MSE News: ’Women's state pension petition secures second Parliamentary debate



  • OldBeanz
    OldBeanz Forumite Posts: 1,386
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    The SNP want to keep the same retirement dates because Scots die earlier. Parts of Glasgow have worse life expectancy than the Gaza Strip. The SNP are in charge of the Scottish NHS. The message is enjoy your unhealthy lifestyle because it will allow you an earlier pension.
  • jem16
    jem16 Forumite Posts: 19,365
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    harz99 wrote: »
    I thought everyone knew better than to believe that anything an SNP member says is accurate or true.

    Well quite!

    Of course I could also suggest that Labour MPs are jumping on the bandwagon to support WASPI despite the fact that they were in power from 1997 to 2010 when all this personal notification of 1995 changes was supposed to have taken place.

    Nor of course did Labour make any great effort to oppose the 2011 changes.
  • molerat
    molerat Forumite Posts: 30,482
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    saver861 wrote: »
    The SNP are conducting a PR exercise and using the pensions issue as a platform. It might not look like a marketing exercise, but a rose by any other name .....

    It would seem they have had a good deal of success on this one. However, it will be some time to the next election and, this on its own will be forgotten about by then. Somehow I do not think the SNP will leave it at that however.

    The job of a politician is to get as much face time on every media possible to make him or herself look good. That is exactly the same for each political party.

    Anyone thinking different is naive ....
    But there is the Scottish Parliament election this year. Two Parliaments, one objective.
  • nonolerigolo
    nonolerigolo Forumite Posts: 287
    Part of the Furniture 100 Posts Combo Breaker
    My problem, is where do you stop. If you start reducing the age threshold for certain people, surely the people just below this age threshold will complain and this will never stop.

    From my understanding there is a parlimentary debate whether this old generation has enjoyed more benefit in term of pention, housing, benefit than the young generation. Surely the answer is going to be yes.

    So for once, get on with it and move on.

    The same problem happen with the extra stamp duty on extra property. Surely the people buying a new build (from the builder) did not know about this added tax when they secure their house. (as it can take up to six months to get it) Is it not more unfair?
  • Paul_Herring
    Paul_Herring Forumite Posts: 7,480
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    harz99 wrote: »
    And they still can. In fact anybody can retire at whatever age they wish, of course they will have to fund their retirement by their own means with cash/investments/private pensions whatever.

    Or did you mean to say, "I bet there are *still* 59 year old women out there expecting to receive their State Pension within the next 12 months"?

    World of difference there.

    Given the subject of the thread, I would expect most die-hard non-pedants reading it to have realised I did in fact mean the latter without having to second-guess any pedants coming along.
    Conjugating the verb 'to be":
    -o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries
  • GibbsRule_No3
    GibbsRule_No3 Forumite Posts: 610
    Part of the Furniture 500 Posts Combo Breaker
    I wonder how much it would cost if the government decided to say to those born during this time frame, who won't get their SP until now 64-66 we will not take NI from you? If a women previously worked after 60 they did not pay NI. Possibly the men that could have gone at 65 and have had it extended by a year could also be allowed the same. Did they hear about it in 2011 as well or 1995?
    Paddle No 21 :wave:
  • p00hsticks
    p00hsticks Forumite Posts: 12,329
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    I wonder how much it would cost if the government decided to say to those born during this time frame, who won't get their SP until now 64-66 we will not take NI from you?

    The problem with that suggestion is that the only women in that age group who will be paying NI are those that are still working, and they're not the ones who are likely to be most severely impacted by the change.

    The worst affected are those who have already given up their jobs either through ill health, or to take on caring responsibilities, or simply because they thought they could afford to retire early, and now have to make savings stretch another 18 months.
  • hyubh
    hyubh Forumite Posts: 3,422
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    I wonder how much it would cost if the government decided to say to those born during this time frame, who won't get their SP until now 64-66 we will not take NI from you?

    Why? I'm nowhere near SPA and in full time employment, but for self-'employed' work on the side have paid class 4 NICs for the past few years (and about to pay another sum). Do I get a refund under your scheme as well, and if not why not?
  • Seabee42
    Seabee42 Forumite Posts: 448 Forumite
    There is just no money for this at all, the government is currently spending £90 billion pounds a year it does receive supposedly after 7 years of cuts. There is no cash, the triple lock, winter fuel payments and free travel never mind the NHS. Everyone seems to want more without paying for it, it is so obviously a joke.
  • purplecarSJP
    purplecarSJP Forumite Posts: 3 Newbie
    edited 29 January 2016 at 5:17PM
    A simple factually correct formula to work from
    Born 1950's
    Girls had achieve higher score than boys to pass for Grammar School (coz too many girls passed otherwise), so impacted on Opps to Achieve Income, aspirations were squashed too as boys were considered much more important
    Started work age 16 on wards and earlier for some
    Equal Pay legislation 1975/6, main objection was 'unaffordable', Gender Pay Gap=19+% (2014) still (Note: legislative theory and Reality differs) and Pay Gap widens for over 60's
    Expectation in 1970's women leave job after having children and lose income and turned away from occ pensions and promotions
    Marriage gives financial ownership to man - divorce, e.g.not until 2000 were women awarded fair share of pension pots
    2004-7 A 1995 State Pension Act is changed and/or planned to be changed more, most women not informed but some start to discover, all these changes seriously disadvantage them and then 2011 more changes occur, changes are radical and uneven and do not reflect the Pay Gap or that Women have less Occ Pensions and where do have them have less in them due to less pay and less promotion (a massive difference in published data)
    As approaching pension age (well which one??) women find out they are not getting what was promised them for majority of working life and so raise the issue, only to discover more changes are taking place in Spring 2016 AFTER they have been made redundant or retired (often associated with ill health and/or caring for others, as in their earlier years when they had children)
    Taking action under these circumstances is not bad, mad or wrong! To have even more taken off you late in life after a lifetime of the same is immoral, all based on biological sex - no wonder women were not informed in a timely fashion, we are re-doing the Suffragette movement. Main objection and reason for these changes are unaffordable (sound familiar?)
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors


  • All Categories
  • 338.8K Banking & Borrowing
  • 248.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 447.5K Spending & Discounts
  • 230.7K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 171K Life & Family
  • 243.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards