Women fighting state pension changes to protest outside Parliament on Budget Day

Thrugelmir

Acquinas wrote: »

Discuss.

Nothing to discuss. Time to move on.

Welshdaffodil2

This subject has gone quiet again. Why was the new womens retirement age of 66 not staggered more gradually ? That would have been fairer for those involved. I have gone from a prospective retirement age of 60 to a retirement age of 66 as I was born in 1954. Is that fair ? Will anyone challenge this again ?

molerat

The post above yours said it all.

dunstonh

Welshdaffodil2 wrote: »

This subject has gone quiet again. Why was the new womens retirement age of 66 not staggered more gradually ? That would have been fairer for those involved. I have gone from a prospective retirement age of 60 to a retirement age of 66 as I was born in 1954. Is that fair ? Will anyone challenge this again ?

It was absolutely fair. The increase from 60 to 65 was started consultation nearly 26 years ago and was put in place 22 years ago. So, plenty of time and very fair. Only the stupid and greedy consider that bit unfair.

The 2011 changes accelerated it and many did consider that to be unfair on certain age groups. The Govt did backtrack on some of those to ensure that no-one had more than 18 months short notice increases.

At the same time, the increases in the state pension have gone up faster and the qualifying period has gone down. You don't see the greedy women asking for £42k saying they want those things reversed.

Pollycat

Welshdaffodil2 wrote: »

This subject has gone quiet again. Why was the new womens retirement age of 66 not staggered more gradually ? That would have been fairer for those involved. I have gone from a prospective retirement age of 60 to a retirement age of 66 as I was born in 1954. Is that fair ? Will anyone challenge this again ?

You have never had a retirement age of 60 since 1995.
You would have been aged 41 then.
How much more of a gradual stagger do you want?

It is most definitely fair that men and women born on the same day should receive their state pension on the same day.

I sincerely hope that nobody will challenge this again.

custardy

Pollycat wrote: »

You have never had a retirement age of 60 since 1995.
You would have been aged 41 then.
How much more of a gradual stagger do you want?

It is most definitely fair that men and women born on the same day should receive their state pension on the same day.

I sincerely hope that nobody will challenge this again.

Its hilarious the amount of women who see nothing wrong in shorter lived men retiring later.

Pollycat

custardy wrote: »

Its hilarious the amount of women who see nothing wrong in shorter lived men retiring later.

I think it's quite sad that they are incapable of seeing how unfair it really is.

Grasping WASPI.

Silvertabby

I see GRASPI are trying to make the payment of the State pension at 60 an election issue. I seem to recall Corbyn saying he 'supports their cause' - I just hope that most women aren't stupid enough to fall for that one!

PensionTech

This subject has gone quiet again. Why was the new womens retirement age of 66 not staggered more gradually ? That would have been fairer for those involved. I have gone from a prospective retirement age of 60 to a retirement age of 66 as I was born in 1954. Is that fair ? Will anyone challenge this again ?

I've gone from a prospective retirement age of 60 to a retirement age of at least 68 as I was born in 1988...

As for "why wasn't it more gradual", you will be happy to know that you don't have to do any research into this whatsoever, because I've done it all for you! Check this out and then tell me it wasn't gradual.

molerat

Silvertabby wrote: »

I see GRASPI are trying to make the payment of the State pension at 60 an election issue. I seem to recall Corbyn saying he 'supports their cause' - I just hope that most women aren't stupid enough to fall for that one!

Political words are easy from someone who is never going to be in the position of enacting it, exactly the same as the SNP stance.