Women SPA this week

jem16

badmemory wrote: »

Just to put the cat among the pigeons a little bit, the old state pension does still have bits of sex discrimination in it. The graduated bit gives a higher amount to men than it does to women per unit paid in. Crowdfunding anyone?

That was because the unit cost for women was higher than it was for men so men got more units for the amount of Graduated Contributions paid. It was correct for then as men had to wait an extra 5 years to get it.

It was then corrected back in 1995 for anyone reaching SPA 6th April 1950 onwards. Unit costs were equalised at £7.50pm for both. They've already tried that one and claiming women paid more NI than men.

How can they not have known, did they walk through their day going la la la la with their fingers in their ears?

You got it!

jem16

lisyloo wrote: »

How many of those in dire difficulties, would have been ok if they’d had plenty of notice and a letter?

Very few of them.

What I was really meaning is that the current welfare system is letting some of them down and is in need of reform. The Irish have a system of unconditional JSA as they approach SPA.

badmemory

jem16 wrote: »

It was then corrected back in 1995 for anyone reaching SPA 6th April 1950 onwards. Unit costs were equalised at £7.50pm for both. They've already tried that one and claiming women paid more NI than men.

That is interesting because I queried it about 10 years ago & was told it was correct that I got less than a man did. Time to dig all the paperwork out again. I still have all the old P60s, that should keep me out of trouble for the next week! It is always possible they updated it between the original paperwork & when I actually started to take it.

jem16

badmemory wrote: »

That is interesting because I queried it about 10 years ago & was told it was correct that I got less than a man did. Time to dig all the paperwork out again. I still have all the old P60s, that should keep me out of trouble for the next week! It is always possible they updated it between the original paperwork & when I actually started to take it.

That 1950 should have read 2010. Basically if you were born 6th April 1950 onwards and therefore reached SPA from 6th April 2010 onwards, then GRB was equalised.

If you reached SPA before this and your SPA was 60, then yes you would get less GRB than a man of the same age as he had to wait another 5 years before getting his.

badmemory

jem16 wrote: »

That 1950 should have read 2010. Basically if you were born 6th April 1950 onwards and therefore reached SPA from 6th April 2010 onwards, then GRB was equalised.

If you reached SPA before this and your SPA was 60, then yes you would get less GRB than a man of the same age as he had to wait another 5 years before getting his.

Thanks - all is explained. I did accept the answer as reasonable at the time.

jamesd

Silvertabby wrote: »

What would be the cost of paying pensions from 60 to 'men who identify as women' ? And would 'women who identify as men' (sorry, really struggling for current pc terms here!) refuse payment until they reached male SPA ?

Not a significant cost. If I remember correctly the change to the benefits of the new gender is made once a gender recognition certificate is provided and this did result in immediate starting or stopping of the state pension. It's been a while since I read the rules, though.

jamesd

lisyloo wrote: »

Can anyone give me some examples of how the direst of situations would/could have been avoided given that equality and higher ages were inevitable.

It's not really dire but for example the money spent to give at least 18 months notice might have been used to increase the means tested working age benefits of women and men older than 60 but younger than Pension Credit age to something closer to Pension Credit levels.

It's conceivable alternatively that working age means tested benefits might have been extended to women and men older than 60 but younger than Pension Credit age who were capable of working but refused to seek work.

These things would be useless to the prominent campaigners because they would fail the means tests. For them, in general, it has to be unconditional payments because otherwise they are too well off to qualify. So their self-interested claims block far cheaper things that could help those genuinely in need or who might want to stop working at 60 and get working age benefits without seeking work.

Mortgagefreeman

Pollycat wrote: »

@ Paul_Herring.
Thanks for post #240, I'm not going to quote it.
What a load of silly, deluded, grasping women.
I'm actually quite ashamed to be of the same gender and a 'victim' of the same 'injustice' as this lot.

You’re being quoted on Twitter:D they’re not happy! :rotfl:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Dianajo43548922/status/1147060956444446721

Mortgagefreeman

Mortgagefreeman wrote: »

You’re being quoted on Twitter:D they’re not happy! :rotfl:

https://mobile.twitter.com/Dianajo43548922/status/1147060956444446721

I guess Dianna Jones is your typical WASPI sponger. Probably spent her PPI claim and now looking for another handout?

Interesting to note that a power struggle between backto60 and WASPI has commenced with one group throwing accusations against the other. I’ve always thought the Campaigns concentrated more on personal egos than their aims.

Pollycat

there is a very sad thread on the Money Saving where they are slagging off the #backto60 / #WASPI women, post 245 where the person said "What a load of silly, deluded, grasping women) that is a great shame as some of the comments are from women........

I wonder why Ms Jones thinks it a 'great shame as some of the comments are from women'.
Not every woman is as grasping as WASPI/Backto60.
Not every woman is as deluded as WASPI/Backto60.

It's clearly not occurred to Ms Jones that some women don't agree with the outrageous demands of WASPI/Backto60.

At least Suzy Albright has put Ms Jones straight. :T

And if Ms Jones had read the post I referred to (#240) she would have seen how ridiculous the 2 groups are making themselves by publicly falling out over the use of a poster. :rotfl: