Inform the debate on the effect of the equalisation of the state pension age on women

colsten

Figgerty wrote: »

Our Prime Minister has been reducing his demands on the EU on each and every visit. What a way to run a Government!

What's that got to do with the OP?

Figgerty

buggy_boy wrote: »

Figgerty thats complete rubbish you say you support the aims but basically as long as it does not affect you, those affected should be thankful that it was not a complete halt from 2011... When the equality between women and mens pay came it was there a 10yr notice then? When women got the vote was there a 10yr notice?

Men and women should have the same pension age and the sooner this happens the better your unfortunate to fall on the wrong side of the line but whenever you draw a line in these sorts of things there will always be people that fall just to one side or the other... Thats life, you cant keep re-drawing the line for a few like you that are just one side of it or nothing will ever change.

Just embrace the thought that you will be one of the first people to have the equal gender pension age, a pioneer of equality...

.......................................... Really? ..........................................

Figgerty

colsten wrote: »

What's that got to do with the OP?

It is referring to all yours and another criticisms of changes in the #Waspi campaign demands.

See, it is easy to answer a straight question.

Figgerty

bigadaj wrote: »

Yes and no respectively.

You then can't complain that those in a trade union have better wages or occ pensions than you.

bigadaj

Figgerty wrote: »

You then can't complain that those in a trade union have better wages or occ pensions than you.

You really do try and make some bizarre arguments and then twist and turn like a twisty turns thing to make those arguments fit.

The debate is about the equalisation of the state pension. I'm not complaining about those in trade unions having better wages or occupational pensions than me, I'm a chartered engineer anyway so perfectly happy with my situation with no need for union representation.

All I stated is that the debate is ironic in that in many ways the baby boomers have had the best crack at things of any generation in history, and I concede that people of my my age who are slightly younger have had the second best go. The irony is that they think it unfair that their inalienable right to retire at a relatively early stage should be funded by younger generations who will have to go on working several years after even the so called unfair age that they are currently being 'forced' to retire at.

It'll be interesting to see your next response, probably a rant about immigration from the post above, you're welcome to your opinion but do try and keep it vaguely related to the topic of the thread. This seems to be an ongoing problem, many people involved in this campaign come across as totally self serving and selfish and fail to consider the impact of any revision on those younger than themselves, they can all go hang. The government doesn't pay for these changes, it doesn't have any money in all senses of the word, this is all paid for ultimately by taxpayers who will be of younger generations in the main.

buggy_boy

saver861 wrote: »

If you were in my parents generation you would be considered somewhat well off!

You seem to spend a lot of time thinking about what you don't have, or what others might have that you don't / won't get.

Maybe you should try looking at things from the other perspective for a while ...... just to balance things up. I suspect you won't though.

Actually if you read all of the post you would have read that I say I do feel lucky to have what I have and that I feel for the 20 somethings coming into this world and that more help should be given to them.... But clearly from your comment you didnt read the entire post, or conveniently ignored the last bit.

buggy_boy

Pollycat wrote: »

Where did patanne (the poster you quoted) say she wanted you to pay more taxes?

You think that the money will come out of thin air?

Pollycat

buggy_boy wrote: »

You think that the money will come out of thin air?

Of course I don't. :rotfl:

But why do you assume you will pay for it in increased taxes?

saver861

buggy_boy wrote: »

Actually if you read all of the post you would have read that I say I do feel lucky to have what I have and that I feel for the 20 somethings coming into this world and that more help should be given to them.... But clearly from your comment you didnt read the entire post, or conveniently ignored the last bit.

Actually I did read all your post and noted that you felt 'lucky' that got your education etc. That did not cut it for me. That does not qualify your post on damming the baby boomers. Nor does your expression of generosity of giving to the 20 somethings who are having difficulty finding jobs.

How do you think the baby boomers managed in the 80's when the unemployment rate was double what it is now at over 3m???

Many of the young people to day have access to a great deal more information than 30 plus years ago. There is a great deal of online education often free, for those with the initiative.

However, in many cases the young are more obsessed with image than was ever the case 30 years ago. Just the other day I was talking to a 16 year old who had an iPhone 6+. For me it was too big and I asked why he got such a big one and the answer was verbatim "It looks cool". The same young man is getting an iWatch for his birthday next week.

Similarly, I recall speaking to young lady in her early 20's and in the conversation she said she spent £100 per month on her mobile bill. She had a lot of friends apparently.

The young will have the same relative experiences as their parents. They need to get priorities in order.

Going through life somehow thinking you have been 'screwed over' by the baby boomers will get you nowhere.

And .... when you are in your 60's I have no doubt whatsoever you will be posting with a different view to what you are doing today.

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

Actually I did read all your post and noted that you felt 'lucky' that got your education etc. That did not cut it for me. That does not qualify your post on damming the baby boomers. Nor does your expression of generosity of giving to the 20 somethings who are having difficulty finding jobs.

How do you think the baby boomers managed in the 80's when the unemployment rate was double what it is now at over 3m???

Many of the young people to day have access to a great deal more information than 30 plus years ago. There is a great deal of online education often free, for those with the initiative.

However, in many cases the young are more obsessed with image than was ever the case 30 years ago. Just the other day I was talking to a 16 year old who had an iPhone 6+. For me it was too big and I asked why he got such a big one and the answer was verbatim "It looks cool". The same young man is getting an iWatch for his birthday next week.

Similarly, I recall speaking to young lady in her early 20's and in the conversation she said she spent £100 per month on her mobile bill. She had a lot of friends apparently.

The young will have the same relative experiences as their parents. They need to get priorities in order.

Going through life somehow thinking you have been 'screwed over' by the baby boomers will get you nowhere.

And .... when you are in your 60's I have no doubt whatsoever you will be posting with a different view to what you are doing today.

Not to mention the cripplingly high interest rates that the baby boomers 'enjoyed'.