WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions

mgdavid

slightlymiffed wrote: »

.........Move on!

we have, you are the one with the Rotweiler mentality who seems unable to let go....

jamesd

slightlymiffed wrote: »

So, it's ok for women (still, now in 2016) to earn up to 33% less than men but that the 2011 Act 'disadvantaged' men? Curious logic. Why don't you crunch some of your numbers and arrive at a figure which shows that a lifetime of earning up to 33% more than a woman would disadvantage men in retirement?

Because the correct solution to discrimination against many members of one group is not to discriminate against all members of another group, it's to stop the discrimination against both groups.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

I believe the gap between womens' and mens' life expectancy is already narrowing as men move away from 'hard' industrial to 'softer' jobs and womens' lives become ever more stressful as they juggle jobs/children/childcare and often huge mortgage commitments. Stress can and does manifest itself in many ways and can and does lead to illness and life limiting conditions (depression/heart conditions/cancer) in just such a way as did some of the physically demanding and dangerous industrial jobs that shortened mens' life expectancy in the past.

There's also an eliminated pay gap for younger women, though notably still mainly for those in their 20s, long before the group retiring now. So far while there's progress on the life expectancy gap it's only men who will eventually be in professional jobs who at birth have a higher life expectancy than women on average in all jobs. Use caution with the story at that link because it's about life expectancy at birth and it's life expectancy at (lowest of men and women's) state pension age that is relevant to state pension discussions and that gap remains. Still, it's progress even though the at birth difference in life expectancy is 82.4 vs 79.1 for men still and 85.2 for women in the best socio-economic group, more than six years more than the average man.

Of course the best solution to the life expectancy gap is to eliminate it, rather than patch it with pension age differences. State pension doesn't do you much good when you're dead three years sooner and not getting it, after all.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Do you really believe it would be right for women (or men) to have their state pensions means tested?

I'd be happy to consider it but didn't suggest that in my post. I was writing about help claiming means tested and other non-pension benefits for those of working age, like the women affected by what the two WASPIs are on about.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

There seems to be a perception (among some) that 'most women' don't need their pensions

Both most women and most women typically need their state pensions. At the same age or an age related to life expectancy differences to equalise the working/non-working life expectancy split for both.

I wrote typically because of course neither a man nor a woman who has say £50,000 of income from other sources could normally be said to have an actual absolute need for the money since that level can easily fund all of life's essentials. Ditto at £20k or likely £10k as well, if housing isn't accounted for and is provided in some other way.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

A group of 1950's women though?

One of the WASPIs is asking for blatant discrimination on the basis of gender that would pay them large amounts of money not based on financial need but just so they effectively still get to retire at an earlier state pension age as if the state pension age and associated life expectancy changes that made it necessary hadn't happened. The price for longer life expectancy is either later state pension age or higher NI or taxes and we all get to pay for that if we pay NI or income tax.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Seems to me that you are just trying to legitimise the 2011 Act - a very ill thought out and age discriminatory piece of legislation.

No, I'm not trying to legitimise that Act, I agree that it is a gender-related age discriminatory piece of legislation.

Because it discriminated against men. Not because it discriminated against women. I'd happily help to fund any legal campaign to reduce the increase in discrimination against men that it contained, such as moves to further increase or reduce the decrease in women's state pension age that it contains. Same way I'd be happy to help to fund legal action against anything the WASPI2 or WASPI3 groups achieve that discriminates or increases discrimination against men. I'd also consider it for anything that discriminates against women in the area of state pensions but that outcome is very unlikely since neither WASPI is campaigning for anything that would do that.

slightlymiffed

jamesd wrote: »

Because the correct solution to discrimination against many members of one group is not to discriminate against all members of another group, it's to stop the discrimination against both groups.

There's also an eliminated pay gap for younger women, though notably still mainly for those in their 20s, long before the group retiring now. So far while there's progress on the life expectancy gap it's only men who will eventually be in professional jobs who at birth have a higher life expectancy than women on average in all jobs. Use caution with the story at that link because it's about life expectancy at birth and it's life expectancy at (lowest of men and women's) state pension age that is relevant to state pension discussions and that gap remains. Still, it's progress even though the at birth difference in life expectancy is 82.4 vs 79.1 for men still and 85.2 for women in the best socio-economic group, more than six years more than the average man.

