Budget 2018

GibbsRule_No3

The 2011 act for BOTH men and women should have been introduced like the 1995 act was, in stages. Not in an 18 month increase for some women and a year for men aged 65.

Malthusian

zagfles wrote: »

If WASPI and the others had stuck to that issue

WASPI's founders had already tried sticking to that issue and it was a flop. Their 2013 petition attracted a handful of signatures and was handed in with almost zero media interest. It didn't take off because 1) the number of people affected was too small 2) the effect on them was too small 3) the time to contest the 2011 Act had already passed. Those who paid attention to the 2011 Pensions Act at the time had already extracted a concession from the Government which restricted the rise to a year and a half instead of the two years originally planned.

It was only when WASPI's founders widened their campaign to overturning the 1995 Pensions Act (for women born in the 1950s only) and told their supporters that they'd get a £30,000+ cheque from the Government that it took off.

they may have had some credibility instead of trying to include everyone affected by the 1995 act and demanding a return to 60 for them all.

WASPI didn't want to include "everyone affected by the 1995 Act" - only women born in the 1950s.

Former_MSE_Andrea

Hi folks!

For more on this week's Budget measures see our coverage on the main site:

Budget 2018: What you need to know

Silvertabby

“ I can understand that yes it should be the same for men and women. But in my humble opinion it should have been phased in better, not so abruptly. But heigh-ho that's just my view.
Originally posted by merrydance

The eventual re-equalisation of State pension ages should have part of the 1975 Sex Equality legislation. That way, the changes could have been even more gradual. Can only assume that Harold Wilson thought that it would be a vote loser and did a slopey.

An even better idea would have been NOT to reduce women's State pension age from 65 to 60 in the 1940s. This was only done in order to facilitate the payment of the married man's rate of State pension when he reached 65, as the higher rate was only payable if the (usually younger) spouse was also State pension age. As very few women qualified for a pension in their own right then, the change wasn't for their benefit - just their husband's. In hindsight, the married man's rate of State pension should/could have been paid regardless of the wife's age - then we wouldn't have all this faff now.

Thrugelmir

Silvertabby wrote: »

then we wouldn't have all this faff now.

Hindsight is a wonderfull human invention. So easy if they knew then what we know now. My fathers parents both only survived 2 months into their retirement. Life was very different for many just a few decades ago.

kidmugsy

zagfles wrote: »

Rubbish. Tax credits, means tested benefits etc are assessed jointly. I see no riots over this. Lots of other countries assess couples/families for tax rather than as individuals. Even before Lawson, wives could be taxed independantly if they wanted to be. You could do like in the US and let couples choose whether to file jointly or independantly. It won't cause a riot.

You've misread it. I predicted rioting in the streets if independent taxation of wives were reversed.

kidmugsy

woolly_wombat wrote: »

the biggest barrier to the employment of older workers has been the abolition of compulsory retirement at state pension age - a classic example of unintended consequences.

Unintended, presumably. Unforeseeable, not remotely.

zagfles

kidmugsy wrote: »

You've misread it. I predicted rioting in the streets if independent taxation of wives were reversed.

Which I addressed! By giving lots of other examples where wives aren't financially assessed independantly. With no riots.

Thrugelmir

As usual in the small print there's a sting. Or some might say a clever wheeze. Rise in higher rate threshold is tempered by change in NI threshold. Rather than 2% , NI will be 12% up to £50k. £340 therefore gets clawed back. Payable even if one contributions to a pension scheme. (Salary Sac aside).

Triumph13

Thrugelmir wrote: »

As usual in the small print there's a sting. Or some might say a clever wheeze. Rise in higher rate threshold is tempered by change in NI threshold. Rather than 2% , NI will be 12% up to £50k. £340 therefore gets clawed back. Payable even if one contributions to a pension scheme. (Salary Sac aside).

That can hardly be a surprise since the NI Upper Earning Limit and the HRT threshold have been aligned since April 2009.