MSE News: Women's state pension changes petition smashes 100,000 signatures - and may

dunstonh

Goldiegirl wrote: »

The linked article says that the petition is 'backed by MSE'

Now MSE are an influential group, so no doubt they consider very carefully which campaigns they choose to back.

Bearing in mind all the concerns and reservations that MSE contributors have voiced regarding various aspects of the WASPI campaign, I'd love to know their rationale for backing this particular campaign, with all it's holes and flaws.

The rationale for backing this one was that it was good for the media profile of MSE.

It doesn't suit MSE to discuss the flaws in the WASPI campaign. In these days of sound bits and only headlines being read, far better for them to support it and leave others to debate the failings.

I wonder how many more signatures the petition may have got had it been worded correctly and focused only on the unfair issue.

mystic_trev

Why are there now four threads on the same subject?

This one.....

and....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5378979

and....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5387144

and....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5384925

Goldiegirl

dunstonh wrote: »

The rationale for backing this one was that it was good for the media profile of MSE.

It doesn't suit MSE to discuss the flaws in the WASPI campaign. In these days of sound bits and only headlines being read, far better for them to support it and leave others to debate the failings.

I wonder how many more signatures the petition may have got had it been worded correctly and focused only on the unfair issue.

I rather think you are right, but the less cynical side of me is hoping that MSE gave the campaign serious thought before backing it, rather than just 'ooooh look, a group of 'wimmin' who think they are oppressed, lets hitch ourselves to the bandwagon and make us look good, regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation'

mystic_trev wrote: »

Why are there now four threads on the same subject?

This one.....

and....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5378979

and....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5387144

and....

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5384925

Because we just can't stop talking about it! :rotfl:

phillw

hyubh wrote: »

No it isn't, mainly because it is not the case that contracted out years do not count towards a state pension.

Well you don't get a full pension. At the transition you get the higher of the old and new calculation, with most getting the old because the new calculation is much lower. When they have finished the transition then people will be worse off. This will affect people more if they contracted out and then were put into a situation where they cannot make up for those years. Those people exist, they are disadvantaged more than employed women who will have to work for more years.

The government isn't allowing you to return the contracted out money to buy the full pension back. Therefore it's pretty likely that people who contracted out are going to be worse off.

hyubh wrote: »

No they didn't. The correct response to a group of people unreasonably claiming victimhood is not to think of a way to claim victimhood yourself.

They did, they gave an extra incentive payment to contract out of serps.

hyubh wrote: »

The correct response to a group of people unreasonably claiming victimhood is not to think of a way to claim victimhood yourself.

If you have two groups of people who feel disadvantaged and not enough money to pay for both then it is perfectly valid to make your case that you are more deserving. Or at least I've been left disadvantaged in situations where I didn't speak up and I was told the reason nothing could be done was because I hadn't said anything at a time when something could be done.

patanne wrote: »

After all if womens accidents cost less than mens then they are a lower risk,

Statistics can be made to prove anything. While there may be data that support women having lower claims, you have to watch out for correlation vs causation. If it is correlation then it would be sexist to charge men more. In the same way that it is racist if you stop and search black people because your statistics show that black people are more likely to cause crime.

Unless you already have points or previous claims then the price you pay is essentially random and has no real correlation between what you pay and the actual risk of having an accident. Car insurance companies make their profit out of investing the premiums as they consistently pay out more in claims than they take in premiums.

jem16

phillw wrote: »

They did, they gave an extra incentive payment to contract out of serps.

What was the extra incentive payment?

saver861

Goldiegirl wrote: »

The linked article says that the petition is 'backed by MSE'

Now MSE are an influential group, so no doubt they consider very carefully which campaigns they choose to back.

That is correct - as I have said before. Image is everything for MSE and all similar sites, bloggers, etc etc. They won't be involving themselves in anything that will reflect badly. They are experts in image - as one bad shout might be the expense of the business.

Goldiegirl wrote: »

Bearing in mind all the concerns and reservations that MSE contributors have voiced regarding various aspects of the WASPI campaign, I'd love to know their rationale for backing this particular campaign, with all it's holes and flaws.

Lets see now.

There are in the region of 1.4m members on this forum. I've no idea how many active members there are but lets just say it is 50%. That is well over half a million.

The threads discussing this have, I'm guessing, in the region of forty to fifty members at best. Not all of those oppose the campaign.

On the other hand, the petition had been around 50k when MSE got involved and had been running for about six weeks at that time. In the following week it went up by 30k. Now I've no idea how many of those were MSE members but it would suggest a significant amount.

So even 50 voicing concerns does seem to be sparse in comparison to some high percentage of 30k that signed as a result of MSE involvement.

As I have said before, this is about the right to challenge and ask for scrutiny. Nothing might change in the final outcome, but if people don't have the ability to challenge that is a far far worse scenario.

phillw

jem16 wrote: »

What was the extra incentive payment?

For the first few years the government said they paid extra money into your contracted out pension, over and above what they calculated was necessary for them to pay for you to come out even. What they said was (and I'm paraphrasing) "look what the stock market is doing, the returns are going to be better if you contract out. plus here is even more money". The government and the pension companies are both claiming they didn't give advice, but they both sold it or people wouldn't have done it. If only we knew then what we know now and make them put everything they said in writing, so we could claim for miss-selling.

patanne wrote: »

Be careful what you wish for - you may get it!

I was recently reminded of the tampon tax protests. The protestors are lucky that vat exempt products were set in the 1970's and are unlikely to be changed unless we exit the EU. The irony is that when you manufacture zero rated products you can't claim vat back on manufacturing and advertising of the product. Removing the 5% vat charge on tampons therefore wouldn't just reduce the price by 5%, it could make no difference to retail price or even push the price up. The protests aren't about anything practical, it's purely a femi-nazi campaign that caught up unsuspecting women and made them feel victims. WASPI look like they have similar tactics.

greenglide

The irony is that when you manufacture zero rated products you can't claim vat back on manufacturing and advertising of the product. Removing the 5% vat charge on tampons therefore wouldn't just reduce the price by 5%, it could make no difference to retail price or even push the price up.

I thought that that was the difference between zero rated and exempt?

If all your outputs are exempt your taxable turnover wouldnt even be high enough to register for VAT. If your taxable turnover lets you register then you offset your input tax against your output tax and the difference is paid (or recovered from) HRMC.

In practice I wouldnt expect any manufacturer / importer / wholesaler of female sanitary products to have that as their only business.

LHW99

Unless you already have points or previous claims then the price you pay is essentially random and has no real correlation between what you pay and the actual risk of having an accident.

So why does your premium go up, even if you have to put in a 'no fault' claim? I understand its because the insurers think you are more likely to make claims in future.

merrydance

Good I was due my pension this year. Hope something comes of it! Equal pay was brought in 1970.