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

Acquinas

This is all a bit one sided.

We surely don't expect people to act contrary to their own self-interest. The self-employed lobby are today complaining that NI is going up for them. In terms of policy there are arguments both ways (greater tax take + equalisation vs discouraging enterprise), and the usual suspects are behind them, but the same could be said for the harmonisation of pension ages. There are plenty on this forum who put forward arguments and wheezes to maximise benefits and minimise tax liability but they don't get monstered for acting contrary to the interests of society as a whole by not fully paying their dues. Gender equality supports the notion of harmonisation and should, in the round, mean less of a drain on the public purse. But on the other hand more women are in lower paid jobs and it could be said that the state has a duty to step in earlier for them rather than allow them to work themselves into an early grave in menial work.

I'm sure that many of the male posters will have spouses, partners, sisters etc who will be caught by this. I, for one, would be more than happy for my OH to bow out at 60 and allow me to fight the good fight.

Discuss.

colsten

uk1 wrote: »

They have a large campaign to raise cash for a legal challenge.

They'd need several hundreds of thousands before any Court could even take their case, as to begin with, they would have to demonstrate that they could pay the costs of the other party if they lost. I believe the Article 50 challenge crowdfund spent well in excess of half a million. WASPI are light years from having this sort of money for a legal challenge, not to talk about actually having a legal claim for anything.

You can't simply rock up in a Court of Law, say you are not taking a legal action, and demand that you should be paid public monies that you are not entitled to by law. Do you see the contradiction? People cannot claim that a law is illegal - particularly not if the laws have been in force for over 5, or even 21, years. I believe someone h
as unsuccessfully tried to challenge the 1995 Act in the European Court of Human Rights already, for 'violation of human rights'.

custardy

Acquinas wrote: »

This is all a bit one sided.

We surely don't expect people to act contrary to their own self-interest. The self-employed lobby are today complaining that NI is going up for them. In terms of policy there are arguments both ways (greater tax take + equalisation vs discouraging enterprise), and the usual suspects are behind them, but the same could be said for the harmonisation of pension ages. There are plenty on this forum who put forward arguments and wheezes to maximise benefits and minimise tax liability but they don't get monstered for acting contrary to the interests of society as a whole by not fully paying their dues. Gender equality supports the notion of harmonisation and should, in the round, mean less of a drain on the public purse. But on the other hand more women are in lower paid jobs and it could be said that the state has a duty to step in earlier for them rather than allow them to work themselves into an early grave in menial work.

I'm sure that many of the male posters will have spouses, partners, sisters etc who will be caught by this. I, for one, would be more than happy for my OH to bow out at 60 and allow me to fight the good fight.

Discuss.

Fine for men in menial work and those women coming in behind, I assume?

uk1

colsten wrote: »

They'd need several hundreds of thousands before any Court could even take their case, as to begin with, they would have to demonstrate that they could pay the costs of the other party if they lost. I believe the Article 50 challenge crowdfund spent well in excess of half a million. WASPI are light years from having this sort of money for a legal challenge, not to talk about actually having a legal claim for anything.

You can't simply rock up in a Court of Law, say you are not taking a legal action, and demand that you should be paid public monies that you are not entitled to by law. Do you see the contradiction? People cannot claim that a law is illegal - particularly not if the laws have been in force for over 5, or even 21, years. I believe someone h
as unsuccessfully tried to challenge the 1995 Act in the European Court of Human Rights already, for 'violation of human rights'.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be making up your own twilight world here.

You do not need to prove you have the cash to bring an action before you start it.

colsten

Acquinas wrote: »

Discuss.

Assuming you are aware of the cost of the WASPI demands to the taxpayer, and of the failure of any political party to date to come forward with a credible proposal for how the financial demands of those women could be met. Assuming also you are aware that most of the 1950s women are not in financial hardship.

Discuss.

colsten

uk1 wrote: »

You do not need to prove you have the cash to bring an action before you start it.

You do.

characters
characters

uk1

colsten wrote: »

You do.

characters
characters

Repeating the same nonsense doesn't correct it.

Anyone can bring an action if the do so directly without representation, or with representation if a law company takes the case on. People go bankrupt every day when they lose and are presented with costs they cannot meet.

colsten

uk1 wrote: »

Repeating the same nonsense doesn't correct it.

Describing other people's posts as nonsense doesn't make other people's posts nonsense.

If a Court case is so easy, what's keeping WASPI from taking action? Many of them keep reminding people on social media that they might not live to see their SPA. In the light of this, it's all the more amazing that it's been a year now they have been threatening legal action for, and done nothing of the sort. I for one would love to see them get on with it, and to see them getting cross-examined in a Court of Law.

Judge to WASPI Director: "You were an HR Director in the 1990s and early 2000s"?
WASPI Director to Judge: "Yes, Sir"
Judge to WASPI Director: "Did you know about the 1995 SPA increase"?
WASPI Director to Judge: "Yes, Sir, I did, Sir"
Judge to WASPI Director: "Did you inform your employees of the SPA increase"?
WASPI Director to Judge: "Well, Sir. No, Sir. It wasn't a legal requirement to do so, Sir"
Judge to WASPI Director: "Did you not think you should have told your employees"?
WASPI Director to Judge: "No, Sir. Not my job, Sir"
Judge to WASPI Director: "Are you claiming compensation for yourself, Madam"?
WASPI Director to Judge: "Yes, Sir"
Judge to WASPI Director: "On what grounds, Madam"?
WASPI Director to Judge: "I have been robbed, Sir"


And so on.

jamesd

Acquinas wrote: »

But on the other hand more women are in lower paid jobs and it could be said that the state has a duty to step in earlier for them rather than allow them to work themselves into an early grave in menial work.

Female life expectancy for those around state pension age is around two years more than for men. If your concern is working to an early grave then you should be encouraging longer female working and earlier male retirement.

Pollycat

Acquinas wrote: »

I'm sure that many of the male posters will have spouses, partners, sisters etc who will be caught by this. I, for one, would be more than happy for my OH to bow out at 60 and allow me to fight the good fight.

Well, if she's not 60 yet, she's well and truly missed that boat.

Acquinas wrote: »

Discuss.

The board you're looking for is waaaay down south.
Here you are:
http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&daysprune=&f=57