Should 1950s WASPI women be compensated?

Pollycat

caveman38 wrote: »

And add to that -
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/dec/02/weve-been-robbed-women-pension-age-vote


Most of these people don't look like dopes, do they?

Yes, this is what initiated this thread.
From your link:

Gill Wareing works as a civil servant and says she voted Conservative for many years but now feels very let down by them. She has had to sell her house and is now living in a caravan because of the pensions debacle. “Before Boris became prime minister he stated that he would do what he could to help us,” she said. “Now he says there is no money for us.”

I'd be very interested to hear under what circumstances Gill Wareing had to sell her house and live in a caravan as a result of the change in women's state pension age.

There seems to be a lot of these women claiming all sorts of things but I've not seen any evidence.

Although Corbyn's 'promise' seems to be drawing voters towards Labour, it seems that some previously staunch Labour voters have enough common sense to see the writing on the wall:

There are, however, lifelong Labour voters who will be abandoning Labour at the polls despite their offer. Julie Davenport was a Labour member but says she will vote Conservative for the first time at the election.
“Labour will borrow the money and my son and his children will pay for it. We’ve already ruined the planet and left them a massive debt to inherit. And since Momentum joined Labour, I find it a hostile party for moderates.”

Labour’s pension offer will not persuade Davenport back to the party either because, she said. “The women who most need this money, who have to use food banks and can’t afford housing, heating and so on, will not see any of their compensation because the money given will be taken off of their benefits.”

Ms Davenport appears to have more sense than the WASPI women.

caveman38

Pollycat wrote: »

Yes, this is what initiated this thread.
From your link:

I'd be very interested to hear under what circumstances Gill Wareing had to sell her house and live in a caravan as a result of the change in women's state pension age.

There seems to be a lot of these women claiming all sorts of things but I've not seen any evidence.

Although Corbyn's 'promise' seems to be drawing voters towards Labour, it seems that some previously staunch Labour voters have enough common sense to see the writing on the wall:

Ms Davenport appears to have more sense than the WASPI women.

I can't help but responding to your post, because you and others on this thread will not accept that there are people perhaps not as intelligent are yourselves. They may genuinely have not been informed or gleaned information from the media. My wife was aware of it and as stated in earlier posts made herself prepare for the new rules and with both changes has will have worked 6 additional years. I also said that we are conservative voters and will continue that way in spite of the sweetener Labour are offering. But again as I said earlier if she decided along with the others (in the Guardian story) to change her allegiance, then I wouldn't blame her.
You guys are forever suggesting these people are liars when maybe they were genuinely expecting to pick up their SP aqt 60.
How would YOU know that Gill Wareing doesn't live in a caravan because of hardships bought on by the change in SPA. Do you know her? Perhaps the Guardian reporter visited her in her caravan.

LHW99

You guys are forever suggesting these people are liars when maybe they were genuinely expecting to pick up their SP aqt 60.

It is easy to "genuinely expect", but Governments change rules. When we bought our first property we "genuinely expected" that the mortgage interest at source would continue. A number of years down the line it was abolished. Landlords no doubt "genuinely expected" to be able to have their mortgage interest tax deductible - it soon won't be. Why shouldn't their "genuine expectations" be met? Many of them may have decided on BTl to fund their retirement and don't run it as a multi-property business. Why should any woman not in need get compensation for a rule change when these other cases do not? For those that are in need, the same options are available as for those under 60 - continue to work, or if unable to find a job, or unfit for work, apply for benefits.

caveman38

LHW99 wrote: »

It is easy to "genuinely expect", but Governments change rules. When we bought our first property we "genuinely expected" that the mortgage interest at source would continue. A number of years down the line it was abolished. Landlords no doubt "genuinely expected" to be able to have their mortgage interest tax deductible - it soon won't be. Why shouldn't their "genuine expectations" be met? Many of them may have decided on BTl to fund their retirement and don't run it as a multi-property business. Why should any woman not in need get compensation for a rule change when these other cases do not? For those that are in need, the same options are available as for those under 60 - continue to work, or if unable to find a job, or unfit for work, apply for benefits.

What a poor comparison. BTLers and Landlords are hardly in need are they. They're expectations may be less now than for the last 10 years or so.
Again you suggest the 3 women in the article are lying, when they have stated that they are finding it hard to get by financially for the additional 6 years. You don't know their circumstances as to whether they quit their jobs before they realised that SP was not going to come the following day. Perhaps they are unable to find work or are unable to work but fall short of the necessary points for benefits.
You can't just assume, but you must believe

Pollycat

minty777 wrote: »

1950's woman should be given a 50k golden handshake and 2k a year holiday vouchers plus free gas and leccy.No council tax to pay,free car and petrol.

I think you've been peeking at Labour's next set of 'promises'.

Pollycat

caveman38 wrote: »

I can't help but responding to your post, because you and others on this thread will not accept that there are people perhaps not as intelligent are yourselves. They may genuinely have not been informed or gleaned information from the media. My wife was aware of it and as stated in earlier posts made herself prepare for the new rules and with both changes has will have worked 6 additional years. I also said that we are conservative voters and will continue that way in spite of the sweetener Labour are offering. But again as I said earlier if she decided along with the others (in the Guardian story) to change her allegiance, then I wouldn't blame her.
You guys are forever suggesting these people are liars when maybe they were genuinely expecting to pick up their SP aqt 60.
How would YOU know that Gill Wareing doesn't live in a caravan because of hardships bought on by the change in SPA. Do you know her? Perhaps the Guardian reporter visited her in her caravan.

