WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

GunJack

saver861 wrote: »

Are you of the view that 6 years would be adequate notice for pension changes?

yes, actually... if you'd have noted this from one of my other posts, I did say that SP should only be a part of your planning, so if the other parts stay the same (and of course you continue working) why is 6 years notice not enough? If anything it will just top up your occupational pension and possibly give you extra NI conts towards SP... or am I off the wall with this thinking?

now, if it was that the SP age was being REDUCED then 6 years may not be enough notice

jamesd

slightlymiffed wrote: »

What I am unclear about is why jamesd seems to repeatedly disseminate information which is somewhat misleading (which others here don't do).

The problem isn't that it's misleading, it's that it's not what you would like it to be.

Though of course all you're really doing is adding uncontradictable because they are non-specific attacks to go with your attempts to suggest that I'm in some group you could try to demonise. That is, classic ad hominem when the factual discussion isn't going the desired way.

By way of contrast, you just linked to a Guardian story that contains outright lies to both the Guardian and Parliament by a supporter of WASPI.

Notice the difference? I was specific so you have the opportunity to refute my description. Vs if I'd just said that you point people to misleading stories to support your views.

Though since I'm using the person's own statements to the Guardian and their own submission in evidence to Parliament there may be some difficulty in doing that. As with your claim about me pointing to misleading things after you just posted a link to something misleading containing outright lies yourself, her own words are her problem.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

if he does not declare what that interest is. Many on these forums have added a footnote to their posts, declaring their interests - which is honest and transparent.

I already have, several times.

mumps

mgdavid wrote: »

It's not 5 extra years, it's just the same as men. The earlier expectations were 5 years too soon, were sexist and unfair and discriminatory against men.
'It's equality, luv' as another poster said earlier.

And the inequality that men got more cover from their NI contributions than women did?

jamesd

mumps wrote: »

And the inequality that men got more cover from their NI contributions than women did?

Would you be kind enough to say how a man and a woman got different cover, preferably with sources we can read?

slightlymiffed

saver861 wrote: »

Well, on such forums, as this one, you will get a considerably variation of people with similar levels of experience and interests. Thats what makes these forums work.

You will get people who think they know more than others on a topic
People who do know more than others on a topic
People who don't know anything about a topic
People who think they are always right
People who usually are right
People who pop in and out
People who spend an inordinate amount of time on here
People just about all types and persuasions
but ...... the real bonus is ............ you get me on here also!

Point is, take it all with a pinch of salt..... or a bucket!!!

For instance, the thing about WASPI .... well that's the ironic thing ..... those who are so against it are actually keeping it alive with their opposition. Were all those opposing WASPI to stay silent, the WASPI would have disappeared or be a very distant news item.

That's part of the impact of forums such as this, social media etc.

You know that saying, ignore it and it will go away..... that does not happen usually on social media so it stays prominent!!

Mission accomplished then Saver.

Thank you for your continued voice of reason in this discussion - I for one am glad you're here. :T

Pollycat

jamesd wrote: »

Would you be kind enough to say how a man and a woman got different cover, preferably with sources we can read?

I think mumps is referring to this post.

mumps wrote: »

I am a 1953 baby so caught by both changes. I'm not bothered about the first one but do think there wasn't enough notice of the second change.

The equality thing is all very well but when I was a young mum paying the same NI as a man I didn't get the same protection. My husband's NI gave him protection for me and the children if he died, I would have got a widow's pension, I think it was actually called widowed mothers pension. His contributions would have also got a lump sum of £1000. If I died he didn't get the same so I had to pay for an insurance policy to give the same protection he got thrown in with other benefits from his NI. In the interests of equality and fairness do you think I should get my insurance premiums repaid to me? I took the policy out in 1971 when my first child was born and paid into it until about 2001 when the benefits changed, my youngest child was still at primary school at that time. So 30 years contributions, I must see if I can find the old policy as I can't remember what it cost.

I am assuming as people as so keen on fairness and equality no one will object to this?

I'm a '1953 baby' too but I can't comment on the veracity of the post.
Maybe protection through my OH's NI contribution should he die wasn't that important to me at the time as I didn't have children and was working in a well paid job that I intended to be my full time career.

slightlymiffed

jamesd wrote: »

The problem isn't that it's misleading, it's that it's not what you would like it to be.

Though of course all you're really doing is adding uncontradictable because they are non-specific attacks to go with your attempts to suggest that I'm in some group you could try to demonise. That is, classic ad hominem when the factual discussion isn't going the desired way.

By way of contrast, you just linked to a Guardian story that contains outright lies to both the Guardian and Parliament by a supporter of WASPI.

Notice the difference? I was specific so you have the opportunity to refute my description. Vs if I'd just said that you point people to misleading stories to support your views.

Though since I'm using the person's own statements to the Guardian and their own submission in evidence to Parliament there may be some difficulty in doing that. As with your claim about me pointing to misleading things after you just posted a link to something misleading containing outright lies yourself, her own words are her problem.

I already have, several times.

Thanks for your explanation. Apologies for assuming anything jamesd but, just for clarity, can you confirm whether or not you work within the pensions sector? You certainly seem to have been giving specific advice on pension related issues across the MSE forums.

My reason for asking is that I would understand if your own livelihood could be affected were higher rate tax relief on pensions to be axed? Government says there's no money to pay any transitional support to 1950's women but surely any measure which increased tax revenue could help with the 'no money' situation?

mumps

Pollycat wrote: »

I think mumps is referring to this post.


I'm a '1953 baby' too but I can't comment on the veracity of the post.
Maybe protection through my OH's NI contribution should he die wasn't that important to me at the time as I didn't have children and was working in a well paid job that I intended to be my full time career.

Yes that is it. My point isn't really about if people were interested or not at the time but that people always go on about the fairness and equality but seem to forget there were other inequalities.

I have had trouble with the link, although a google search brings up lots of references. If I remember correctly the change happened in 2001.

I was probably aware as my mother was a widow with three children in the 1960s and the lump sum and pension made things alot easier. A couple of years later my aunt died leaving my uncle with two children under school age, he got no help from the government and she had no insurance. It nearly broke his little family up and I realised how important it was that my husband should not be left in that position so on my not great wage I was paying childcare and insurance which didn't leave me with much but like Tesco says every little helps. As it happens I am still going strong and kids all grown up so alot of money with fortunately no return.

slightlymiffed

GunJack wrote: »

yes, actually... if you'd have noted this from one of my other posts, I did say that SP should only be a part of your planning, so if the other parts stay the same (and of course you continue working) why is 6 years notice not enough? If anything it will just top up your occupational pension and possibly give you extra NI conts towards SP... or am I off the wall with this thinking?

now, if it was that the SP age was being REDUCED then 6 years may not be enough notice

GunJack - you are assuming that everyone has an occupational pension. Why is that?

mumps

jamesd wrote: »

Would you be kind enough to say how a man and a woman got different cover, preferably with sources we can read?

Don't know why I can't get the links to work but if you google 2001 changes to widowed mothers pension you should get alot of hits.