Should 1950s WASPI women be compensated?

DaveMcG

These women are typical of the greediest generation in modern history (of which I must admit I am part). Final salary pensions, relative job security, massive house value rises (with mortgages although initially costly, eroded by inflation).


Younger people, who will have to pay for this undeserved compensation bounty, have enormous obtacles to house purchase and pay high rents with limited security, work under "flexible" employment contracts and have mediocre pensions.


The state pension was entirely unaffected by austerity due to the triple lock except for the speeding up of the long planned timetable of pension ages. I and many other males had a year or more added to their SPA and planned accordingly.


There are benefits available for genuine cases of hardship ie illness. But like everyone else if you are fit to work and choose not to, you don't deserve a bailout because your basic financial planning was deficient.

woolly_wombat

It will be interesting to see how this uncosted WASPI bung goes down with those affected.

Boris is known to have a 'woman problem', i.e. to be particularly distrusted by female voters:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/08/06/who-makes-boris-coalition

Will Labour nab some of those women with this fairy story?

Paul_Herring

Thrugelmir wrote: »

In terms of equality. Why should men who have already reached their maximum state pension level. Continue to have to work and pay National Insurance contributions for some years yet. In order that others can receive "compensation".

<handwavey>Because the monetary contributions themselves pay for more than just the state pension (of current pensioners.) Your attempted pedantry relates to accruing further credits towards state pension entitlement when they're effectively useless when no more benefit may be accrued from having earned them.</handwavey>

But that's a sensible answer, and I think we'll have no truck with that here; forget I spoke...

Pollycat

woolly_wombat wrote: »

It will be interesting to see how this uncosted WASPI bung goes down with those affected.

Boris is known to have a 'woman problem', i.e. to be particularly distrusted by female voters:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/08/06/who-makes-boris-coalition

Will Labour nab some of those women with this fairy story?

Pollycat wrote: »

Please note:
I am a late 1953 woman so affected by both changes in state pension date but am not a 'WASPI' woman and am incredibly irritated by the fact that the media are constantly referring to '3.8 million WASPI women'.
WASPI do not and never have represented me!

So Labour will not 'nab me' or my vote with any promises of 'compensation'.

I've been very clear on this and the numerous threads on different boards

Pollycat wrote: »

...how can anyone think it's fair that WASPI/Backto60 want 'their dues' for anyone born on or before 31st December 1959 but a woman born on or after 1st January 1960 will have to wait for their state pension until their 66th birthday?

So I don't agree with it and I do not want this whilst others are treated unfairly and other people will have to fund it.

This ^^^^ was in response to a poster who naively thought that all affected women would "agree with it and would want it".

However, I have no doubt that a lot of WASPI women will be swayed by Corbyn's 'promise'.

woolly_wombat

Pollycat wrote: »

So Labour will not 'nab me' or my vote with any promises of 'compensation'.....

However, I have no doubt that a lot of WASPI women will be swayed by Corbyn's 'promise'.

They won't be nabbing me either, but I also think that there are some who will be swayed by this cunning political ploy.

SmashedAvacado

This only became Labour policy because someone asked BorJo about it at the leaders debate. That's why it was un-costed and previously unannounced. Those considering voting Labour should think carefully about how quick they were to launch a vote buying un-costed policy to boost their ratings as soon as the Tories had said that compensation was not a priority. That is not a sign of prudent economics

My personal view is that compensation for this group should not be a priority.

SeeMe

I was watching Adam Price from Plaid Cymru talking about waspi this morning, saying its right to compensate these women, but it should not just be them, also miners should be compensated because of being fleeced on their pensions, and its the moral thing to do. Whats that all about?

p00hsticks

SeeMe wrote: »

I was watching Adam Price from Plaid Cymru talking about waspi this morning, saying its right to compensate these women, but it should not just be them, also miners should be compensated because of being fleeced on their pensions, and its the moral thing to do. Whats that all about?

I suspect it's to do with this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-47468691

Paul_Herring

p00hsticks wrote: »

I suspect it's to do with this

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-47468691

Probably dug up in response to this Labour bribe: : https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/sick-miners-left-crying-pain-20968354

custardy

Annworked42years wrote: »

YES after working for 42 years contributing national insurance payments every week I do feel I was entitled to my pension at the age of 60. Being advised less than 12 months before retirement age did not give me sufficient time to replan for my retirement.
Where will they get the money? Try using the monies paid in by all the working women to this end. If a private pension company made a decision to extend the date you could draw a private pension by 6 years, after paying in for 40+ Years there would be uproar and probably court cases brought to force them to pay.

but cool with the men working 47 to 49 years?