Should 1950s WASPI women be compensated?

colsten

Pollycat wrote: »

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

Nor me. Never.

Just to say this doesn't make me a Tory voter, either.

colsten

woolly_wombat wrote: »

....but I also think that there are some who will be swayed by this cunning political ploy.

one or two will definitely be swayed but in the main, the protesting women are natural and life-long labour voters, anyway. Interestingly, quite a few of the later 1950s women are now fuming, on the grounds that "she gets more than I do, and that's unfair", and/or that it is not "full restitution". Even major Corbyn-fans have been losing their cool over it on Facebook and Twitter. They are full of anger and promise not to vote Labour, although when they calm down again, they probably still will. On the other side of the fence, there are plenty of 50s women who have already declared that there is no way their vote can be bought by Labour.

My prediction is that we're unlikely to ever know what this £58bn ploy does to the election result because it won't be making much difference.

RueyE

woolly_wombat wrote: »

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

No I think Pollycat is more correct in her post, "...I have no doubt that a lot of WASPI women will be swayed by Corbyn's 'promise'."
Not only will a lot of WASPI women vote for this 'promise', but also their partners, children, etc.
It is a 'clever' strategy adopted by Labour, that has tapped into the financial greed that exists within a proportion of today's society
For example, I contacted a family member (always been a CONS voter) who I knew would qualify for this 'promise', and would gain probably about 6k, and they were completely sold on the idea.
They are just looking at the short term personal gain, and not at the long term pain.
Alas I despair!!

Malthusian

p00hsticks wrote: »

I suspect it's to do with this

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

My initial reaction was sympathy with the miners. But on reflection, the protest is invalid unless Adam Price and co would also campaign for miners' pensions to be cut if the scheme was in deficit.

The Government guaranteed the miners' pensions in exchange for 50% of any surplus. Essentially, it's exactly the same as buying a lifetime annuity and then claiming that the insurer should increase your annuity because it's done well with its investments out of the money you handed over. Not how it works. You can't have your cake and eat it.

DaveMcG wrote: »

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.

Houses are easier to buy due to low interest rates and the fact you no longer have to save for years with a mortgage lender before they'll offer you a mortgage. Lenders can no longer discriminate against women. If you want a house of the same standard people accepted in the 70s and can still find one, it will cost buttons (although modern building regs might force you to do it up).

Defined contribution pensions available now are better than the pensions available to baby boomers at the time they took them out, when they could be rendered worthless or near-worthless if your employer went bust or you left your job. Defined benefit pensions were only made better than modern DC ones retrospectively by legislative changes which introduced the PPF and compulsory inflation-linking for all members. Those changes were of most benefit to those on the cusp of retirement at the time of that legislation (because they were most vulnerable to losing their unreformed DB pensions), which would be the interwar generation, not boomers.

Surveys have repeatedly shown that most gig economy workers take those jobs by choice because they value flexibility.

Everything is awesome.

Thrugelmir

Paul_Herring wrote: »

<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...

Merely opening the can of worms with one example. As there's no guarantee that international investors will feel inclined to lend the UK such sums of money. In which case the burden will fall onto those of us that are productive. After all it's not just NI we contribute.

custardy

Malthusian wrote: »

not boomers.

Surveys have repeatedly shown that most gig economy workers take those jobs by choice because they value flexibility.

Everything is awesome.

As opposed to the jobs steady set hours,regular income with decent benefits and pension they have shunned?

Silvertabby

“ I really don't need to explain my circumstances but was making the point that the change from 30 to 35 years was made AFTER I had followed the advice to get a pension forecast and after I had left work thinking I had enough years. I had no notice at all.
I'm aware of the rest of your post but didn't want to explain all that and take the thread off topic
Originally posted by in my wellies

Things do change. After all, the 30 year NI requirement only ran for 6 years (April 2010 to April 2016). Before then, it was 39 years for women and 44 years for men.

Paul_Herring

Silvertabby wrote: »

Things do change. After all, the 30 year NI requirement only ran for 6 years (April 2010 to April 2016). Before then, it was 39 years for women and 44 years for men.

Stop introducing inconvenient facts!

ibizafan_2

I count myself lucky. As someone who was born in February 1953, I just escaped the later change to pension age, but always knew that my SPA was to be 62 years 10 months as part of the transition to equalise with men. I don’t remember how I was informed, but as someone who more or less always worked in local government, it could have been in their pension statements. I also made the decision to defer my pre 2016 SP for a couple of years and carry on working part time. As others have said, it isn’t mandatory to retire at any age, (although I respect the fact that illness can dictate this) and at 67 next year, I still enjoy working three evenings every week. I believe in taking responsibility for my own financial position, and keeping aware of any potential changes is all part of keeping informed.

fronty

Pollycat wrote: »

One woman claimant who represented the Backto60 court case said she didn't know about the 1995 changes but then 'with engaging honesty' produced two letters she received from her occupational pension provider, dated 4 August 2006 and 28 April 2011. In each case the letters advise her: “The DWP has assumed that your State Retirement pension will be payable when you reach the age of 65 Years."

Not taking in important information about your financial future does not mean you didn't know.

If that is the actual wording provided by the DWP I can sort of understand why some women claim they didn't know, it could have been written better. Some less well educated women may simply not understand what that means but if it had been written differently it may have had a bigger impact.

For instance the emphasis in that statement is on the DWP - some women might not even know what those three letters mean. My Mum frequently asks me to look at correspondence she has received from various government departments, she simply does not understand half of it and I have to "translate" it for her. I think this might be quite common, a lot of official documents can be hard to understand to less well educated people. We don't all have degrees in English Language!

If it had been written with more emphasis on the "you", it may have had more impact, e.g.
"The notice is to inform YOU that YOU will no longer receive your state pension at age 60. Due to a change in the law you will now not receive your state pension until age 65." etc etc etc