Should 1950s WASPI women be compensated?

colsten

badmemory wrote: »

I think the next campaign should be to give pensioners on the old basic state pension a rise to make it equal to the new state pension. Yes tongue in cheek I admit. But if the gov really want to chuck money away why not give it to someone who receives less than the new state pension & stop them having to (& possibly through embarrassment not) claim additional benefits. After all nobody warned me that they were going to increase the state pension - even though they did give it a new name!

I can't actually say what I think this would be called - suffice to say it's something very much stronger than tongue in cheek

You got a very valid point, though: there are in the region of 2m existing pensioners who are considered to be living in poverty. More should be done to help them. For starters, they should be made aware of Pension Credit if they don't claim it already, and also be told that claiming benefits is what each and every state pensioner does and it's no shame to claim something you are entitled to.

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.

Just coming back to the point made in this ^^^^ post about not believing people:
On a different WASPI thread, these 2 posts show exactly why "us guys are forever suggesting these people are liars when maybe they were genuinely expecting to pick up their SP aqt 60"

drumtochty wrote: »

The good lady had three other ladies round last week all of them including the good lady hit by the legislation.

They were all complaining about it and said they had not been told about it at the time. I told them that there was pleny information about at the time and they all agreed that they knew about it those years ago.

I then said to them "if you were asked by someone if you knew about the legislation after agreeing with me that you knew about the legislation would you advise them that you knew about the legislation now".

Each one of them said "no we would still say that we did not know about the legislation change at the time".

Silvertabby wrote: »

Am ex LGPS colleague assured me that she hadn't known - when I darn well knew that she knew nearly 20 years ago because we were already factoring in the changes in our LGPS calculations ! Then she admitted that when she had joined WASPE, she had been told to say that she didn't know in order to get her £30K cheque.

I think we can all say these women were/are liars.

Shame on them and others like them.
They debase the case of those women who really were unaware and really are in dire financial straits.

nigelbb

Triumph13 wrote: »

What a wonderfully disingenuous comment. We could indeed have equalised everyone to 60 rather than 65 by the simple expedient of everyone, including the low paid, paying an extra £1,000 a year of tax. But of course the low paid can't afford it so you have to tax everyone else more.
In the last census there were 3.38M people aged 60 to 64. Full state pension for all of them would cost £29 Billion a year or more than 4p on the basic rate of tax. And that's before you add in the decrease in tax and NI they would pay by retiring earlier and the wider knock on impacts on the economy. 60 was completely unaffordable and 65 rapidly became so.

It's just a demonstration that pensions need to be paid for but the actual cost is spread over 40 odd years so even quite large pensions are affordable or conversely can be taken early. This forum is full of people boasting about retiring in their forties or fifties because they have been prudent & stuffed their personal pension pot as much as possible. It's just the same principle.

For someone on average salary 4p on income tax would be about £660 per year or just £12.70 per week. Even 6p on income tax would be under £1000 per year or less than £20 per week. So the cost is eminently affordable & who wouldn't be prepared to pay a small amount extra each week for a guaranteed early retirement?

nigelbb

Pollycat wrote: »

Is this really a genuine suggestion?
Because if it is, I wouldn't be as kind about it as this poster:

Anything to give WASPI women their 'dues'. (Shakes head in disbelief)

I already demonstrated in my other post that retirement at 60 is possible & affordable if there is the political will & if adequate planning is done over the long term (40+ years) by increasing NI contributions by a modest amount. Under my proposal the take home salary for someone on average pay would decrease from around £450 per week to £430 per week.

custardy

nigelbb wrote: »

I already demonstrated in my other post that retirement at 60 is possible & affordable if there is the political will & if adequate planning is done over the long term (40+ years) by increasing NI contributions by a modest amount. Under my proposal the take home salary for someone on average pay would decrease from around £450 per week to £430 per week.

40 years from when?
Who is paying for those retiring at 60 or are those implementing the process working for those 40 years from now?

nigelbb

custardy wrote: »

40 years from when?
Who is paying for those retiring at 60 or are those implementing the process working for those 40 years from now?

My point was that instead of raising the state pension age the alternative was to raise NI contributions by a very modest amount. As always those retiring now have their pensions paid by those in work who in turn will have their pensions paid by those in work when they retire.

It doesn't help the women currently in their sixties who have lost out but is what should have been done back in the 1970s to avoid the problem & benefit men by allowing them to retire at 60 too.

colsten

nigelbb wrote: »

I already demonstrated in my other post that retirement at 60 is possible & affordable if there is the political will & if adequate planning is done over the long term (40+ years) by increasing NI contributions by a modest amount. Under my proposal the take home salary for someone on average pay would decrease from around £450 per week to £430 per week.

You will find that the Government Actuary Department entirely disagrees with you - i.e. you couldn't be more wrong. NI does not just need increasing by a "modest" amount, but by at least 5%, to support the current SPA legislation (i.e. the one where people's SPA goes up to 68 by the 2040s). Please read the GAD Quinquennial Review.

Seabee42

As always the people retiring now would not have to pay? Seriously that's okay pass on the debt....

nigelbb

colsten wrote: »

You will find that the Government Actuary Department entirely disagrees with you - i.e. you couldn't be more wrong. NI does not just need increasing by a "modest" amount, but by at least 5%, to support the current SPA legislation (i.e. the one where people's SPA goes up to 68 by the 2040s). Please read the GAD Quinquennial Review.

NI is currently 12%. My proposal would increase NI &/or income tax by 6p equivalent to raising NI to 18% ie an increase of 50%. For someone on an average salary that's around £20 per week.

LHW99

For many people retiring at 60 may be possible, for the country paying the SP at 60 is not.