WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

slightlymiffed

PensionTech wrote: »

I think he has already answered that question:



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.

Why are you answering my question to jamesd? I think he is verbose enough to be able to answer for himself.

I have not 'admitted' anything - I wasn't aware I had to. Yes, I am working - I have not said in what capacity; whether I am employed or self employed and what my financial situation may be.

Who says I am 'deeply concerned' about getting more money? Who said I would like to benefit? You've made some pretty sweeping judgements here.

Who is casting aspersions here? I merely questioned jamesd's encyclopedic knowledge of Hansard and, whether he is a politician.

GunJack

slightlymiffed wrote: »

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.

just to put your mind at rest.... I do 85-95% of all the stuff you mention above, along with having a ft career and also looking after Mrs.G-J who has a debilitating illness..."unreconstructed"? - sheesh, you really don't know me at all.....

as for my avi, is there really anything wrong in liking real women, rather than the anorexic/size 0 fake skinny airbrushed variety the "media" recon are sexy? I think not......

slightlymiffed

PensionTech wrote: »

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

My 'argument' is more important that trading insults with you. You clearly have no sense of humour and cannot see the irony of a guy randomly posting on this forum with no knowledge or apparent interest in the subject - and with a hilariously sexist profile picture. You missed the point entirely.

GunJack

oh, and as to paying NI, I'll have to continue to pay NI for at least 17 yrs longer than will count towards my SP before I can claim my SP...is that fair? yes, as NI is for more than just pensions.....

slightlymiffed

GunJack wrote: »

just to put your mind at rest.... I do 85-95% of all the stuff you mention above, along with having a ft career and also looking after Mrs.G-J who has a debilitating illness..."unreconstructed"? - sheesh, you really don't know me at all.....

as for my avi, is there really anything wrong in liking real women, rather than the anorexic/size 0 fake skinny airbrushed variety the "media" recon are sexy? I think not......

That's great to hear GunJack and I know there are some really lovely supportive husbands and partners - clearly like yourself.

And, as for liking real women - nothing wrong with that. Some of the men on this forum don't though! You've just unwittingly stumbled onto a very contentious thread GunJack and I apologise if I sounded harsh.

GunJack

slightlymiffed wrote: »

My 'argument' is more important that trading insults with you. You clearly have no sense of humour and cannot see the irony of a guy randomly posting on this forum with no knowledge or apparent interest in the subject - and with a hilariously sexist profile picture. You missed the point entirely.

:rotfl: this really made me giggle Hilariously sexist? So sticking up for the 99% of real women out there is sexist? I think it may be you who has no sense of irony......

....and yes I also do all the ironing in our house

slightlymiffed

bigadaj wrote: »

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.

Agree - the increase in state pension age should definitely have started much earlier.

What I cannot agree on though is that there is a smaller cohort of future generations, certainly in the shorter term. The 1960's saw a huge rise in the birth rate and it will be my children who will be paying their pensions. Oddly enough, they don't seem to resent that, despite attempts to promote inter-generational unrest.

GunJack

cross-posts... but I accept your apology and likewise if you thought my response harsh.

But back on-topic, no answer to the question of the 6-year notice issue? Why is it too short?

slightlymiffed

GunJack wrote: »

:rotfl: this really made me giggle Hilariously sexist? So sticking up for the 99% of real women out there is sexist? I think it may be you who has no sense of irony......

....and yes I also do all the ironing in our house

I've apologised GunJack.

PensionTech

Why are you answering my question to jamesd? I think he is verbose enough to be able to answer for himself.

Because you're posting on a public forum. I'm a member of the public, I read this forum, I wanted to say something, and that is my right. If you want a personal discussion with jamesd, why not private message?

I have not 'admitted' anything - I wasn't aware I had to. Yes, I am working - I have not said in what capacity; whether I am employed or self employed and what my financial situation may be.

I do apologise, I used common sense to make a deduction. You may well personally be in financial need. But if you are, I'm surprised that you aren't beating that drum instead, rather than "other people might be in situations where they can't work".

Who says I am 'deeply concerned' about getting more money?

Nobody, actually. I said you were "deeply concerned" about women in financial need (or rather, to take you literally as we are apparently unable to make reasonable leaps of inference, women who were unable to work).

Who said I would like to benefit?

I said that if you support the WASPI aims, that means you would like to benefit. It does mean exactly that. You have identified yourself as being in the affected cohort of women. If you would like WASPI's aims to succeed, then the consequence is that you yourself will benefit financially. It's not that difficult.

Who is casting aspersions here? I merely questioned jamesd's encyclopedic knowledge of Hansard and, whether he is a politician.

You did:

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...

I question your motives here.

My 'argument' is more important that trading insults with you.

But not more important than making sexist remarks about your conceived roles for men and women as though that were pertinent to a discussion about state pension entitlement?

You clearly have no sense of humour

Well no, I don't find your remarks funny. Sorry about that.

and cannot see the irony of a guy randomly posting on this forum with no knowledge or apparent interest in the subject

What I do see the irony in is somebody writing this shortly after calling somebody suspicious for having knowledge or apparent interest in the subject.

You missed the point entirely.

My loss, I suppose...