Sign the Petition for Womens state pension age going up unfair

Pollycat

mgdavid wrote: »

Thankyou Figgerty - I've been dying to mention that - but it really isn't the done thing to pull up on spelling and grammar on forums so I've been biting my tongue instead!
'usually if you want a noun, the word you want is effect, but if you want a verb, the word you want is affect.'
This might help:
'The poem affected me deeply; it really had an effect on me.'
HTH.

Please note that the post in which you quoted the above (#796) contains an error.

Figgerty's incorrect use of the 'quote' function make it look like I posted this:

Perhaps we should move on to effect and affect as I'm always hesitant in their use

when in reality it was Figgerty.

Figgerty wrote: »

Perhaps we should move on to effect and affect as I'm always hesitant in their use.

Some posters on here may be keen to continue their insistence about poorly educated women being in poorly paid jobs, but I certainly know the difference between 'affect' and 'effect' and how to use them appropriately.

bowlhead99

bigadaj wrote: »

You seem to have missed the point on that one, it surely doesn't make much sense to subsidise people who are earning enough to be paying higher rates of tax really.

Well, to me that depends on the accepted reason that pension, fuel payments and free travel is given to OAPs, and there are perhaps two philosophies on why those things would be given.

Either it is a reward for participating in society and the tax/NI system during your working-age life and successfully reaching "old age" - when getting an income and finding money for expenses becomes harder due to lack of opportunity or ability for work.

Or it is because you need the money and benefits to achieve some minimum lifestyle level and would be in poverty if you did not get them.

If it is simply the former, then there is no need to means test it. People with higher salaries or incomes pre old age will have paid more to get the "subsidy" than people with lower salaries or incomes.

If it is the latter, it should all be means tested and there is no need to pay it to anyone who has made their own arrangements to get a £40k income for themselves.

People of state pensionable age who have relatively higher private incomes and would not be in abject poverty in absence of state pension, fuel payment, public transport - ie , for example, incomes at the £10k-40k++ level rather than the £0-£10k range - will generally be at that level because either:

a) they are still productively working, or
b) they have worked in the past and chosen to put money away for the future in a private pension or investment pot (including those who agreed to take jobs where they got paid some money as salary and some as a defined benefit in later life)

If we say that those people who have private incomes at state retirement age must apply under a means tested solution to get state pension and transport etc because that is all a welfare benefit for people who are poor rather than people who got old... this clearly removes the incentive for both (a) and (b).

So the attitude that "it doesn't make much sense to subsidise those who are earning enough to [...some arbitrary income level]" is something that can have serious consequences for how people conduct their lives and what they should expect to get out of the system that they pay into.

Personally I am quite happy with the idea of a state pension and fuel/transport subsidy as a non means tested minimum cushion for old people who have been in the system long enough to qualify (acknowledging that the definition of "old" or "long enough" will change over time due to demographics).

As it's likely true that the people who don't literally need the money to stave off poverty will generally be in that position because they (or their family) have earned more, paid more tax and NI, and done without some of the money they earned for a long period of time... then I don't think that means they should be denied the government's minimum old age cushion, even if they have structured their life to not be facing poverty. They have certainly "paid" up front for the benefit that they will receive.

I appreciate that a back to basics look at why pensions and old age 'perks' are given and what are they for, is off topic for the women's age transition debate. But this thread - and the previous long thread(s) - has surely now reached a plateau having run its course over a great many pages with minimal unique viewpoints actually being raised at this point. Once the next debate about Waspi's petition re 1995/2011 has actually occurred in Westminster perhaps it can be discussed again.

Malthusian

Well, to me that depends on the accepted reason that pension, fuel payments and free travel is given to OAPs, and there are perhaps two philosophies on why those things would be given.

Three, in the case of the fuel payments and free bus pass.

The third is that it's a bung to buy votes, dressed up in a way that makes it politically impossible to reverse. You can introduce means-testing or tinker with the indexing, but you can't remove the Winter Fuel Allowance without weeks of headlines about Tory scum wanting the elderly to freeze to death.

(In reality it's immensely patronising. The disabled and long-term unemployed don't (generally) get a winter fuel allowance, my employer doesn't pay me a winter fuel allowance, or for that matter a food allowance or an asthma inhaler allowance, it's assumed that as an adult I'm capable of buying the necessities of life out of my monthly income. But that's reality, this is politics.)

xylophone

I suspect that it is simply easier and more cost effective to "give with one hand and take away with the other ".

The State Pension System is there, the tax system is there and people are hooked in to both.

Those on low and high incomes receive their state pensions through the DWP system and are taxed appropriately through the HMRC system.

The point I was making was that those on higher incomes are often net givers rather than net takers.....

mumps

Anyone hear Moneybox on Radio 4 today, I just caught the end of it and it sounds like the issue of the women who had pension date changed twice are being looked at again. I didn't hear if there were any proposals about what might happen.

pandora205

mumps wrote: »

Anyone hear Moneybox on Radio 4 today, I just caught the end of it and it sounds like the issue of the women who had pension date changed twice are being looked at again. I didn't hear if there were any proposals about what might happen.

Looks like it's on iPlayer so may be worth a listen

I've just had a listen - it's at the end of the programme - and Baroness Altman does indeed say she is now able to speak to the new Secretary of State, and to meet with some of the women affected, about the issue to see what might be considered.

jamesd

I wonder whether Baroness Altman will be seeking to meet with some of those who will be discriminated against buy any changes in this area as well? After all,it's those who will be contemplating legal action against the government if anything discriminatory is done.

atush

Please tell me they are only talking about those who had the dates changed a second time with only 18 months or so notice?

Otherwise, this is getting ridiculous.

And, BTW, my OH (male) was affected by the second change too.

p00hsticks

atush wrote: »

And, BTW, my OH (male) was affected by the second change too.

That would be the third change then ?
The first in 1995 moved women's SPA from 60 to 65, the second then accelerated that change for women to enable the third - to move the SPA for both males and females from 65 to 66 - to take place earlier.

saver861

Well .... there are no concessions as yet sooooo, nothing might change.

However, it does demonstrate the effectiveness of the WASPI campaign. For those who said it was ineffective, useless and they did not know what they were talking about etc etc etc ...if all that were true this thing would have died a death a long long time ago.... in fact there would only have been a handful or less that might have ever heard of WASPI. A few comments on some rarely seen blogs would have been about the total of it.

By the way, I don't think the widespread knowledge and subsequent effectiveness is down to WASPI per se ..... not at all .... it's primarily down to the WASPI opposition who have provided the debate and thus oxygen for the campaign to grow. Had the opposition remained quiet ... so too would WASPI have been equally quiet!!