Should 1950s WASPI women be compensated?

Paul_Herring

There are a lot of people who are not that financially acute who believe that they have a non-state pension that is going to be good enough, they may very well be mistaken.

ISAGN for a new hashtag: #YAPPI*

===

* Young** Against Private Pension Inequality.
** Thought about 'Millenials,' instead, but #MAPPI wasn't quite as snappy....

Seabee42

badmemory wrote: »

Auto enrolment will prove within a few years to have been totally inadequate & needs to be increased over the years as people get accustomed to it. Let us face the truth. People are being conned into thinking that a total 8% contribution is going to provide for their retirement. That 8% isn't always even on all their income. There are a lot of people who are not that financially acute who believe that they have a non-state pension that is going to be good enough, they may very well be mistaken.

I think the purpose of SMPI statements and even a universal bulletin board is exactly counter to this argument. Sure they wont have a rich retirement on 8% of partial earnings but if you believe means testing is unsustainable (it was projected 50% of the population would be on some sort of benefit) what are the alternatives.


Clearly the current level is based on affordability both for individuals company's and HMRC and will have to increase over time if people can afford it. Some of the argument is getting people use to saving. Supposedly child savings accounts where established by Gordon Brown for this reason.


Conned would imply they get nothing out if it see London Capital Partners etc.

bigadaj

badmemory wrote: »

Auto enrolment will prove within a few years to have been totally inadequate & needs to be increased over the years as people get accustomed to it. Let us face the truth. People are being conned into thinking that a total 8% contribution is going to provide for their retirement. That 8% isn't always even on all their income. There are a lot of people who are not that financially acute who believe that they have a non-state pension that is going to be good enough, they may very well be mistaken.

Whether it's inadequate or not depends on the reasons for its introduction.

I don't think anyone has claimed that 8% contribution will ever lead to a comfortable retirement, but what it will do is reduce the amount paid out in benefits on retirement to achieve a basic standard of living.

Sadly the 'sensible' advice for many low earners is not to save into a pension because pension income will just reduce the amount that can be claimed in benefits. This is obviously unsustainable which is why auto enrolment came in, all it relies on is people's ignorance and inertia to not opt out, which means it will actually be fairly successful.

crv1963

badmemory wrote: »

Auto enrolment will prove within a few years to have been totally inadequate & needs to be increased over the years as people get accustomed to it. Let us face the truth. People are being conned into thinking that a total 8% contribution is going to provide for their retirement. That 8% isn't always even on all their income. There are a lot of people who are not that financially acute who believe that they have a non-state pension that is going to be good enough, they may very well be mistaken.

It is quite frightening that so many people believe that having 8% of partial salary going into something like NEST think that their retirement will be a bed of rose petals.

Mrs CRV works with lots of people who tell her they "know" that they will be secure in retirement because they pay 8%. This is even more worrying when some are working part time for years.

I think we need honesty, increased wages to stop in work benefits subsidising poor pay rates and real pension contribution rates increased- auto-enrollment is a long term Govt method of getting people off of benefits in retirement, not a method of lifting the masses into comfortable retirement.

In my view there needs to be better education about the numbers needed both to live a life and what to save for future retirement.

p00hsticks

Silvertabby wrote: »

And what about paper boys and girls? Having to pay them the best part of £50 per week will mean the end of newspaper deliveries.

Are there many around now ? We've not been able to get a national paper delivered for a number of years now, and when we had a local evening paper a middle-aged woman in a car delivered it ...

Silvertabby

p00hsticks wrote: »

Are there many around now ? We've not been able to get a national paper delivered for a number of years now, and when we had a local evening paper a middle-aged woman in a car delivered it ...

We have one, and he's a young lad on a bike, but I think only one newsagent in our town still offers this service. Yes, we could buy our newspapers 'on line', but I know my elderly neighbours wouldn't be happy with that.

Rich2808

Compensated for what - getting their pensions at the same age as men - and for not paying attention to state pension reforms (when they were based on their protestations expecting to rely solely on a state pension to live in retirement)?

Its called equality?

Some of these WASPIs will be asset rich - and potentially own homes worth a lot of money which they bought for next to nothing by comparison. Why not downsize or release equity if they are that hard up.

No issue with helping those truly on low incomes - but they won't of course gain from this as those on pension credit/benefits will simply see those cut or ended entirely as their savings levels will go above the benefit limits.

Why should young working age people probably renting - who will have to foot the £60 billion bill for this - who will probably see their state pension age raised to the their early or mid 70s or possibly never get one at all - pay for this from their income tax. Should they get compensation too?

colsten

nigelbb wrote: »

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.

Did you actually read the GAD Quinquennial Review? Can you post your assumptions and your calculations which show how your proposed increase supports how much state pension from what age for how long? Have you approached the GAD yet to offer your help with their calculations?

As an aside, NI isn't just simply 12%, even though many people pay that. Some people earn too little to pay NI, above a certain income level it's 2%, and that's just for employees. Whose employers are, obviously, also paying NI. Then there are NI rates for self-employed, and NI credits for various reasons. And total NI exemptions for about a quarter of the adult population.

colsten

nigelbb wrote: »

NI contributions are currently too low so there is a 10% shortfall made up out of general taxation.

Do you actually have any evidence for the current 10% shortfall, and that it is currently made up out of general taxation? Or are you just making things up as you go?

nigelbb wrote: »

.......Boris Johnson’s promise of a reduction in NI contributions is both idiotic & deceitful.

On this statement, with some of your original text removed, I completely and utterly agree with you!

Mistermeaner

What amazes confuses and frustrates me with this is now the media seem to play along with it likes these poor women have been hard done to

There's a distinct lack of challenge to the bs being peddled - most recently by corbyn and McDonnell ... In the interviews i heard there was challenge on funding the "compensation" but no mention of the ridiculous claims, the 25 year notice , the legal challenge that would follow, the benefit withdrawal for genuinely hard up... No mention of the findings of the court where claimants were found to have lied (sry I mean engaged with honesty) no mention of the inequality to men no mention of the fact that no other changes in legislation are personally announced . No mention of women born post 1960

The whole thing is pathetic , both the claimants themselves and the snakes exploiting it (labour) and shame on the media for not exposing all of them for what they are