If you've read my posts on this and the many other threads on this subject you would know that I do accept that there are probably some women who were genuinely unaware of the changes.
You would know that I do accept that there are women who are in genuine financial hardship because of these changes.
You would know that I support financial help for these women.
What I don't automatically accept is that every woman who trots out a sob story to the media is telling the truth.
I've said numerous times that I know for certain that some of the claims made by women are untrue based on what my original (post 1995) and revised (post 2011) state pension dates were.
Therefore, I'm not so stupid as to accept what every woman says as the truth.

Which party anybody - not just WASPI women - vote for is entirely up to them.
I was merely pointing out what one part of the media said about Labour gaining some WASPI votes but also alienating some long-term Labour voters.
It's called 'swings and roundabouts'.

And do you know that Gill Wareing does live in a caravan?
That's why I said I'd be interested in the circumstances.
The report said she's a civil servant. Present tense.
Am I not allowed to be curious?
Do you think we all have to believe everything that we read/hear in the media without question?

LHW99

Again you suggest the 3 women in the article are lying, when they have stated that they are finding it hard to get by financially for the additional 6 years.

I did not suggest in my post that anyone was lying, and as far as I know have not said that in any post on the subject.
My comments were in relation to your use of the phrase "genuinely expects" and I put forward my opinion that it is easy for anyone (whether rich or poor) to do that, but that it is unjustified to do so in relation to rules that the Government can change at any time.
I don't foubt there are women in the group who have / are struggling, IMO there are things they can do, to mitigate the problem, some of which could perhaps be made easier to access for that group. Equally there are many who, whether actually not notified or who just did not pick up on it, are quite well enough off to cope - and some at least of those who put themselves at the forefront of the campaign IMO (again) fall into this category (and are therefore quite comparable to BTLers and private citizens who once were beneficiaries of MIRAS)

Pollycat

caveman38
Why did you delete your post with the imagined scenario about one of the women referred to in the Guardian article?
The one where you suggested she may be a 'post office part time worker'.

And had my post removed where I responded to that post and refuted your suggestion that a 'post office part time worker' would be referred to as a civil servant?

Here's why I don't believe everything that WASPI women are saying to the media:

colsten wrote: »

Here is another one for you: a well-known WASPI was on a BBC Regional Radio programme last week, commenting on the JR outcome. At one stage, she said she had lost her financial independence as a result of the SPA increases.

The same WASPI had inherited £250K from her father in 2008, when she was 52. Leaving aside that she now lives in a well-appointed 6-bedroom house with gardens open to the public for a few weeks in the summer and with a husband who had an Executive position in the industry, if she is now financially dependent, that appears to be of her own making rather than as a result of the SPA increases.

Many people can only dream of ever having £250K, let alone 14 years before reaching their state pension age. That's almost £18,000 a year, every year to her SPA, nearly as much as the average net annual UK salary, and more than many families have to get by on. Not to forget that, at 52, she was still in the prime of her working life. But let's assume she didn't have any income from work: £18,000 net a year is a nice sum to have, for anyone. If SP, at max £8,770 a year, would - according to what she said on radio - provide her with financial independence, then surely twice that amount would do the same? Even in the unlikely event that she had had massive debts at the time of her inheritance and had had to use half of it to pay off her debts, she'd still be left with more than the SP amount until her SP kicks in.

But taking it further and let's assume she has spent the entire £250K and is now without any income: it is not the rise of the SPA that took away her financial independence, but her own spending. Aged 64 now, she'd then still have the same option a man her age has for income: #GetAJob.

And my friend was telling everyone she'd be nearly 66 when she got her pension but the reality is - because I know her date of birth - she reached state pension age at 65 years, 6 months and some days.

So that's why I don't automatically assume that what every WASPI women is saying is the truth.

colsten

JoeCrystal wrote: »

To be fair, the money will be recouped via income taxes anyway so anyone who find herself with £30k payout would have to pay the higher rate tax.;

Please show me which of the women will pay 100% income tax.

Also worth noting: the plan is to pay the bribe over 5 years, not in a single lump sum. Thus even those who'd bag the top amount (£31,400, I believe) would not have more than £6,280 added each year, and many will stay well within the BR tax bracket.

colsten

JoeCrystal wrote: »

You guys are forever suggesting these people are liars when maybe they were genuinely expecting to pick up their SP aqt 60.

I freely admit that I have, many times, thought of WASPIs as liars. That is not to say all of them are. Many of their tear-jerkers are, however, lies. There are countless examples of women claiming they are hard up but they never mention things like the villa in Cyprus or Portugal or the quarter of a million inheritance or the farm house they bought for £750k or their final salary pension or their husband's final salary pension or the far-away holiday they have just returned from.

Then there are the ones suffering from amnesia, to put it mildly. Countless ones get caught up in a web of lies over when they found out about the SPA increase. Perhaps the starkest example of that is the claimant who told a court that she didn't know about her SPA increase but then also provided the court with not just 1, but 2 letters which mentioned her SPA. Suffice to say, her claim was unsuccessful.

I make no apologies for being sceptical now about anything and everything they say, and I do not accept they are making innocent mistakes.

I also don't accept that someone should get compensation because they were negligent with getting information about their own retirement income. It's plain absurd to suggest anyone had planned to live off an unknown amount from age 60. If they had asked how much they would get, they would also have been given the date from which they can get the money (on their state pension forecast).