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

Pollycat

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Yes, the above are waspi demands which will result in increased taxes for me and buggy boy if the demands are met
he assumes that he will pay for it in increased taxes, because he along with the rest of us taxpayers, will pay for it in increased taxes, as explained by my long post. Which you I assume you read as you copied all of it, and highlighted where I had written the word waspi.

WASPI demands are nothing to do with me.
I thought you appreciated that.
I doubt you need to hold your breath in case WASPI demands are met resulting in increased taxes for you. :rotfl:

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Buggy wrote a post having a rant about how he feels his generation is screwed over. Among other things, the WASPI generation went through life with costs that were driven by only having to fund the state pensions of retirees with a short life expectancy, and now they themselves get to retire with a couple of decades of life expectancy and have Buggy's generation pay for it. To throw out a 'and now you want me to pay more taxes so you can retire even earlier?!' is hardly a shot out of nowhere. The 'you' is directed at anyone supports WASPI's cause to give them money at the expense of taxpayers like Buggy.

Then the 'you' is not directed at me as I in no way support WASPI's demands.
I thought you appreciated that.

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Yes, 'they' want him to pay more taxes to pay for it because they do not want to pay for it themselves. So, to your question, "why do you assume you will pay for it in increased taxes". Can you think of a situation in which WASPI pay for it themselves? Presumably not. So, he will pay for it by paying more taxes than he would otherwise have paid.

And I assume the 'they' does not refer to me either as I do not support WASPI demands.
I'm not interested in thinking of a situation in which WASPI pay for it (their demands) themselves.
I'm not a supporter of WASPI.
Do you appreciate that or don't you?

Goldiegirl

ManofLeisure wrote: »

Each and 'every' generation have their 'own' problems to contend with.

This is so true.


And it's a rite of passage to believe that the generation before you had it, somehow, 'better' and 'easier' than you have it.


Back in my early 20's, when I was mortgaged to the eyeballs with a mortgage rate of 16% ( I had to pay a higher interest rate because I had a large mortgage, and had an endowment mortgage) and periodic threats of redundancy, I used to feel very jealous of those 60 year olds who'd had a job for life with generous final salary pension. These people got the maximum possible pension, plus their state pension, had bought their houses for a couple of thousand pounds, and were enjoying high rates of interest on their savings.


Of course, I conveniently forgot the problems that they had encountered in their lives, such as fighting in WW2 or being bombed every night!


But, you soon realise that every generation is dealt a hand of cards, and you have to play those cards to the best of your ability - you just have to get on with it.


To all those Gen X's and Millennials who complain about Baby Boomers - trust me, in 20 - 30 years time, there'll be a new generation complaining about you!:rotfl:

saver861

buggy_boy wrote: »

When for the average young person the hope of buying a place to live is all but a pipe dream, is it any wonder they feel disengaged with the whole work idea as unlike yours and even my generation there is no reward, not able to buy a house, no chance of a comfortable retirement.

People bought houses in the 80's and found themselves with a load of negative equity. Repossessions were at an all time high. Jobs at an all time low.

You are looking back through some rose coloured specs - but I think you need to see a clearer picture.

Necessity is the mother of creativity. Its not meant to be 'easy' in your 20's, 30's 40's. Necessity is what drives people to better things.

People are buying houses. It depends to what extent they are going to go to have one. People are preparing for their retirement much earlier than the previous generation. The younger generation will be better educated generally than the previous.

You make the most of what you have - if you people spend their time looking at what others have then they are going to be disappointed.

saver861

bowlhead99 wrote: »

So, if a niche minority group wants to get paid by the government, and they only make up 0.1% of taxpayers, then it is fair to say that I and everyone else who make up the other 99.9% of taxpayers are going to pay more tax to give it to them.

But ... there are around 500,000 1953/1954 women who are paying far more than their 'fair share' in the context you provide.

So, why should this minority group pay more than the rest of the 99.999%. These are the ones that had 18 months extension and less than 10 years notice. WASPI's ask is not a defence to not consider the plight of the 2011' er's

Goldiegirl

saver861 wrote: »

People bought houses in the 80's and found themselves with a load of negative equity. Repossessions were at an all time high. Jobs at an all time low.

You are looking back through some rose coloured specs - but I think you need to see a clearer picture.

Necessity is the mother of creativity. Its not meant to be 'easy' in your 20's, 30's 40's. Necessity is what drives people to better things.

People are buying houses. It depends to what extent they are going to go to have one. People are preparing for their retirement much earlier than the previous generation. The younger generation will be better educated generally than the previous.

You make the most of what you have - if you people spend their time looking at what others have then they are going to be disappointed.

I agree with you ( I thought I'd never say that!! :rotfl:)

saver861

Goldiegirl wrote: »

I agree with you ( I thought I'd never say that!! :rotfl:)

See, I just knew you would come around to my way of thinking ...... eventually!!!! Some take a bit longer than others but I get there eventually!!

bowlhead99

saver861 wrote: »

But ... there are around 500,000 1953/1954 women who are paying far more than their 'fair share' in the context you provide.

So, why should this minority group pay more than the rest of the 99.999%. These are the ones that had 18 months extension and less than 10 years notice. WASPI's ask is not a defence to not consider the plight of the 2011' er's

Three points:

1) Yes, some of the 2011ers (for example, '53/'54 women) have been in 'plight' since 2011. They probably need someone to stick up for them. Some people did stick up for them and fought for an agreement on tweaking the age tapering which settled such that the differential they faced was a year and a half instead of two. They are unfortunate to fall on one side of a line in the sand and not the other. That is the problem with dealing with things through a line in the sand, but that is generally how things have to be done when you are dealing with a country of 60 million people with conflicting views and opinions.

