WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

bmm78

saver861 wrote: »

Did not quite work out as planned

Couldn't have worked out any worse

With the benefit of hindsight, Osborne may as well have just gone all the way with it and at least cemented himself as a great reformer*

*(or the guy who destroyed pension saving in the UK, depending on your viewpoint)

GunJack

Only having kept less than half-an-eye on the whole WASPI thing, there is something I really don't get, and apologies if it's been covered before...

why aren't these affected women who are complaining happy that they can continue working (i.e. probably on a higher income than SP) for another few years before packing it in, as they're going to get a few more years NI conts to up their SP, possibly a few more years of qualifying service in company pensions for a bigger pension when they do leave.... they expect men to, so why not the women? Are they suddenly incapable of carrying on working or something?

Before anyone flames me for asking, I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just really don't understand the perceived problem.....

jamesd

Because they don't want to carry on working. Most also seem not to be in any great financial need, of the sort that would entitle them to working age means tested benefits, which is why the focus has been on things that apply to the group of woman without any means testing.

GunJack

jamesd wrote: »

Because they don't want to carry on working. .

neither do I, but that's real-life until the lottery win

slightlymiffed

jamesd wrote: »

Because they don't want to carry on working. Most also seem not to be in any great financial need, of the sort that would entitle them to working age means tested benefits, which is why the focus has been on things that apply to the group of woman without any means testing.

What is your personal interest in this subject jamesd? You seem oddly well acquainted with the minutiae of Hansard and are able to churn out figures at will. Are you an MP?

Have you any right to to claim that it's because women 'don't want to carry on working'? Based on what exactly? I am a 1950's woman, still working and paying NI but that is because, at the moment, I am able to. Were I to have a physically demanding, zero hours contract and were to have an illness which might limit my ability to do that job, would that be an unrealistic ask that I do not have to wait another 18 months for my (earned) state pension when I have had insufficient notice of (in my case) just 6 years of the second increase in SPA?

I question your motives here.

slightlymiffed

GunJack wrote: »

Only having kept less than half-an-eye on the whole WASPI thing, there is something I really don't get, and apologies if it's been covered before...

why aren't these affected women who are complaining happy that they can continue working (i.e. probably on a higher income than SP) for another few years before packing it in, as they're going to get a few more years NI conts to up their SP, possibly a few more years of qualifying service in company pensions for a bigger pension when they do leave.... they expect men to, so why not the women? Are they suddenly incapable of carrying on working or something?

Before anyone flames me for asking, I'm not trying to be obtuse, I just really don't understand the perceived problem.....

Fair question GunJack, although with a profile icon such as yours, you just may fall under the category of what I call 'unreconstructed man'.

If you are interested in this subject though, it may be worth skimming through this thread...

Meanwhile, I hope the woman in your life, as well as being amply covered and working till she drops, is letting you look after your children, do all the housework, cooking, cleaning and shopping and can put her feet up after work and watch TV with a beer?

If she is, you're right, there is no problem.

GunJack

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Were I to have a physically demanding, zero hours contract and were to have an illness which might limit my ability to do that job, would that be an unrealistic ask that I do not have to wait another 18 months for my (earned) state pension when I have had insufficient notice of (in my case) just 6 years of the second increase in SPA?

I'm sorry, but I still don't get how 6 years notice is detrimental? A man with that job situation will have to either 1. carry on until he can afford not to, 2. medically stop work and live on DLA/PIP/whatever until SPA so why different for a woman?
My SPA has gone up twice, and probably will go up again before I get there, the length of notice is neither here nor there, if it goes up it goes up and that's what you go with.

PensionTech

I think he has already answered that question:

Most also seem not to be in any great financial need, of the sort that would entitle them to working age means tested benefits, which is why the focus has been on things that apply to the group of woman without any means testing.

One suggestion put to WASPI was the option to allow people to claim Pension Credit - which is means-tested - according to the original 1995 schedule so that anybody in real financial need would have some protection against the further increase in SPA (and, incidentally, this would help men who were affected by the 2011 changes as well, not just women. Indeed, WASPI didn't campaign for men at all). WASPI rejected this because the vast majority of their support came from people like yourself who are perfectly able to work and are not in fact in any financial difficulty whatsoever. This is a big part of why WASPI's campaign was always doomed to fail.

You admit you aren't in financial difficulty yourself. You're apparently concerned about women who might be in need, but if you back the WASPI aims, you nevertheless would like to benefit from any adjustments made for them as well (as opposed to, for instance, the women you're so deeply concerned about being given more money and you being given less or none because you don't need it), and you don't care about men in the same situation whether they are in financial need or not. I question your motives. I certainly think it's thoroughly ridiculous for you to try to cast aspersions on jamesd for doing his research and being well-informed, and providing factual information about the debate in hand. Perhaps, in fact, you should try to emulate that behaviour rather than make a pretence of it being suspicious.

bigadaj

slightlymiffed wrote: »

What is your personal interest in this subject jamesd? You seem oddly well acquainted with the minutiae of Hansard and are able to churn out figures at will. Are you an MP?

Have you any right to to claim that it's because women 'don't want to carry on working'? Based on what exactly? I am a 1950's woman, still working and paying NI but that is because, at the moment, I am able to. Were I to have a physically demanding, zero hours contract and were to have an illness which might limit my ability to do that job, would that be an unrealistic ask that I do not have to wait another 18 months for my (earned) state pension when I have had insufficient notice of (in my case) just 6 years of the second increase in SPA?

I question your motives here.

That seems to indicate that you're struggling to counteract the stated facts.

The real problem is that the increase in state pension age should have started much earlier, but we are where we are.

You may have paid NI and tax for many years, as have the majority of the population, but Thais contributions have gone to pay pensions and other benefits to previous generations.

With increasing life expectancy, then costs are spiralling, and these costs will be paid for by the smaller cohort of future generations as the number of elderly continues to increase.

PensionTech

Meanwhile, I hope the woman in your life, as well as being amply covered and working till she drops, is letting you look after your children, do all the housework, cooking, cleaning and shopping and can put her feet up after work and watch TV with a beer?

If she is, you're right, there is no problem.

And this is horrifically sexist, by the way - offensively so. You are not doing your "argument" any favours.