WASPI Campaign .... State Pensions
Options
Comments
-
Malthusian wrote: »If you're going to tell a lie, tell a big one, and tell it repeatedly. (Joseph Goebbels, inter alia multa.)
Corbyn's Labour believe that they are in the vanguard of a transition to a post-capitalist economy - which in practical terms means they can promise whatever they like. £60 billion, £8 billion, two thousand, they're all just numbers, and who's to say that 2 + 2 can't equal 5. In the post-capitalist economy everyone will get their fair share, regardless of age, gender or employment status; all this talk of State Pensions and National Insurance and deficits is pre-post-capitalist thinking. In the meantime we can give WASPI £60 billion without any cuts or tax rises simply by printing it, and this won't devalue the currency because look over there, a squirrel.
They don't care whether it gets them votes or not, if they cared about votes they wouldn't have elected Corbyn in the first place. The socialist revolution is inevitable and there was no need for people to vote for it in Russia, Poland or Hungary.
Can i please quote this fantastic poignant post in other forums?0 -
Anyone got a link to what Labour actually proposed?Mortgagefreeman wrote: »Labour didn’t offer them anything worthwhile
The detail-free press I've seen suggests that it might be something I'd actually support:
1. means tested, so it helps those in real financial need.
2. for those who can't do their accustomed work, so not paid to those not normally looking for work anyway, like house-husbands or wives or the already normally retired. Bonus if it reflects local job availability not just age
3. not immediate full state pension. Unclear if it's age-related gradual. increase from working age to retired means tested levels or immediate reduced state pension (that would have Minimum Income Guarantee issues after reaching SPA). Seems like a potentially sensible recognition of the reality of the job market and some useful transition smoothing.
Of course the announcement was blatantly illegal and unjustifiable gender discrimination because it only mentioned women but like Pension Credit age I assume the actual policy will be lawfully gender neutral and specified as payable within x years of the oldest of male and female state pension age.
We could see a fairly useful and sensible working age benefit coming out of this.
Of course that won't help those WASPI supporters who think that just being female gives them an inherent right to benefit from a continued eight years of extra state pension compared to men, plus the extra three years of being alive while the men are dead, based on life expectancy difference. Eliminating both SPA and life expectancy differences should be the policy. Money later can be unfortunate but being dead is far worse than possibly having to use means tested benefits.0 -
The early reduced Pension at riced rate, seems to have been rejected by the ‘professionals’ as unable to implement in time I.e by the time it reached the statute books, they’ll have retired anyway. Also that it would have to apply to both sexes otherwise it would contravene the Equality act.
Articles here, but it looks like you need to log on to see it.
https://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/3018235/industry-rejects-labours-early-state-pension-plans-for-waspi-women0 -
Anyone got a link to what Labour actually proposed?
I hope you're not expecting detail on a financial issue from Labour.
The proposal is essentially to allow women born in the 1950s to take their State Pension two years early at age 64, with a reduction of "a few pounds a week" which will be cost neutral. That seems to be it.
There isn't really a lot wrong in theory with the idea of being able to take a reduced State Pension two years early. Any DB scheme or annuity provider can cope with calculating a "cost-neutral" reduction for taking a pension two years early.
However the general idea of "early State Pension" is a non-starter, because in reality, everyone would take their State Pension as early as possible, and then complain that it wasn't enough to live on, and march in the streets until the Government caved in. The State Pension is set at a level which is just about adequate to live on by itself - a State Pension reduced for early access will therefore be inadequate, and will therefore have to be increased. So any proposal for a "reduced early State Pension" is in reality a proposal for a non-reduced early State Pension, and we can't afford it.
In theory (again) this is not such a big problem if it is a one-off option, available only to a limited demographic cohort and with a very modest scope (only 2 years early rather than 5 or 10). Knock £10 or so off the State Pension and it's probably enough to live on, and even if it isn't, people born in the 1950s who took their pension two years early won't form a big enough political force to demand to have their cake and eat it.
In practice the Government fears the thin end of the wedge. Moreover WASPI want the reversal of the 1995 Pensions Act and six years' worth of backdated pension payments with no reduction, so a reduced State Pension two years early is of no interest to them. So there is no political will behind it.0 -
Labour's proposal to allow women born in the 1950s to access their state pension from age 64 at a lower rate was rejected by 56%.
