WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

missbiggles1

uk1 wrote: »

Pennylane,

I am not an historian, but my understanding was that at one point pension ages were the same. The female age was lowered because as men died earlier than women, as a couple too few men and women were enjoying any retirement together. The lowering of female retirement age therefore gave some pensionable retirement time together. I think, but I'm not sure that it was after the war.

The unfair consequence of that is that woman had considerably more pension time than men. I think at that time they were also earning their pension on their husbands contribution.

Equalising retirement ages and the acceleration of normal retirement ages are two separate issues. The consequence of those two issues being changed at roughly the same time is that it has caused a compound effect to many people. Sadly when you put right something that is clearly unfair to one group or in this case two groups eg men retiring later and taxpayers a new "unfairness" is created. I think it ends up simply then a matter of two groups holding opposing views on the issue.

I am sure that if I have the background in broad terms factually wrong, then I will be corrected.

My opinion is that it was fairest of all unfairnesses to do what has been done.

Jeff

Sorry!

"This was followed, in 1925, by a skeleton contributory state pension scheme for male manual workers who were earning less than £250 a year. It paid a total of 10 shillings weekly (around £15 today) from the age of 65.
It was not until 1940, after the outbreak of the Second World War, that women joined the party.
The Old Age and Widows' Pension Act introduced a pensionable age of 60 for unmarried women who paid in, and widows of insured men."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/special-reports/11523196/A-turbulent-history-of-British-pensions-since-1874.html

uk1

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Sorry!

"This was followed, in 1925, by a skeleton contributory state pension scheme for male manual workers who were earning less than £250 a year. It paid a total of 10 shillings weekly (around £15 today) from the age of 65.
It was not until 1940, after the outbreak of the Second World War, that women joined the party.
The Old Age and Widows' Pension Act introduced a pensionable age of 60 for unmarried women who paid in, and widows of insured men."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/special-reports/11523196/A-turbulent-history-of-British-pensions-since-1874.html

I am unclear what you are sorry for ... sorry.:)

Are you basically saying the general drift of my post is correct but the dates wrong?

Jeff

jamesd

Pennylane wrote: »

I'm not sure why some people on here appear to really dislike the fact that thousands of women are fighting for what they believe is a great injustice whereby they are having to wait up to 6 years longer for their pensions and lose out on tens of thousands of pounds.

Because they aren't entitled to the money and it would be unfair to current and future state pensioners and gender discriminatory to pay them the money. There are already working age benefits that are available to those who are in financial need and willing to work.

Pennylane wrote: »

ITs not my fault some of you feel like this ..... All I was trying to do was convey my thanks and sadness as she was involved with a campaign just the same as me and thousands of other women.

Part of the problem was that for those - the majority who post here - who disagree what you raised besmirched her reputation at a time when it was and is better to be thinking of her in good ways.

Pennylane wrote: »

Would you be so keen to vent your anger if, say, she had supported The Batley Rhubarb Growers association because you didn't like rhubarb?

It's not anger, rather it's consideration of fairness and costs and benefits that makes it a bad idea to take further action. If you'd posted about her loving rhubarb subsidies in a topic where most participants were opposed to rhubarb subsidies the effect would have been similar.

jamesd

uk1 wrote: »

The female age was lowered because as men died earlier than women, as a couple too few men and women were enjoying any retirement together.

For women it started at 70, reduced to 65 then reduced again to 60:

• The 1908 Old Age pensions Act provided non-contributor means tested state pensions to those over 70 who had an income less than 8 shillings a week, with a gradually reduced pension for incomes up to 12 shillings.
• The 1925 Widows, Orphans and Old Age Contributory Pensions Act provided pensions based on contributions that started at ages 65 to those who paid in for the five years before they reached age 65. The age 70 pension remained as a fallback for those not paying in. This system was set up mainly for lower paid and manual workers, not all, and was only compulsory for them. A woman could user her husband's record to claim a pension when she reached age 65.
• The 1940 Old Age and Widows Pensions Act extended means tested pension benefits to pensioners and their widows. This is what first lowered the women's pension age to 60 on the basis that their work in textile mills was so debilitating that it was physically impossible to work longer. Few UK women today have ever worked in textile mills with the conditions that prevailed at this time so this reason for the lower age vanished long ago. Eligible women were notified by "the Press and the B.B.C."

uk1 wrote: »

The unfair consequence of that is that woman had considerably more pension time than men.

At the time it was believed that it was just impossible to continue to work in cotton mills due to the effects of the hard physical labour on the body. So it made sense to have a lower age. That particular reasoning ceased to apply long ago but the unequal ages continued well beyond the physical need for them.

uk1 wrote: »

Equalising retirement ages and the acceleration of normal retirement ages are two separate issues. The consequence of those two issues being changed at roughly the same time is that it has caused a compound effect to many people.

Who got a compounded effect and how? The timings are being done so that ages are equalised as the step before the later overall age starts.

uk1 wrote: »

Sadly when you put right something that is clearly unfair to one group or in this case two groups eg men retiring later and taxpayers a new "unfairness" is created. I think it ends up simply then a matter of two groups holding opposing views on the issue.

It's not so much new unfairness as some of those who have been benefiting from discrimination wanting it to continue, an age-old story. Naturally a fair number of those who dislike discrimination are going to dislike it, as will a fair number of those who also recognise that part of the issue is cost and fairness between generations.

uk1 wrote: »

My opinion is that it was fairest of all unfairnesses to do what has been done.

