian

Can you imagine the precedence it would create if WASPI won on the basis of not having received a personal letter about a change in law? The cost of reliably providing everyone with a letter about changes in law that would/might affect them is astronomical.

It would essentially be a reversal of the doctrine that "ignorance is no defence under the law", i.e. that responsibility falls on the individual to know what the law is, not the state to tell him. It is a rule that belongs to a saner world where the law does not change on a daily basis, but we adhere to it anyway because the alternative is a breakdown in society.

rpc

Nick_C wrote: »

Of course women get paid the same as men for doing the same job.

In a lot of jobs, that is the case.

There is evidence to suggest that it is not the case in all jobs, particularly higher up the career ladder in the private sector.

But, of course, average pay of each gender is not the correct measure at all yet is is very frequently cited as evidence.

jem16

Malthusian wrote: »

It would essentially be a reversal of the doctrine that "ignorance is no defence under the law", i.e. that responsibility falls on the individual to know what the law is, not the state to tell him. It is a rule that belongs to a saner world where the law does not change on a daily basis, but we adhere to it anyway because the alternative is a breakdown in society.

It is also interesting that we now have WASPI supporters on Twitter admitting to receiving the Automatic Pension Forecasts which contained a booklet setting out the 1995 changes.

Some have also said they got a booklet either with the above or via their employers - Public Sector. One person was even told to delete their tweet about the booklet!

This morning one person asked why she would have read the booklet in 2004 as she was only 50 and not ready to retire. This is the 10 years notice that they say they should have had but yet they don't want it as it's too far away and they wouldn't be interested.

Honestly if it wasn't so tragic, it would be funny.