Back to 60's Judicial Review Outcome

JoeCrystal

fred246 wrote: »

I have just been googling 'MASPI', but as expected, there is nothing. All those men who had to work until they were 65 while the women retired at 60. They are the true victims of state pension inequality. They should be receiving thousands in compensation.

It is so unfair that my state pension age is 68, 35 years down the line... I am not sure I got enough notice of the pension age change. Life is unfair after all!

coyrls

zagfles wrote: »

Yes, and that is illegal. And rightly so. Which is why sex discrimination in pension rules is also now illegal. You don't challenge discrimination with discrimination. Something the judgement made clear.

I think we have established that Juebrads hasn't read the judgement in the same way that she previously didn't read anything about her state pension.

caveman38

JoeCrystal wrote: »

It is so unfair that my state pension age is 68, 35 years down the line... I am not sure I got enough notice of the pension age change. Life is unfair after all!

You needn't worry about your SP. By the time you reach 68 the SPA would have risen to 70+ and I'm sure there'll be 80M people living in the UK. Of these 20M will be pensioners and there will only be 20M paying NI because of lack of employment.
Probably SP will be means tested and if you draw a company pension, will not qualify for a SP.

JoeCrystal

caveman38 wrote: »

You needn't worry about your SP. By the time you reach 68, the SPA would have risen to 70+, and I'm sure there'll be 80M people living in the UK. Of these 20M will be pensioners and there will only be 20M paying NI because of lack of employment.
Probably SP will be means-tested and if you draw a company pension, will not qualify for a SP.

:eek: I believe that they mean-test their version of the state pension in Australia which can go to zero if you got enough income or assets. I would be expecting some version of the state pension, and indeed, I agreed with your assumption that it would be higher than 68.

All this means that the people of my generation would need to put much more thoughts into their retirement provision. I hope so; otherwise, the prospect of a comfortable retirement income is pretty bleak! In my case, I am genuinely planning to find a job with a DB pension scheme should I lose my current job (while it is still available!).

woolly_wombat

Juebrads wrote: »

women go from having children to care for to grandchildren to care for these days and add into that pot - elderly parents, theirs and their husbands, and my friend is looking after her ‘ex mother in law’, from a past relationship with her ex husband and still assumes that responsibility.

Grossly undervalued by the state and, sadly, by many on these boards.

SonOf

IF equality was the reason then equality for woman should have been implemented before raising it, and women would not be forced out of their jobs because they are pregnant in todays world. As I have said it is unequal. An unequal society will never function well.

The european court ruled that the British state pension system was discriminatory and ordered it to be the same for men and women.

The UK Government implemented it by raising it 15 years later on a phased basis.

Women are not forced out of their jobs because they are pregnant in "todays world". One upon a time yes but not today.

You are correct than an unequal society will never function well. This is why it is strange why WASPI women want discrimination.

it was done because women are not equal and they are an easy target,

Make your mind up. You either want equality or you dont.

and as much was said in the meeting recorded by the minister implementing the final alterations of the retirement age hitting those women 53-54 years of age.

If you were not happy about that in the consultations leading up to the changes in 1995, then why did you not raise it with your MP?

An easy target and what a great way of raising money to bail out the banks.

What do changes in 1995 have to do with the banks receiving money in 2008/9?

RD42

Juebrads wrote: »

It is proving that you are being discriminated against that is the issue. It is also known male graduates today earn more than female graduates. Women out perform men in universities, so this shows today women are still not being recognised as being equal to men.
Why are the female graduates not complaining, well why would they, what would be the point in this patriarchal society of ours?

Perhaps on average men choose to study degrees that lead to careers that pay more.?

fred246

It doesn't make sense though. They all say that the pension age should be equalised and then say just not for them. They don't argue that it should be different because of a whole host of factors.

ArcticRoll

woolly_wombat wrote: »

Grossly undervalued by the state and, sadly, by many on these boards.

Nobody undervalues that, they just don't value it any more or less than (if we're going down the stereotype route) men who broke their backs on the construction site or down the mines or on the oil rig who should be told he has to work 5 years longer despite doing physically more demanding work.

The removal of preferential treatment is not discrimination. Never has been, never will be.

Your argument is "I should retire early because I'm a a woman", it makes no more sense than "I should pay less tax because I'm gay" and then we go on citing historical social and economic disadvantages we've each had to justify our points. It'd still be utterly ridiculous.

People who don't think women should retire earlier are no more anti-women than you are anti-gay for thinking that I shouldn't pay lower taxes because of my sexuality.

This has NEVER been about equality it's been about a sore reaction to one group of people losing a privilege. Men do more physically demanding jobs, make up the overwhelming majority of work-place deaths and injuries and die younger - the argument that women should retire early "because they're women" looks utterly absurd in 2019.

colsten

SonOf wrote: »

The european court ruled that the British state pension system was discriminatory and ordered it to be the same for men and women.

I agree with the rest of your post but this court ruling has me stumped. Which european court was that, please? When was that ruling? Can you post a link to the ruling, please?