Women SPA this week

Pollycat

Silvertabby wrote: »

No, not part of the legal case as WASPI/Backto60 couldn't give a flying fig about 1950s men or women (and men) born from 1 January 1960.

And I can't believe that so many people think that that is acceptable.

Silvertabby

Pollycat wrote: »

And I can't believe that so many people think that that is acceptable.

I really can't believe that anyone would think that a 6 year cliff edge between women born on or before 31 December 1959 and women born on or after 1 January 1960 is acceptable. If the re-equalisation of State pension ages really had been made law on that basis, there would have been rioting in the streets !

tempus_fugit

Neither I nor my wife think the state pension age for women born before 1/1/60 should be returned to 60, even though we'd be quids in if it happened as she was born just before then. It would certainly boost the finances but I just don't believe the rest of the country should pay for that. Oh, and yes, she knew full well years ago that she wouldn't get her pension until age 66, so people saying they didn't know are lying or just weren't paying enough attention.

Malthusian

Silvertabby wrote: »

I really can't believe that anyone would think that a 6 year cliff edge between women born on or before 31 December 1959 and women born on or after 1 January 1960 is acceptable.

A sizable proportion of the population thinks that gay people should be taken out into the street and have rocks thrown at their heads.

Others think that everyone should earn the exact same wage regardless of what they contribute to society.

People can think whatever they want to think. In both senses of "can".

The important thing is that this particular think has absolutely no chance of becoming reality.

Gers

Mnd wrote: »

Any changes that she is hoping for, shold apply equally to males and females, or it cannot be described as equal.

I'm not hoping for anything - not part of any campaign and not voicing any complaints apart from being 'miffed' - I'm miffed about a lot of things lately - must be an age thing.:rotfl:

As I have said, my situation is not dire, I am well provided for financially and have weathered the gap without problems. Roll on 06 July though!!

Paul_Herring

Mnd wrote: »

So, to clarify, should a man, born the same day as you, get any backdated payment, and is this being considered

No - they've only costed taking it back to 65 - https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/75925772#Comment_75925772

jamesd

Silvertabby wrote: »

I really can't believe that anyone would think that a 6 year cliff edge between women born on or before 31 December 1959 and women born on or after 1 January 1960 is acceptable.

The groups seem to believe that it's acceptable and desirable for 50s twins with the same birth date to have that difference. Just because one is or becomes female and the other is or becomes male.

GibbsRule_No3

jamesd wrote: »

The groups seem to believe that it's acceptable and desirable for 50s twins with the same birth date to have that difference. Just because one is or becomes female and the other is or becomes male.

Playing DA. Was it fair that the brother had 47 years to save and plan, so he could retire at his sisters age but she had less time to rearrange her finances?

ffacoffipawb

GibbsRule_No3 wrote: »

Playing DA. Was it fair that the brother had 47 years to save and plan, so he could retire at his sisters age but she had less time to rearrange her finances?

Playing DA to your DA ...

Because 15 - 25 years warning obviously not enough I guess.

Equalisation at 65 starting very gradually in 2010 and ending in 2020, later revised to 2018, was passed in 1995.

Terron

GibbsRule_No3 wrote: »

Playing DA. Was it fair that the brother had 47 years to save and plan, so he could retire at his sisters age but she had less time to rearrange her finances?

I was born in 1959. My sister was born 11 months later in 1960 but lets assume she was a twin.
We were teens when the equal pay act was implemented, so it has applied for all our working lives. Equalizing pension entitlement was an obvious consequence, though after a delay. Forty years after the implementation seemed fair, so that would have been 2015. It happened last year, a little late but close enough.
Given that the European court ruling against unequal retirement ages was in 1992 and the goverment acted in 1995, there was plenty of notice. The only excuse for not realizing it was changing is stupidity and being penalised for that is natural and fair.


I planned to retire at 60 from in my 20s, but that was using private pensions that were also available to women (though the terms may have been slightly worse due to their longer life expectancy). But the inequality of it being easier for men to get private pensions does not justify the separate inequality of state pension ages.



That is the answer to your question. It is not fair that men had longer to plan, but that in no way justifies inequalirty in the state pension ages.