Some criticised the idea on equality grounds and others on cost.
A pundit said: "It is bad enough that so many women benefited from such blatant sexism for as long as they did. The line has to be drawn. Everybody has known the new state pension ages for ages. Come on ladies - for once take one for the team."
Another added that this will require equality for men, entrenches lower state pension income for a group, and has knock-on consequences for social security.
Yet 35% were supportive but with certain conditions such as it should be accessible to everyone and be cost neutral to the Treasury.
"This should be available to all people, not just women, in the same way that DB pensions can be accessed earlier but at a reduced sacrificed amount," said one.
https://www.professionalpensions.com/professional-pensions/news/3018235/industry-rejects-labours-early-state-pension-plans-for-waspi-women0 -
I agree.Mortgagefreeman wrote: »The early reduced Pension at riced rate, seems to have been rejected by the ‘professionals’ as unable to implement in time I.e by the time it reached the statute books, they’ll have retired anyway. Also that it would have to apply to both sexes otherwise it would contravene the Equality act.
I'm a late 1953 woman, expected to get my state pension in April 2017 aged 63 years and 6 months (as a result of the 1995 Act).
Obviously that date has passed.
My revised date is July 2018 so 9 months away.
Do we think any government could get this implemented in that time (especially given what else is going on right now)?0 -
Ive not been able to read all the posts in this very long discussion, but I feel that part of the WASPI issue has been rather glossed over.
Raising and equalising the retirement age is understandable but for my wife (born June 53) there are two observations;
1) the Government rather rushed this equalisation through. They could have raised the female retirement age more slowly. For my wife this meant a big jump in retirement age from 60 to almost 64.
2) there is a real problem with the 'cliff edge' pension changes between women who may be born just a few weeks apart. Again in my wife's case, had she been born just 3 weeks earlier she would have received her pension a year sooner. It needed to be aligned more closely with individual age.0 -
The 'WASPI issue' has been debated on here on numerous threads ad nauseum.Ive not been able to read all the posts in this very long discussion, but I feel that part of the WASPI issue has been rather glossed over.
It has not been 'glossed over'.
Your wife's retirement age didn't jump from age 60 to almost 64.Raising and equalising the retirement age is understandable but for my wife (born June 53) there are two observations;
1) the Government rather rushed this equalisation through. They could have raised the female retirement age more slowly. For my wife this meant a big jump in retirement age from 60 to almost 64.
2) there is a real problem with the 'cliff edge' pension changes between women who may be born just a few weeks apart.Again in my wife's case, had she been born just 3 weeks earlier she would have received her pension a year sooner. It needed to be aligned more closely with individual age.
There was a change in 1995 that raised a woman's pension age from 60.
"Rushed this equalisation through"?
How much notice did she actually expect? :rotfl:0 -
Done to death.Ive not been able to read all the posts in this very long discussion, but I feel that part of the WASPI issue has been rather glossed over.
No it hasn't, it really hasn't
Raising and equalising the retirement age is understandable but for my wife (born June 53) there are two observations;
1) the Government rather rushed this equalisation through. They could have raised the female retirement age more slowly. For my wife this meant a big jump in retirement age from 60 to almost 64.
She was first told about this in the nineties and then the date was increased by a maximum of 18 months in 2010
2) there is a real problem with the 'cliff edge' pension changes between women who may be born just a few weeks apart. Again in my wife's case, had she been born just 3 weeks earlier she would have received her pension a year sooner. You can check the info here by putting in the relevant dates https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-age which does not show a year's differenceIt needed to be aligned more closely with individual age.The WASPI case does not mention the inequality with men which is the biggest inequality; men had their pension put back in 2010 - again no support for them; in the WASPI world, triplets one a female born on 31/12/59 gets her pension at 60; the brother born on the same day gets his at 66 and the third child a female born after midnight gets hers at 66. The WASPI case is totally bogus, creating an even bigger cliff edge.0 -
Indeed, it doesn't show a year's difference.
But I've listened to lots of (WASPI) women embroider (to be kind) the truth to make them sound more hard-done-to than is the reality.
I heard it in the televised debates back in January 2016.
Shame on those women who misrepresent their circumstances.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 248K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards