Should 1950s WASPI women be compensated?

nigelbb

Seabee42 wrote: »

Time machines don't seem like a good solution to the problem.

The problem is of the government's making. They are the ones who are supposed to take the long term view. Presumably it was the reluctance to in effect increase taxes that was the barrier. Surveys show that the majority of people are happy to pay extra NI contributions if that funding goes towards the NHS which proves that the majority of people don't understand how the NHS is funded but does indicate that if NI contributions were clearly earmarked to pay future pensions that there could be broad consensus.

It's might be too late to roll back the state pension age to 60 now but it could be planned for 40 years time for it to be progressively moved back to 65 or 63 as contributions allow. The state pension isn't great compared to many other EU countries so it could be that an earlier SPA would allow phased retirement with people reducing their hours towards the end of their working life.

nigelbb

LHW99 wrote: »

1) This thread is about those who have already reached / passed 60 - no time for them to make additional contributions, so why are any of that cohort entitled to increased payment

I wasn't proposing a solution to the issue of women in their 60s losing out on pension I was showing what simple measures could have been taken to avoid the problem in the first place.

LHW99 wrote: »

1)2) At age 60, a person would have worked for probably an average of 40 years. Given the current SP arrangements, and autoenrollment, we are told that in April total contribution levels will be 8% but still not adequate to give a good lifestyle. Many people find even that level difficult, adding to NI as well would likely reduce private provision which IMO is the wrong way to go..

Personally I don't see why compulsory state pension contributions shouldn't pay for the majority of income in retirement. That's what happens in other EU countries & is why UK state pensions are so far behind. It was OK to have a low state pension when generous final salary schemes were normal but now that companies choose not to fund their employees retirement the state needs to step in.

LHW99 wrote: »

1)3) Those on this forum are not typical, and many have saved considerable proportions of their salaries to enable very early retirement. The majority in the country can only dream of that.

That's why it needs to be compulsory for sufficient deductions to be made to fund a comfortable retirement.

Seabee42

nigelbb wrote: »

The problem is of the government's making. They are the ones who are supposed to take the long term view. Presumably it was the reluctance to in effect increase taxes that was the barrier. Surveys show that the majority of people are happy to pay extra NI contributions if that funding goes towards the NHS which proves that the majority of people don't understand how the NHS is funded but does indicate that if NI contributions were clearly earmarked to pay future pensions that there could be broad consensus.

It's might be too late to roll back the state pension age to 60 now but it could be planned for 40 years time for it to be progressively moved back to 65 or 63 as contributions allow. The state pension isn't great compared to many other EU countries so it could be that an earlier SPA would allow phased retirement with people reducing their hours towards the end of their working life.

Government will always have many calls on taxation and will often invest for the future (see PFI contracts for how well that can work). A lot of people do not pay NI so surprisingly as always let it go up so other people pay for what I want this includes the massive number of pensioners.

fred246

I have spent a lot of time reading WASPI stories and the impression that I get is just that people want to retire at 60. Some of them have medical problems (or their husbands have) which are obvioulsy more common in your 60s. I read them and wonder whether the government have got a problem selling the idea of 'you live longer so retire later'.

Seabee42

Some of this is because someone else did I should be able to. The old rules in the civil service of doing long service and getting undiscounted pension from age 50 and so on. The cost is enormous and continuing it was stupid. There is a massive discrepancy between civil service pensions and the private sector provision this will cause resentment amongst some when they cannot afford to retire.


Although people do live longer they do not recognise it, i.e. 75 is not old and yet 40 years ago it very much was. If you get your pension for twice as long you get twice as much (okay its not that simple but you get the point) who pays?


Governments have always had choice with state pension, it is not generous as it is so reducing it pay it for longer seems like a non starter that will just mean more people get a benefit top up. Increasing the taxation on the next generation to pay for people to retire earlier than them again seems unfair (except to the beneficiaries of course like WASPI). Do you cut the spending on the NHS to pay for the extra pension knowing that will prevent people living longer?


There are no easy fixes.

fred246

Malthusian wrote: »

view the question from the unemployed cigarette-smoker's point of view.

I want to be healthy and live a long time. I don't want to smell, have horrible skin, strokes, heart attacks, COPD, diabetes, impotence, blindness, deafness, cancer, gangrene, amputations, dementia and die early even if I was unemployed. Maybe they're aiming to turn their unemployment benefits into disability benefits.

Paul_Herring

I don't want to smell, have horrible skin, strokes, heart attacks, COPD, diabetes, impotence, blindness, deafness, cancer, gangrene, amputations, dementia and die early even if I was unemployed.

You can get any of those without smoking. Not all smokers will get any (or all, as you seem to imply) of them.

But, hey, if you want people to live longer miserable lives, rather than less miserable slightly shorter (probably) ones, I suppose you're more than welcome to that opinion.

Malthusian

fred246 wrote: »

I read them and wonder whether the government have got a problem selling the idea of 'you live longer so retire later'.

Not much of a problem as the 1995 Pensions Act passed with relatively little controversy, as did the 2012 Act 17 years later, beyond a watering down of the maximum extension from 24 months to 18.

WASPI numbers only a few hundred members as illustrated by the handful that tured up to its last big protest (fire and forget rants on Facebook don't count as membership) and their demands are universally unpopular, including among their own demographic of 1950s women.

The vast majority of people in the UK understand perfectly well that you need to retire later if you live longer. (Or alternatively work harder, save more and/or lower your expectations.)

That is why WASPI has been repeatedly defeated on every single front. If Labour don't confound expectations and sweep the elections, and get a mandate for compensating WASPI women, they will have been defeated again.

GibbsRule_No3

I just heard the Five Live news and there was McDonnell mentioning WASPI and how he is going to stand by them. Settles it then, I must vote Labour:beer::rotfl:

ex-pat_scot

fred246 wrote: »

I want to be healthy and live a long time. I don't want to smell, have horrible skin, strokes, heart attacks, COPD, diabetes, impotence, blindness, deafness, cancer, gangrene, amputations, dementia and die early even if I was unemployed. Maybe they're aiming to turn their unemployment benefits into disability benefits.

I read that comprehensive list and i score quite highly already!

Joking aside, there was a long term tactic of encouraging long term unemployed onto disability benefits in the '80s, to massage the unemployment stats, that has led to a culture that still seems to expect that this is a valid approach. Attempts to reverse this seem to be causing chaos, judging by the many stories of disability assessments being heartless, idiotic and rarely robust when challenged.