The MSE Forum will be undergoing some maintenance this evening. As a result, some users may experience temporary performance issues. Please use the Site Feedback board to report anything major. Thank you for your patience.

MPs to debate women affected by state pension age increases

245678

Comments

  • DairyQueen
    DairyQueen Posts: 1,822
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    The issue isn't about the equalisation of pension age, it's about the equalisation of pension provision. Women continue to lag by some considerable measure. Where's the justice in that?
  • Silvertabby
    Silvertabby Posts: 8,969
    First Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic First Post
    Forumite
    The issue isn't about the equalisation of pension age, it's about the equalisation of pension provision. Women continue to lag by some considerable measure. Where's the justice in that? Posted by DairyQueen


    No, this issue is about the equalisation of State pension age for men and women.


    The new State pension is determined by NI contributions, not gender.
  • badmemory
    badmemory Posts: 7,626
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    edited 29 November 2017 at 2:03AM
    This is getting so old & the lies told quite frankly getting boring. Those of us (and I include myself in this) that were stupid enough to trust some man to provide for our future, may well have been screwed by those men but not by the gov or state pension. So please put the responsibility where it belongs. Please do not consider this as any support for any gov or their policies as it certainly does not.
  • DairyQueen wrote: »
    The issue isn't about the equalisation of pension age, it's about the equalisation of pension provision. Women continue to lag by some considerable measure. Where's the justice in that?

    How is getting pension for longer than men a 'lag?'

    If it was about "equalisation of provision" (whatever that actually means, but I'll assume 'same pension received over retirement,') then women would be getting their pension at a later age than men. Or less pension per year.

    Neither of which is what GRASPI are demanding. In fact it could be argued that they're arguing for the exact opposite.
    Conjugating the verb 'to be":
    -o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries
  • Pollycat
    Pollycat Posts: 34,577
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post Savvy Shopper!
    Forumite
    LHW99 wrote: »
    Oh no, not again!
    Precisely!

    What a waste of time.
  • System
    System Posts: 178,077
    Photogenic Name Dropper First Post
    Community Admin
    Hedgehog99 wrote: »
    Talk about moving the goalposts within a working lifetime.

    .

    Goalposts are bound to be moved during a working lifetime. The point is that there should be sufficient notice given of important changes, to allow a fair and appropriate timescale for any required adjustment.
    All the evidence suggests that these particular changes had a notice period of many years.
  • Malthusian
    Malthusian Posts: 10,898
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    DairyQueen wrote: »
    The issue isn't about the equalisation of pension age, it's about the equalisation of pension provision. Women continue to lag by some considerable measure. Where's the justice in that?

    A woman who puts the same in as a man gets the same out as a man. Actually more because if they buy an annuity, they get the same rate as a man even though they will live longer.

    What sanctions are you proposing against women for putting less into pension schemes?
  • DairyQueen
    DairyQueen Posts: 1,822
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Forumite
    The equalisation of SPA is very, very old news. The principle is a no-brainer. However, this inequality has been addressed outside of its wider context.

    I am concerned that WASPI's constant harping on an issue that is so specific, and so difficult to justify in isolation, has detracted attention from a much more pervasive issue of gender inequality: the imbalance between male and female pension provision. By that I mean both SP and private pension.

    I am a 1950s woman. I am also in the fortunate position of having decent (self-earned) state and private pension provision, but that is more the result of circumstance not foresight. My ability to build a pension has not been compromised by child-rearing or lengthy career breaks. Despite that, I guarantee that a man born on the same day, with an identical career and family circumstance, will have more pension than me courtesy of his career-long higher salary.

    It's all well-and-good taking the moral high-ground on specific issues of gender equalisation but we have yet to outlive a legacy of paternalism, nor have we dispensed with gender-specific roles. Nor have we addressed the insidious gender pay gap that stubbornly defies the appearance of equality that our society accepts as real.

    Trusting a partner is central to the success of committed relationships, and relying on a partner is often a financial necessity. It goes with the territory. The interests of the individual are usually sacrificed in the interests of the couple or the family. There are plenty of couples for whom the imperative was/is child-care, and invariably the woman's career/income is compromised in order to fulfil that imperative one-way-or-another.

    How many men have taken time-out to raise children? (Raise your hands please) Or worked part-time, or reduced their responsibilities and salary, in order to fit their job around their children? How many men have compromised their career, income and pension provision in order to care for elderly or disabled relatives?

    How many women have sacrificed their pension entitlement on divorce in order to secure a home for themselves and their children (a necessity because of their impaired earning ability)? Or through one/both parties' ignorance of the value of that entitlement? How many couples have made joint decisions that result in a disproportionate amount of pension held in the name of the highest earner? The highest earner is invariably male.

    Check the stats.

    There are plenty of exceptions: stay-at-home-dads, same-sex couples, equal-income couples, male carers, high earners, but these are the experiences of a minority of families. Women are usually the main family carers and men are commonly the primary breadwinners. Facts supported by every population-wide statistic and report. Guess who ends up with the lion share of a couple's pension provision as a result? Guess which party's lifetime income and associated pension provision is significantly reduced?

    These traditional roles haven't substantially changed, nor has the gender pay gap, but we are busily legislating on idealistic assumptions that they have.

    Oh, and I am aware that the nSP will be of significant benefit to many women but there are plenty in their 50s caught in the transition period: too late to make-up NI deficits and the loss of a widow's pension following a late divorce, or for whom the demands of elder care ensure that they are dependent on OH until they can claim a pension reduced through lack of recent earnings. There is no automatic NI credit for the latter group (unlike those caring for children) so let's hope they have the cash/knowledge to make voluntary NI payments.

    It seems to me that the WASPI campaign has focused media and public attention to such an extent on the justice of equal SPA that the wider issue it should seek to address - the disproportionate number of low-income female versus male pensioners - has been completely marginalised.
  • Error loading player: No playable sources found
  • DairyQueen wrote: »
    By that I mean both SP and private pension.

    What GRASPI are after, are a wholesale change to women's state pension entitlements to a very specific group of women, regardless of personal circumstance, all of whom already (without a further changes to rules) are already going to be better off than any men in their cohort.

    This has nothing to do with private pension provision, the patriarchy (sorry - "paternalism",) or any of the other confounding issues to which you allude to in your post, which are clearly raised to confuse the issue.
    It seems to me that the WASPI campaign has focused media and public attention to such an extent on the justice of equal SPA...

    They were harping on about the alleged injustice of equalisation of the SPA, but they took a detour via "fair transitional arrangements" which doesn't sound quite as much like "we still want our pension earlier than men, and carry on having it later" as before, but boils down to the same thing.
    Conjugating the verb 'to be":
    -o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards