WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

saver861

jem16 wrote: »

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:

From the same source you link:

5(Pronounced stressing ‘some’) at least a small amount or number of:
he liked some music but generally wasn’t musical

As I say, some in a numerical context denotes a minority or subclass of a total number.

Pollycat wrote: »

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

Any are better than what Trudy from Somerset wrote:
which is a bald statement that all women were the same.
They weren't.

To continue on the pedantic theme ....

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.

The quote from Trudy states "Women of the 50's ..... " which is the plural version, denoting two or more ... if she had meant 'All women'... she would have had to say "All women of the 50's ..."

If you are going to be pedantic .... be pedantic and get it right!!!

I won't be holding my breath though ....

xylophone

There is a briefing note

Education: Historical statistics
Standard Note: SN/SG/4252
Last updated: 27 November 2012
Author: Paul Bolton
Social & General Statistics

for anybody interested.

colsten

saver861 wrote: »

The quote from Trudy states "Women of the 50's ..... " which is the plural version, denoting two or more ... if she had meant 'All women'... she would have had to say "All women of the 50's ..."

If you are going to be pedantic .... be pedantic and get it right!!!

Alright, I am going to be pedantic......if she had meant "Some women of the 50s" she should have said so.

Whatever she meant: she is a WASPI activist(*), and it is obvious from the WASPI campaign that they believe that they represent all women born after 5/4/1951 and before 1/1/1960. So it's fair to think she meant at least all those when saying "women of the 50s"

(*) information gleaned from social media, which gives her name and additional information about her activities.

jamesd

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Re-read my post - it is you who is referring to the 'age 63' comment, not me. I had even underlined it to help you.

You completely missed the point. What you were writing about is just normal retirement that happens before state pension age, not anything new or scandalous.

mumps

jem16 wrote: »

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.

I combine the two because I had worked out what I needed to do so that I could still retire at 60 and whilst doing that the goal posts changed so I was trying to cover what I needed to still retire at 60 whilst saving to cover two different changes. If I had six years notice of one change that would be doable, if when the first change was announced I was told that actually it was no use calculating what I needed for 3 years 3 months without my SRP then fine but suddenly I had to cover 4 years 9 months.

To be honest with you I wouldn't be bothered about the second change if it had been 6 months or a year at a push but to suddenly add almost 50% to the increase was a bit much.

Pollycat

saver861 wrote: »

If you are going to be pedantic .... be pedantic and get it right!!!

Don't you just lurrrve a man who feels the need to use excessive punctuation marks?

(No, me neither).

jem16

mumps wrote: »

I combine the two because I had worked out what I needed to do so that I could still retire at 60 and whilst doing that the goal posts changed so I was trying to cover what I needed to still retire at 60 whilst saving to cover two different changes. If I had six years notice of one change that would be doable, if when the first change was announced I was told that actually it was no use calculating what I needed for 3 years 3 months without my SRP then fine but suddenly I had to cover 4 years 9 months.

To be honest with you I wouldn't be bothered about the second change if it had been 6 months or a year at a push but to suddenly add almost 50% to the increase was a bit much.

That's fair enough but you seemed to be talking about the notice period rather than anything else.

mumps

I think one of the big problems with the constant changes to pensions is that people, young people particularly, lose faith in the whole system. As an example when the changes to taking a pension pot as a lump sum rather than buying an annuity was announced I started a new pension, I was already in receipt of one, and salary sacrificed a large part of my salary. On top of my contribution my boss agreed to make a contribution which would include his saving on NI, which was about £300 a month if I remember correctly. So about 15 months later I took my lump sum, I saved my NI and had my employers contribution and I also saved on tax as I took 25% tax free. In all I gained several thousand pounds, well a five figure sum anyway. I talked to a few friends and colleagues coming up to retirement and suggested they do the same. Not one did and the reason? They didn't trust the government to not change the rules again.

mumps

jem16 wrote: »

That's fair enough but you seemed to be talking about the notice period rather than anything else.

My point about the notice period was that it would have been fine for either change, both coming together made the difference.

saver861

colsten wrote: »

Whatever she meant: she is a WASPI activist(*), and it is obvious from the WASPI campaign that they believe that they represent all women born after 5/4/1951 and before 1/1/1960. So it's fair to think she meant at least all those when saying "women of the 50s"

As she has neither said Some or All then you cannot presume without qualifying from source .... that's pedantic ... end of.

Pollycat wrote: »

Don't you just lurrrve a man who feels the need to use excessive punctuation marks?

(No, me neither).

So ..... would it be different if a woman used several punctuation marks??????

Hmmmmm!!!!!!