Back to 60's Judicial Review Outcome

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Do not forget Mark Carney's word. "Britain is reliant on the “kindness of strangers” to finance its current account deficit". Printing money is simply a form of theft. If that's the Labour plan.

Mark Carney also said c "Depreciation doesn't work..there may be different consequences but, essentially, it is how a country makes itself poorer."

The Brexit-ideologists in the Conservative Party have certainly succeeded in making us poorer, and they see plenty more damage that they can do if they get a mandate next month.

SnowMan

ZingPowZing wrote: »

We have to keep the £58 billion figure in perspective:

I'm no legal expert but it is hard to see how this won't infringe the Equality Act 2010.

And therefore every equivalent man born in the 1950s can complain they are being discriminated against.

Discrimination is allowed under the Equality Act if it is objectively justified. But I doubt they can argue this here. Once the original discrimination has been legislatively removed in 1995 (albeit it took affect some time after this) they can't just retrospectively reintroduce direct discrimination almost 25 years later for a group of women, and then claim it is objectively justified.

And let's remember the legal review showed that there was significant notification about the changes and there were good reasons individual notification was not possible, and one of the claimants while notified of the changes 'forgot' that she had been notified.

So to get to the point the real cost is presumably 2 x 58 = £116 billion, and all those not born in the 1950s are going to be paying for that.

I'm not a lawyer but would be interested in whether any legal experts think this proposal infringes the Equality Act.

ffacoffipawb

SnowMan wrote: »

I'm no legal expert but it is hard to see how this won't infringe the Equality Act 2010.

And therefore every equivalent man born in the 1950s can complain they are being discriminated against.

Discrimination is allowed under the Equality Act if it is objectively justified. But I doubt they can argue this here. Once the original discrimination has been legislatively removed in 1995 (albeit it took affect some time after this) they can't just retrospectively reintroduce direct discrimination almost 25 years later for a group of women, and then claim it is objectively justified.

And let's remember the legal review showed that there was significant notification about the changes and there were good reasons individual notification was not possible, and one of the claimants while notified of the changes 'forgot' that she had been notified.

So to get to the point the real cost is presumably 2 x 58 = £116 billion, and all those not born in the 1950s are going to be paying for that.

I'm not a lawyer but would be interested in whether any legal experts think this proposal infringes the Equality Act.

The last throw of a desperate dice by a bunch of economically and legally illiterate marxists.

Anyone voting for Corbyn is obviously suffering from Stockholm Syndrome.

jem16

zagfles wrote: »

The govt won the court case, I'm sure you meant that?

Oops - that's what I meant. It kind of got mixed up!

I'll edit it.

Thrugelmir

ffacoffipawb wrote: »

The last throw of a desperate dice by a bunch of economically and legally illiterate marxists.

Dropped Right to Buy soon enough. Once the obvious flaws were exposed. Appears to be policy making on the hoof.

[Deleted User]

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Dropped Right to Buy soon enough. Once the obvious flaws were exposed. Appears to be policy making on the hoof.

Be kind. Very tough to develop policies within mere 2 years, particularly given that anyone with the brains has already walked out

badmemory

Silvertabby wrote: »

The re-equalisation of State pension ages was long overdue.

Just to make it clear I am female. I agree with this wholeheartedly. I am sick of so called 50s women going on about this. They have had 25 years to find out & it was much talked about back in the early to mid 90s. I bet they would scream very loudly if they get this (hopefully never going to happen) & then all the men who didn't get their pension until they were 65 started on an equality campaign & remember some of them will be over a 100 now! That would be several million men wanting 5 years worth of pension paid back & lets not even think about the executors of wills who will want several K each paid into the estate for distribution.


I agree that some women will need some extra help, but that is what it should be, extra help not state pension terms being changed again unless for everyone (everyone means male & female though).

MK62

ZingPowZing wrote: »

Worth remembering that the vote to leave the EU caused the biggest one-day currency fall since fixed-rates.
Not the worst day for £, the worst day for any major currency in forty years.

You'd need to qualify that statement with what you mean by "major currency"........the Euro fell far more than that in one day back in Jan 2015, against the Swiss Franc.......in fact so did GBP......but that doesn't make the headline you want.....

zagfles

badmemory wrote: »

Just to make it clear I am female. I agree with this wholeheartedly. I am sick of so called 50s women going on about this. They have had 25 years to find out & it was much talked about back in the early to mid 90s. I bet they would scream very loudly if they get this (hopefully never going to happen) & then all the men who didn't get their pension until they were 65 started on an equality campaign & remember some of them will be over a 100 now! That would be several million men wanting 5 years worth of pension paid back & lets not even think about the executors of wills who will want several K each paid into the estate for distribution.

I agree that some women will need some extra help, but that is what it should be, extra help not state pension terms being changed again unless for everyone (everyone means male & female though).

As I've just said in another thread, interesting that this massive pre-election bribe doesn't even make the front page of the Mirror. I think they've realised it's backfired.

RD42

Thinking of how this could be funded... I would assume that Labour would want to pay for it over the five years out of taxation. It would not be considered 'fair' to tax those one low income, so only the top 10% of earners could be targeted, those earning over £35K. There are about 4.21 Million such earners, so the calculation is easy:

£58,000,000,000 / 5 years = £11,600,000,000 per year

£11,600,000,000 / 4,210,000 Tax payers = £2,755 / Year

So a mere £2,755 per year extra tax for the top 10% of earners for the next five years will sort this out . Roughly a 25% increase in the amount of tax they already pay.