Of course the best solution to the life expectancy gap is to eliminate it, rather than patch it with pension age differences. State pension doesn't do you much good when you're dead three years sooner and not getting it, after all.

I'd be happy to consider it but didn't suggest that in my post. I was writing about help claiming means tested and other non-pension benefits for those of working age, like the women affected by what the two WASPIs are on about.

Both most women and most women typically need their state pensions. At the same age or an age related to life expectancy differences to equalise the working/non-working life expectancy split for both.

I wrote typically because of course neither a man nor a woman who has say £50,000 of income from other sources could normally be said to have an actual absolute need for the money since that level can easily fund all of life's essentials. Ditto at £20k or likely £10k as well, if housing isn't accounted for and is provided in some other way.

One of the WASPIs is asking for blatant discrimination on the basis of gender that would pay them large amounts of money not based on financial need but just so they effectively still get to retire at an earlier state pension age as if the state pension age and associated life expectancy changes that made it necessary hadn't happened. The price for longer life expectancy is either later state pension age or higher NI or taxes and we all get to pay for that if we pay NI or income tax.

No, I'm not trying to legitimise that Act, I agree that it is a gender-related age discriminatory piece of legislation.

Because it discriminated against men. Not because it discriminated against women. I'd happily help to fund any legal campaign to reduce the increase in discrimination against men that it contained, such as moves to further increase or reduce the decrease in women's state pension age that it contains. Same way I'd be happy to help to fund legal action against anything the WASPI2 or WASPI3 groups achieve that discriminates or increases discrimination against men. I'd also consider it for anything that discriminates against women in the area of state pensions but that outcome is very unlikely since neither WASPI is campaigning for anything that would do that.

Nicely argued Jamesd but a pity you are so obsessed with legal action that you omitted to address the crucial issue of a lifetime of lower earnings for women - which is fundamental to all of this.

What is even more scandalous is that Steve Webb (then Shadow Work & Pensions Secretary) warned loud and clear back in 2002 that women faced an 'impoverished' retirement as wages then were 50% less than that of men. So, you probably need to factor that into any calculation too. Not looking very equal then and not much better now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2314293.stm

Did anyone heed Steve Webb's warning?

It is vital that the government undertakes an urgent study of the pay and pension provision that women receive.
They must then act quickly to prevent future generations of women from suffering the same poverty in old age that has been the lot of too many of their mothers and grandmothers.

Did they?

Interesting too that, in this quite comprehensive piece about womens' pensions, there was absolutely no mention of the increase to their state pension age, SEVEN YEARS after the 1995 Act. Quite an opportunity missed, wouldn't you say?

Can anyone explain why he would do that?

slightlymiffed

xylophone wrote: »

Silvertabby was quite open about the employment background which enabled her to make informed comments on the subject of pensions.

See post 3 https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/71167055#Comment_71167055



What gratuitous discourtesy!

And I may say that I can clearly remember some comments made by my dear dad when he too was very ill (in fact dying, though neither my mother or I realised it) and this was more than thirty years ago.

It wasn't 'gratuitous discourtesy' - Silvertabby chose to use her/his ailing mother as the reason she/he knew about womens' SPA changes.

Maybe, by the same token, it is 'gratuitous discourtesy' to not bother to read through this thread before posting? It's not - but neither is my reference to Silvertabby's mother.

As for trawling through previous posts to check someone's credentials...why would I?

slightlymiffed

mgdavid wrote: »

we have, you are the one with the Rotweiler mentality who seems unable to let go....

Nope - I'm more of the bloodhound mentality myself.

The Rottweilers are stalking Facebook and Twitter... and trust me, they never let go. Go find!

jem16

slightlymiffed wrote: »

So it seems either, that you work/worked in the pensions industry or you are a know-it-all!

Ok I admit it - your superior detective skills have found me out.

I am really a pensions expert now working for the DWP and planted here to snoop, spy and cause mayhem for WASPI women. There are loads of us all being paid to pretend to be ordinary 1950s women infiltrating all forms of social media.

jamesd

slightlymiffed wrote: »

you omitted to address the crucial issue of a lifetime of lower earnings for women - which is fundamental to all of this.

I addressed it with my observation that the fix for discrimination is not more discrimination against another group.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

What is even more scandalous is that Steve Webb (then Shadow Work & Pensions Secretary) warned loud and clear back in 2002 that women faced an 'impoverished' retirement as wages then were 50% less than that of men. So, you probably need to factor that into any calculation too. ... Did anyone heed Steve Webb's warning?