Sadly I agree that it's inevitably unfair to some degree. After all, some women missed out on the new state pension that might be more generous for them, while others will get that and not the more generous for them earlier one, all depending on individual circumstances. Even after equalisation of age there's still going to be a lot that could be considered discrimination, like different life expectancies between men and women or different regions, so that some on average get the pension for longer than others.

dunstonh

Pennylane wrote: »

I saw Brendan Cox on TV last night talking about his late wife's devotion to a wide range of charities, organisations and causes. He didn't mention them all by name, but as we all know, WASPI was one of them. HE said that everything she was involved with she was passionate about and he admired that.

I'm not sure why some people on here appear to really dislike the fact that thousands of women are fighting for what they believe is a great injustice whereby they are having to wait up to 6 years longer for their pensions and lose out on tens of thousands of pounds. Jo Cox could see this was unfair and was prepared to stand up in Parliament and say so.

ITs not my fault some of you feel like this ..... All I was trying to do was convey my thanks and sadness as she was involved with a campaign just the same as me and thousands of other women.

Would you be so keen to vent your anger if, say, she had supported The Batley Rhubarb Growers association because you didn't like rhubarb?

here we go again. NO woman is having to wait an extra 6 years because of any recent changes. The worst is about 18 months more.

This is the typical misinformation that WASPI frequently give and unfortunately, some people believe.

uk1

uk1 wrote: »

Pennylane,

I am not an historian, but my understanding was that at one point pension ages were the same. The female age was lowered because as men died earlier than women, as a couple too few men and women were enjoying any retirement together. The lowering of female retirement age therefore gave some pensionable retirement time together. I think, but I'm not sure that it was after the war.

Jeff

jamesd wrote: »

• The 1940 Old Age and Widows Pensions Act extended means tested pension benefits to pensioners and their widows. This is what first lowered the women's pension age to 60 on the basis that their work in textile mills was so debilitating that it was physically impossible to work longer. Few UK women today have ever worked in textile mills with the conditions that prevailed at this time so this reason for the lower age vanished long ago. Eligible women were notified by "the Press and the B.B.C."

http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN02234/SN02234.pdf

"It was the Old Age and Widows Pensions Act 1940 which introduced different SPAs for men and women (65 and 60). Debates on the Bill3 suggest three reasons for the change:

There was a desire to improve pensions generally and this provided an opportunity which was less costly than other options;

The fact that wives tended to be younger than their husbands mean that a common pension age was seen as problematic. It was felt that wives should qualify for their pensions at the same time as their husbands;

Women’s domestic responsibilities on top of their paid work were felt to leave them ‘tired’ at 60."

Jeff

atush

Pennylane wrote: »

I saw Brendan Cox on TV last night talking about his late wife's devotion to a wide range of charities, organisations and causes. He didn't mention them all by name, but as we all know, WASPI was one of them. HE said that everything she was involved with she was passionate about and he admired that.

I'm not sure why some people on here appear to really dislike the fact that thousands of women are fighting for what they believe is a great injustice whereby they are having to wait up to 6 years longer for their pensions and lose out on tens of thousands of pounds. Jo Cox could see this was unfair and was prepared to stand up in Parliament and say so.

ITs not my fault some of you feel like this ..... All I was trying to do was convey my thanks and sadness as she was involved with a campaign just the same as me and thousands of other women.

Would you be so keen to vent your anger if, say, she had supported The Batley Rhubarb Growers association because you didn't like rhubarb?

Here you go again, using her and her memory to again spout incorrect information for your campaign.

THAT is what we objected to. And still do.

Everyone here feels for those who were affected by the 2011 changes. WE dont for those who think they deserve a pension 5 years earlier than men and were given 20 years notice. Period.

Goldiegirl

Pennylane wrote: »

I saw Brendan Cox on TV last night talking about his late wife's devotion to a wide range of charities, organisations and causes. He didn't mention them all by name, but as we all know, WASPI was one of them. HE said that everything she was involved with she was passionate about and he admired that.

I'm not sure why some people on here appear to really dislike the fact that thousands of women are fighting for what they believe is a great injustice whereby they are having to wait up to 6 years longer for their pensions and lose out on tens of thousands of pounds. Jo Cox could see this was unfair and was prepared to stand up in Parliament and say so.

ITs not my fault some of you feel like this ..... All I was trying to do was convey my thanks and sadness as she was involved with a campaign just the same as me and thousands of other women.

Would you be so keen to vent your anger if, say, she had supported The Batley Rhubarb Growers association because you didn't like rhubarb?

I can't recall having heard Jo Cox's name in connection with WASPI in the same way that, say, Mhari Black's name has been.

I think the murder of Jo Cox is a terrible thing.

She seems to be have been very highly regarded and respected.

She may have been supportive to her WASPI constituents, but I don't think it's right to claim she was some sort of passionate WASPI campaigner, and I think it's wrong for WASPI supporters to 'annex' her memory in an attempt to gain sympathy for their cause.

I'm sorry if this puts me in a pack or herd, but it's the way I feel.

Thrugelmir

Many many people do unsung work on behalf of people less fortunate than themselves. Let's keep matters in perspective.

Daniel54

On a separate note,I was disappointed to see Age UK tweeting over the past couple days in support of Waspi and their upcoming protest in London

Waspi are a protest group seeking unfunded government ( =taxpayer's) money for a certain cohort of women ,irrespective of want or need.

They have no concern for over 60's men in financial distress and have explicitly ruled out promoting enhanced means tested benefits for women in need as well

As such I don't think this is something a charity should be supporting and I shall be writing to them accordingly