WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

mufi

mumps wrote: »

Having run a large HR and payroll department I was always amazed at how little people seem to understand about taxes and NI,

So was I, until the Inland Revenue themselves gave my father a tax allowance for a medical condition that was not eligible for an allowance, and confirmed it in writing. I believed them.


Some years later, they tried to get the money back and failed.:rotfl:


Sorry for going off topic.

jem16

mumps wrote: »

I don't think ten years to prepare is a magic figure but the 2011 change meant 2 years till my 60th birthday, when I originally expected to get my SRP, and just under 6 years till my revised date. When you combine the two it makes the change over very hard to plan for.

Why combine the two though? From 1995 your state pension age hasn't been 60 so you should really only be thinking of the 6 years' notice of your revised date.

Personally I have no problems with equalising SRP age and no problem with the first change but I do think that there is a group of women, I think it is mainly the 1953 and 1954 women, who have had a rough deal.

Which is what most of us have been saying all along.

In my case it isn't a disaster as I have a pension I have been receiving since my 60th birthday and also receive Carer's Allowance but that won't apply to everyone.

Which is why any resolution will probably not apply to everyone either.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

Majority is probably the 'word' you are looking for ...

Do you have links to the actual figures that would back this up? Otherwise I think the use of the word some is the best choice in the absence of those figures.

For example the majority of girls in my school all stayed on at school till age 18 and then went onto higher education. However I would never dream to say that was also the majority of 1950s women.

Married womans stamp was pretty much useless and should never have been an option ...

I wouldn't say it was useless. My Mum chose to pay the Married Woman's stamp simply because her earnings were already small and she didn't want to pay a higher rate of NI. However she knew full well that all it would entitle her to was a pension of 60% based on her husband's earnings when she and my Dad reached state pension age. Without this choice she might have decided there was no point in working at all.

No more than it would be acceptable for Tescos' to sell Eggs at £1 per dozen or sell empty egg boxes at 70p ....

I think a 60% state pension for very little was probably worth more than empty egg boxes but each to their own.

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Before I leave this forum, maybe this first hand experience, written by a Waspi member, might enlighten some of you.

Well you've certainly enlightened me but I doubt it was how you intended it to be. You've certainly given me a good laugh - maybe that was really your intention?

Do you believe all that Trudy has posted to be accurate?

If you do it certainly explains your posts on here. Sadly there are many inaccuracies and bits of "information" that are just totally wrong but is certainly prevalent on various social media groups.

Probably not - your prejudices run deep - but at least I've tried.

It's not about prejudices but all about that fact that this forum has people here that know that what Trudy has posted is simply wrong. It's the kind of thing that goes down well with other 1950s women who lack the knowledge and understanding to know otherwise.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

Do you have links to the actual figures that would back this up? Otherwise I think the use of the word some is the best choice in the absence of those figures.

I have not verified the figures presented in this article, but show me how they are unreflective of reality. The article seems to have been produced in the last three years or so. For women decades ago, these figures would have been even more negative.

http://ukfeminista.org.uk/take-action/facts-and-statistics-on-gender-inequality/

Currently there are just 29% of MP's that are female .... thus the majority are male - by a ratio of more than 2:1. How representative is that of many organisations - and how much worse was it over the last 50 years.

Surely you don't need me, a male, to point out to you, a female, the gender inequality that has impeded women over the last generation.

If you are content to think just 'some' women were impeded, then nothing I can say will ever persuade you otherwise.

jem16 wrote: »

I wouldn't say it was useless. My Mum chose to pay the Married Woman's stamp simply because her earnings were already small and she didn't want to pay a higher rate of NI. However she knew full well that all it would entitle her to was a pension of 60% based on her husband's earnings when she and my Dad reached state pension age. Without this choice she might have decided there was no point in working at all.

I think a 60% state pension for very little was probably worth more than empty egg boxes but each to their own.

So if your dad had died or got divorced, and your mum had remarried, what of your mum's married womans stamp in that case?

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

If you are content to think just 'some' women were impeded, then nothing I can say will ever persuade you otherwise.

Some doesn't quantify - could be a small amount or a large amount or anything in between.

So if your dad had died or got divorced, and your mum had remarried, what of your mum's married womans stamp in that case?

I didn't say it was prefect but for many of my Mum's generation who tended not to divorce or remarry, then it worked. By 1978 times were changing so it made sense to abolish it then.

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

Some doesn't quantify - could be a small amount or a large amount or anything in between.

In numerical terms, 'some' defines a subclass of the whole.

When referring to a quantity of a particular group, 'some' would be asserted as a minority of that group. If you were alluding to the greater number of that class or group, you might use the word 'most'.

jem16 wrote: »

I didn't say it was prefect but for many of my Mum's generation who tended not to divorce or remarry, then it worked. By 1978 times were changing so it made sense to abolish it then.

Well many did remarry either due to death or divorce and were unaware of the consequences for their married woman's stamp.

jem16

saver861 wrote: »

In numerical terms, 'some' defines a subclass of the whole.

When referring to a quantity of a particular group, 'some' would be asserted as a minority of that group. If you were alluding to the greater number of that class or group, you might use the word 'most'.

I think I'll stick with the normal definition of some.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/some

1 An unspecified amount or number of:

Well many did remarry either due to death or divorce and were unaware of the consequences for their married woman's stamp.

I'm quite sure that happened. However like everything else people should find out about something before they sign up to it.

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

In numerical terms, 'some' defines a subclass of the whole.

When referring to a quantity of a particular group, 'some' would be asserted as a minority of that group. If you were alluding to the greater number of that class or group, you might use the word 'most'.

'Some', 'most' or 'majority'?

Any are better than what Trudy from Somerset wrote:

6. Women of the 50’s didn’t have the opportunities men had and didn’t enjoy the life style of women folk of today, they didn’t even have equal pay, still don’t, they had no choice but to pay their contributions by law at the same rate as men.

which is a bald statement that all women were the same.
They weren't.

colsten

saver861 wrote: »

Surely you don't need me, a male, to point out to you, a female, the gender inequality that has impeded women over the last generation.

If you had said "impeded some women", I would agree with you. It is totally wrong though to generalise this for all women. As wrong as it is for WASPI to claim that all women within an arbitrary date range were treated unfairly because their state pension age started to rise from 2010, as had been law since 1995.