2) WASPI brought the plight to mass market attention within an 'ask' which many people do not respect - bundling it up with a pretence that the 1995 changes were unfair and thereby getting a lot of people onto the bandwagon who would not otherwise have been very interested. WASPI's ask, in its original form (i.e. the way they had marketed it to prospective petition-signers on facebook etc) was not grounded in truth and reality and their attitude has been disingenuous. The plight of (some of the) 2011ers therefore risks being lost in the noise about WASPI being unreasonable, as you say - we are agreed on that. It hasn't been lost in the noise in this forum, where many people have agreed that they do sympathise with the issues that some of the 2011ers faced.

3) I am not sure where you are coming from with the 'So, why should this minority group pay more than the rest of the 99.999%' argument. They are not paying more than the rest of the 99.999%. At the moment they get to collect their old age money at a younger age than me. If we agree to rolling back the rules , they will get paid at an even younger age than that. So, while the extra year and a half of working-age was imposed on them with less than a decade's notice, and will be expensive for some of them who don't want to work, it is not true to say that that small minority group is paying more than everyone else. Everyone else who was born in the last sixty years and is ever born in the future will have to wait longer than they do.

colsten

As a 1954 women, I had some 19 years notice of a 48 months delay to my state pension. I am perfectly alright with this as this finally gave men of my age the same rights for state pension as I have.

Then in 2011 I, alongside all men of my age, was given 8 years notice of a further 18 months delay to my state pension. I know many people do find the 2011 increase unfair, but I can't say I do, as the notice period ratio is not too different to that of the 1995 delays. I also can say that I have yet to meet a man of my age who considers their increase unfair. A bit annoying, may be, but not unfair.

Whether the 2011 increase is considered fair or unfair, I most definitely do not wish to be represented by WASPI who claim to speak for all women of my age. They do not speak for me.

mumps

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Yes, the above are WASPI demands - not your demands - which will result in increased taxes for me and buggy boy and all the other taxpayers if the demands are met. That is how government expenditure is funded. Taking taxes from taxpayers.
he assumes that he will pay for it in increased taxes, because he along with the rest of us taxpayers, will pay for it in increased taxes, as explained by my long post. Which you I assume you read - as you copied all of it, and highlighted where I had written the word waspi.

Buggy wrote a post having a rant about how he feels his generation is screwed over. Among other things, the WASPI generation went through life with costs that were driven by only having to fund the state pensions of retirees with a short life expectancy, and now they themselves get to retire with a couple of decades of life expectancy and have Buggy's generation pay for it. To throw out a 'and now you want me to pay more taxes so you can retire even earlier?!' is hardly a shot out of nowhere. The 'you' is directed at anyone supports WASPI's cause to give them money at the expense of taxpayers like Buggy.

Yes, 'they' want him to pay more taxes to pay for it because they do not want to pay for it themselves. So, to your question, "why do you assume you will pay for it in increased taxes". Can you think of a situation in which WASPI pay for it themselves? Presumably not. So, he will pay for it by paying more taxes than he would otherwise have paid.

We used to pay alot more than 20% I think is was 33% in the 70s for basic rate and wasn't it about 90% for the top rate? There would be some screaming now if that was reintroduced.

mumps

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Three points:

1) Yes, some of the 2011ers (for example, '53/'54 women) have been in 'plight' since 2011. They probably need someone to stick up for them. Some people did stick up for them and fought for an agreement on tweaking the age tapering which settled such that the differential they faced was a year and a half instead of two. They are unfortunate to fall on one side of a line in the sand and not the other. That is the problem with dealing with things through a line in the sand, but that is generally how things have to be done when you are dealing with a country of 60 million people with conflicting views and opinions.

2) WASPI brought the plight to mass market attention within an 'ask' which many people do not respect - bundling it up with a pretence that the 1995 changes were unfair and thereby getting a lot of people onto the bandwagon who would not otherwise have been very interested. WASPI's ask, in its original form (i.e. the way they had marketed it to prospective petition-signers on facebook etc) was not grounded in truth and reality and their attitude has been disingenuous. The plight of (some of the) 2011ers therefore risks being lost in the noise about WASPI being unreasonable, as you say - we are agreed on that. It hasn't been lost in the noise in this forum, where many people have agreed that they do sympathise with the issues that some of the 2011ers faced.

3) I am not sure where you are coming from with the 'So, why should this minority group pay more than the rest of the 99.999%' argument. They are not paying more than the rest of the 99.999%. At the moment they get to collect their old age money at a younger age than me. If we agree to rolling back the rules , they will get paid at an even younger age than that. So, while the extra year and a half of working-age was imposed on them with less than a decade's notice, and will be expensive for some of them who don't want to work, it is not true to say that that small minority group is paying more than everyone else. Everyone else who was born in the last sixty years and is ever born in the future will have to wait longer than they do.

I was a 1953 baby. I have no issue with the 1995 changes, I don't even have a big issue with the 2011 changes increasing the retirement age by 12 months. I do have an issue with an increase in the SPA of 12 months meaning my SPA increases by 18 months. Give me back my six months and I will be happy.