We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions
Options
Comments
-
The baby boom generation still means those born between 1946 and 1964 even in the UK and that group besides a higher birth rate has benefited from improved health care and life expectancies. As a result it's projected that the percentage of those aged 65 and over will change from 15.9% in 2004 and 17.7% in 2014 to 19.9% in 2024, 23.3% in 2034 and 24.5% in 2044 (table is on page 9).
That'll mean that the late baby boomers and some of those from the immediately following periods will be receiving their state pension at the time of peak financial stress on the state pension system.
Maybe this article and the ONS graph might convince you?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-168533680 -
Lets put this another way. If they had got a concession that most people felt reasonable then we would not be having this discussion!!
Sure they would ... that's why there is an opposition party in Westminister!!
I don't know the detail of what happened at that time but the 1995 Act was about equalising men and womens pensions ... which virtually everyone agrees with, so unlikely to be opposition to a common good. Even the opposition parties are smart enough to know not to oppose something that the vast majority of the population agrees with!
Not particularly - I'm sure I've agreed with you on various posts on various topics. I'm not sure what links you are referring to but I looked at the two you provided and my opinion is as stated above.
You knew exactly what links were being referred to, dont be disingenuous.
Flog, horse, dead.
You just wont stop going over the same old same old.0 -
You knew exactly what links were being referred to, dont be disingenuous.
I'm obviously missing something here as I don't know what links you are talking about other than the two in earlier posts. One was about the Hands off our Pension which was an amalgamation of Unions and organisations. The other was an article produced apparently by Rachel Reeves MP in 2011.
Whatever was 'achieved' at the time was insufficient clearly, or there would not be ongoing continuing protest. If there are other links you are referring to then I've missed them.You just wont stop going over the same old same old.
Not particularly .... the situation is still the same .. the 2011act was unfair to a certain group of women ... that is my opinion ... if something changes that reduces that unfairness then my opinion will also change no doubt ..... until then I guess it's as it was!!0 -
slightlymiffed wrote: »
Pensions are common across the whole UK so its disingenuous to say the least to cherry-pick a graph of just one part. Add the lot together and see how it looks.
The questions that get the best answers are the questions that give most detail....0 -
Pensions are common across the whole UK so its disingenuous to say the least to cherry-pick a graph of just one part. Add the lot together and see how it looks.
I certainly didn't 'cherry pick' this ONS graph showing the live birth rates in England & Wales from 1900 - 2010.
Do you dispute their figures then?
The 'bulge' (baby boomers) are pre and post 1950's (the graph shows a clear dip in the birth rate in the 1950's).
What is disingenuous is to keep referring to these women disadvantaged by the speed of changes to state pension age as 'baby boomers' - with all the negative connotations that this term now implies.0 -
slightlymiffed wrote: »I certainly didn't 'cherry pick' this ONS graph showing the live birth rates in England & Wales from 1900 - 2010.
Do you dispute their figures then?
The 'bulge' (baby boomers) are pre and post 1950's (the graph shows a clear dip in the birth rate in the 1950's).
What is disingenuous is to keep referring to these women disadvantaged by the speed of changes to state pension age as 'baby boomers' - with all the negative connotations that this term now implies.
Who do you propose pays for what you term their disadvantage?
Presumably younger generations who will have their retirement pushed back even more years into the future?0 -
Who do you propose pays for what you term their disadvantage?
Who decided that a certain group of women born in the 50's should shoulder a higher degree of cost than all others?Presumably younger generations who will have their retirement pushed back even more years into the future?
Well there now is in place a plan to continually review the pension age. So there is something in place to counter increased life expectancy. If peeps start living to 120 then retirement will be around 100. The young 90 year olds will be contributing to NI paying for said pension!0 -
slightlymiffed wrote: »I certainly didn't 'cherry pick' this ONS graph showing the live birth rates in England & Wales from 1900 - 2010.
.......
<sigh> OK I'll spell it out.
Why are you ignoring Scotland and Northern Ireland?
Yes there was a dip between '50 and '55, widely recognised as a result of food shortages and the nation tightening it's belt. The rationing of some foods actually got worse post-1950 and it did not end until 1954. However the birth rate was still way above prewar levels.The questions that get the best answers are the questions that give most detail....0 -
http://www.moneymarketing.co.uk/pensions-minister-ros-altmann-set-exit/
Yes, Altmann is "replaced" and look what she says!0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177K Life & Family
- 257.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards