Women SPA this week

bluenose1

dunstonh wrote: »

Lets hope it founds in favour of the Government and not a bunch of greedy women who don't believe in equality when it doesn't suit them.

I don't think there is equality in pensions. Historically it has normally been the woman who gave up work / go part time to care for children. Therefore in general their occupational pension/ state pension lower than men.
I think a lot of these women have probably been disadvantaged in their overall pensions compared to their male counterparts.

Thrugelmir

bluenose1 wrote: »

I don't think there is equality in pensions. Historically it has normally been the woman who gave up work / go part time to care for children. Therefore in general their occupational pension/ state pension lower than men.
I think a lot of these women have probably been disadvantaged in their overall pensions compared to their male counterparts.

The Company that I worked for at the time. Closed it's DB scheme to new entrants in 1997. Many people have been disadvantaged over the past 20 odd years. Easy to cast dispersations to substantiate a view. The fact is we as a nation aren't good savers. Compared to others.

dunstonh

bluenose1 wrote: »

I don't think there is equality in pensions. Historically it has normally been the woman who gave up work / go part time to care for children. Therefore in general their occupational pension/ state pension lower than men.
I think a lot of these women have probably been disadvantaged in their overall pensions compared to their male counterparts.

Quite possibly. However, that is why home responsibilities protection was there. It gave qualification for a state pension despite not working.

There are other issues where equality did not exist but you cant pick unrelated issues to try and balance them out. Do remember that women live longer than men and got paid their state pensions 5 years earlier than men.

Men and Women who have seen their state pension rise to 66,67 and 68, including some of whom who had 60 as a state pension age when they started working are not moaning. And the Waspi women don't give two hoots to women born after 1959. They are quite happy for there to be a cliff edge of them getting age 60 but all other women getting 65/66/67/68.

DT2001

bluenose1 wrote: »

I don't think there is equality in pensions. Historically it has normally been the woman who gave up work / go part time to care for children. Therefore in general their occupational pension/ state pension lower than men.
I think a lot of these women have probably been disadvantaged in their overall pensions compared to their male counterparts.

I worked part time on a self employed basis when our children were born. My wife worked full time. My SPA is 66. Am I being treated unequally?
I see pensions as being a joint income provider and it doesn’t matter the split between partners.
My OH thinks reducing the burden on our children to pay for SP is an inevitable economic reality.

Paul_Herring

. My wife worked full time. My SPA is 66. Am I being treated unequally?

Your inconvenient facts don't fit the narrative, so they will be safely ignored....

fred246

I retired at 50 and joined some pensioner groups so I often come into contact with waspi women. I have some sympathy because the rule changes greatly affected their lives and they couldn't respond. They were working as a secretary and expected at 60 they would retire. When the rule changes came in they would just have to carry on to 66. You can't realistically say "well you should have become chief executive and save 90% of your salary and then you could have still retired at 60". The road they were travelling on though, was grossly unequal. They were promised inequality. They liked the idea of inequality. Give us the inequality back! That's why the name WASPI is hilarious. They are women desperate for inequality. Not sure what judicial review achieves.
https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/judicial-review/

Apodemus

As a male, I would like pension equality, too! Since I am statistically likely to live for fewer years in retirement than my female colleagues, if I retire early my DB pension has a bigger actuarial reduction than it would do if I was female, despite the contribution rates being the same. I understand the maths and logic, but surely that same logic would suggest that my female co-workers should contribute more?

nigelbb

I think that women in the cohort who have had the goalposts moved twice have a very legitimate grievance. Initially they were told their SPA would change from 60 to 65 then years later were told it was actually going to be 66 & beyond.

Seabee42

Lets be honest it would be nice if we could all get more! Someone has to pay and people are living longer. So you retire later or get less or pay more. The problem is the people want other people to pay more for them to get more.

bugslett

nigelbb wrote: »

I think that women in the cohort who have had the goalposts moved twice have a very legitimate grievance. Initially they were told their SPA would change from 60 to 65 then years later were told it was actually going to be 66 & beyond.

I'm one of those women, when I left school it was going to be 60 and now it's 67, who knows it may change....but frankly if you want equality ( I did) then the pension age had to go up to match and any idiot that takes even the most marginal note of pensions would have been a. aware that the government had changed the retirement age and b. that pensions are unsustainable if we don't increase the age.