You're almost fifteen years behind the times. The Pensions Commission addressed that and so have three successive governments now with legislation. Things like the introduction of Pension Credit in October 2003, reduction in number of years to get a state pension to 30 (before single tier), the single tier pension and more things generating NI credits all have as their largest and most expensive effects increasing the state pensions that women are likely to receive. So yes, three governments (Labour, coalition and now Conservative) and an independent commission heard and acted.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

"It is vital that the government undertakes an urgent study of the pay and pension provision that women receive. ... They must then act quickly to prevent future generations of women from suffering the same poverty in old age that has been the lot of too many of their mothers and grandmothers." Did they?

Yes. It's perhaps more vital in the current context that you go back and look at what has already been done in that area so you can ask instead for something that hasn't already been looked at very extensively and acted on very extensively.

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Interesting too that, in this quite comprehensive piece about womens' pensions, there was absolutely no mention of the increase to their state pension age, SEVEN YEARS after the 1995 Act. Quite an opportunity missed, wouldn't you say? ... Can anyone explain why he would do that?

Yes, I'd say it would have been wise then to have campaigned for a more rapid increase in women's state pension age than in the 1995 Act. Though the Pensions Commission did a few years later with their first report coming out two years later in 2004, having been established following a green paper in December 2002. That's around two months after the story you linked to.

jamesd

I suspect that you didn't know it but one of the more troublesome issues has been relative poverty for women whose husbands have died. Improving their situation has been an ongoing task for many years and as the ONS observed in their Pension Trends - Chapter 13: Inequalities and Poverty in Retirement, 2012 Edition:

"Figure 13.16 shows that a larger proportion of female pensioners than male pensioners live in households with incomes below 60 per cent of contemporary median income. However, the gap has narrowed since 1994/95, when 31 per cent of female pensioners and 24 per cent of male pensioners were living in households with less than 60 per cent of contemporary median income. In 2010/11, these proportions had fallen to 15 per cent and 13 per cent respectively."

Both monitoring and acting on the issues affecting this group long predate the story you linked to. The single tier pension system and more NI credit producing activities are two of the longer term measures that should continue to see this group benefit, as more of them retire after getting those things.

One of the earlier changes was removing the ability to sign up for the single women's stamp in 1977 though it took quite a long time before almost all women who had signed up for it cancelled that choice. You probably missed it but the single tier pension system has transitional protection for the few thousand women who never did cancel it.

slightlymiffed

jem16 wrote: »

Ok I admit it - your superior detective skills have found me out.

I am really a pensions expert now working for the DWP and planted here to snoop, spy and cause mayhem for WASPI women. There are loads of us all being paid to pretend to be ordinary 1950s women infiltrating all forms of social media.

Of course you are Jem16 - hilarious.

On a more serious level, maybe you are not concerned about the level of bullying, snooping and smearing going on towards some 1950's women across all social media but I am appalled at the levels some of these (mostly women, and mostly 1960's born) will stoop.

Do you find it acceptable that these odd people trawl through personal Facebook pages to look for 'evidence' that some woman has dared to take a holiday or may have what they perceive as a 'nice house'? I don't - and I don't believe most people with any kind of social conscience would.

Of course these are not DWP spies - they are a motley crew of, in the main, petty, spiteful and disconnected people who are enraged that they might somehow 'miss out' or they will 'have to pay for it'. One of them, a financial journalist who writes a column for a well known 'retirement specialist magazine' is so puffed up with her own importance that she posts under her own name but these people mostly hide behind profile photos of cats, dogs and penguins or very unflattering photos of themselves in bleak locations. Of course it has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with their possibly 'missing out' on some perceived 'bonanza'!

Of course the bonanza isn't going to happen. I do though hope justice will prevail for those of us who have been so badly affected by the 2011 Act.

In any case, I think all 1950's women will be quaking in their Louboutins at the thought of jamesd's legal challenge to any possible recompense. :rotfl:

Thrugelmir

slightlymiffed wrote: »

Nicely argued Jamesd but a pity you are so obsessed with legal action that you omitted to address the crucial issue of a lifetime of lower earnings for women - which is fundamental to all of this.

Another reflection of the "I want it all" culture we live in. Money, money, money.......