MSE Poll: Should 1950s WASPI women be compensated?

Murphybear

DezMiller wrote: »

If women and men were paid their state pensions starting at the same age, women would still benefit, on average, for an extra four years longer. If anything they should wait four years more than men for true equality, not bleating on about losing years a few years less than men's pension entitlement age. Another group that demands equality but only when it's in their favour!

Here’s a thought. When you claim a works pension you can get a bigger payout if you have life limiting health issues. I claimed a small pension and got extra for diabetes even though it was well managed. They gave me extra £6 a year. :rotfl:

Maybe they should do that for state pensions. That will stop the complaints from a lot of people whose parents/partners only got a state pension for a low number of years. (Only semi serious).

Murphybear

Here’s another thought

From what I have gathered reading up on this subject there are a few issues which haven’t been mentioned on here but have come to light.

A lot of people think the 50s group would get a lump sum of £15k - £30k. This does not seem to be the case.

The plan is to spread it over 5 years so that will £3k - £6k pa for 5 years. Now here’s the rub (good old Shakespeare). This money will not be treated as compensation, it will be treated as income.

This means that most of the women who claim Pension Credit will lose it as they will be over the threshold. They will also lose automatic entitlement to housing benefit and full council tax benefit (sorry it’s changed it’s name, can’t remember the new one) and will be means tested. An additional £6k pa will mean they won’t get anything.

The pensioners whose incomes are just below the income tax threshold (like me ) will start paying it.

Please don’t think I am saying pensioners shouldn’t pay taxes at all, I am not. We should all contribute to the running costs of the country. What I am saying is the Corbyn government will be giving with one hand and taking with the other.

It’s like Robin Hood giving some poor villagers some silver pieces then his Merry Men taking them away before they are spent.

It won’t cost the government as much as they think as they will get so much back

Rant nearly over.

I think the money should go to the NHS instead.

badmemory

It will benefit, as usual, those people who do not really need it. The champagne swilling first class travelling few. Everyone else will, as stated above, will lose any benefits they had & then have to go through the stress of having to apply again when the money runs out!

jamesd

Murphybear wrote: »

Here’s another thought

Another one to ponder: how will the higher payments to women whose state pension age was shifted from before 2016 (a woman born before 6 April 1953) to after (woman born later) be clawed back?

Take a woman with 35 years of credits and no work history. Reaching state pension age up to 5 April 2016 she'd get a full basic state pension of £129.20 a week, £6,718 a year. After and she'd get the single tier pension of £168.60, £8,767.20. £2,048.80 a year more. Putting her back into the position she would have been in before say a one year delay would involve paying her a lump sum pf £6,718 and cutting her state pension by £2,048.80 a year for the rest of her life.

Want her to get what she expected in 1995? Back then women got 1/39th and men 1/44th of the basic state pension for each credited year. So she'd get 35/39 of £129.20 = £115.94 a week, £6,028.88 a year.

£6,028.88 increased to £6,718 then to £8,767.20 but a year later due to the changes since 1995 is more like quids in than losing out. And with no need to ever have been in paid employment to get it.

NoodleDoodleMan

Apologies if I've missed this point in the ongoing debate.

What about bachelors (born in the appropriate age band) who had to wait until thy were 65 to receive the state pension, while spinsters born in the same period got it five years earlier ?

That is clearly discrimination IMO.

The whole thing is a complete mess of course.

Maybe 62.5 years (again for appropriate age group) for both genders would have been the fairest way to go in the 1995 decision.

Many women would have lost out of course, and lots of men would have gained, some retospectively - I suspect there is a flaw in that idea ?

jem16

NoodleDoodleMan wrote: »

Maybe 62.5 years (again for appropriate age group) for both genders would have been the fairest way to go in the 1995 decision.

Many women would have lost out of course, and lots of men would have gained, some retospectively - I suspect there is a flaw in that idea ?

Yes cost was the flaw. Age 63 for both was considered and rejected back in the 90s on the grounds of rising Life Expectancy.

Pollycat

NoodleDoodleMan wrote: »

Apologies if I've missed this point in the ongoing debate.

What about bachelors (born in the appropriate age band) who had to wait until thy were 65 to receive the state pension, while spinsters born in the same period got it five years earlier ?

That is clearly discrimination IMO.

The whole thing is a complete mess of course.

Maybe 62.5 years (again for appropriate age group) for both genders would have been the fairest way to go in the 1995 decision.

Many women would have lost out of course, and lots of men would have gained, some retospectively - I suspect there is a flaw in that idea ?

Yes, that point has been made many times on the numerous WASPI threads over the last 3 or so years.

NoodleDoodleMan

Yes cost was the flaw.

Cost always was, and is, the critical issue - but "splitting the difference" might well have been more acceptable to the losers.

Fortunately (for us) my wife qualified at age 60 by a few months, and myelf at 65.