Should 1950s WASPI women be compensated?

Pollycat

colsten wrote: »

Norma Cohen, a 1950s woman, on what she thinks of the Labour proposal. https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/economics-and-finance/labour-pledge-waspi-women-unaffordable-giveaway-state-pension-age-election-manifesto

EDIT: Here is what qualifies her to speak with some authority: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/norma-cohen-89690956

Well, yes.
But that doesn't take into account that I'm a first class travelling, champagne swilling WASPI woman and I want my pension (compensation) and I want it now.
And if I don't get it, I will scrweam and scrweam until I'm sick. :cool:

Malthusian

Ganga wrote: »

There was a program on the tv i saw that was trying to get people back into work and one person complained that " They would lose their benifits if they took a job!!" whilst i agree that the benifit system is there to help people who really need it but like all things it will always be open to abuse.

Declining to pay 90% income tax is not abusing the system. If your marginal tax rate is 90% the system is abusing you.

If a doctor earning £100k declines to take an extra shift, because he'll pay £76 in tax for every £100 he earns, is he abusing the system?

kangoora

Personally I think all the WASPI women are either liars or idiots. Neither of which statuses convinces me they should get what they are asking for.

Notepad_Phil

I've now heard both Corbyn and McDonnell say in reply to an interviewer about the cost of this "bribe"/"historic righting of a wrong"*, that if the government had lost the legal challenge then the cost would have had to be paid anyway.

I really wish at least one of the interviewers had simply replied "the government didn't lose the challenge". Ah well I live in hope.

*Take your pick depending on your point of view.

fred246

I think it demonstrates how politics works in our country. Labour get in and throw public money around like there is an unlimited supply. When the country is bankrupt the Tories take over and they give us austerity. When fed up of austerity people vote labour and the cycle continues. Labour would be more successful if they demonstrated that they could be trusted with public finances.

colsten

Notepad_Phil wrote: »

I've now heard both Corbyn and McDonnell say in reply to an interviewer about the cost of this "bribe"/"historic righting of a wrong"*, that if the government had lost the legal challenge then the cost would have had to be paid anyway.

I really wish at least one of the interviewers had simply replied "the government didn't lose the challenge". Ah well I live in hope.

*Take your pick depending on your point of view.

There's an outside chance the campaigns will still win this, as I believe they have applied for an appeal. The first application was turned down, so they have now applied to the Court of Appeal. As and if they get permission, they'd then have a tiny wee chance that the original judgment would be overturned. That would not, however, mean that the court would rule that they must be paid £x, or "full restitution", as they like to say. No court can overrule the law - - the role of courts is to ensure that laws are adhered to. No court can make new laws. Therefore, the best they could hope to get is that the court finds that state pension legislation somehow violates some other legislation, and that therefore Parliament should review the laws. In the unlikely case that the appeal would find in favour of the women, Parliament would then have to debate a new law(s), and it's by no means certain that the new law(s) would be splashing out billions on all 1950s women.

hugheskevi

I really wish at least one of the interviewers had simply replied "the government didn't lose the challenge". Ah well I live in hope.

In the interviews I have seen there has been no real detail given about the changes, and in particular that they were legislated for in 1995.

I'd also like a question about it being presumably a Labour government failure if there was inadequate publicity, given the changes were legislated for in 1995 to commence from 2010...and Labour held office between 1997-2010, the vast majority of the period prior to the changes taking effect.

Labour would be more successful if they demonstrated that they could be trusted with public finances.

It is worth remembering that when Blair came to power in 1997 it was with a commitment to stick within planned (Conservative) expenditure for two years.

colsten

hugheskevi wrote: »

Labour held office between 1997-2010, the vast majority of the period prior to the changes taking effect.

Labour also legislated in 2007 to further raise SPA from 65 to 68. They can hardly say they didn't know about the equalisation.

The excuse you get from Corbynistas is that "this was New Labour". Yet both, Mr. Corbyn and Mr. McDonnell were Labour MPs when that 2007 law was passed, as were a whole host of other MPs who now seem to suffer from total amnesia.

GunJack

Malthusian wrote: »

Declining to pay 90% income tax is not abusing the system. If your marginal tax rate is 90% the system is abusing you.

If a doctor earning £100k declines to take an extra shift, because he'll pay £76 in tax for every £100 he earns, is he abusing the system?

Actually there's a world of difference.....

If the marginal tax rate is 90% because you now start EARNING your money and lose the majority of the Benefits, that's right and proper, and should be enforced far more rigorously than it is.....
..or are you saying the Benefits level is way too high in the first place? However, whatever the Benefits level, earning your dosh is always superior.


The doc not wanting an EXTRA shift has already done his hours and paid his tax/NI, then turning down extra in that situation is definitely NOT abusing the system, unless you're saying that compulsory overtime is in the doc's contract of employment??

Paul_Herring

GunJack wrote: »

If the marginal tax rate is 90% because you now start EARNING your money and lose the majority of the Benefits, that's right and proper, and should be enforced far more rigorously than it is.....
..or are you saying the Benefits level is way too high in the first place? However, whatever the Benefits level, earning your dosh is always superior.

Benefits are supposed to be a safety net of last resort, not a alternative way of life worth choosing.