Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Varche]

I see that Labpurs manifesto has a pledge to recompense the WASPI’s . They are the women who were quickly changed from a state pension age of 60 to 66 or 67 . Born in the 50’s.

300,000 so cost anout £15,000 each ( 58 billion?)

In my view theyhave a valid claim.

Quickly? Most had 20+ years notice. The changes were introduced in 1995 due to sex discrimination laws, and didn't actually start to come into effect until 2010. The WASPI women are simply money grabbers who buried their heads in the sand and pretended the law didn't apply to them. Then woke up 20 years later with faux indignation that they'd somehow been diddled.

If there was a problem, it was the way the increase from 65 to 66 and 67 was introduced in 2010. This *WAS* too fast and the timescale did affect some of the same people affected by the 1995 changes. However, no-one had their state pension date increased by more than 18 months over what it would have been as a result of the 1995 changes.

The WASPI people demanding the right to retire at 60 for all women born in the 1950's are being unreasonable. What about men born in the 1950's? Or anyone born on Jan 1st 1960?

Discrimination? I didnt see men fighting the corner demanding equality with women i.e. state pension at 60. Wonder why?

These women who had plenty of time. No doubt they were all in well paid jobs earning the same as their male counterparts and could salt away the necessary money to make up the shortfall? Lets say six years without £150 a week . Rough estimate of £43,000 . Do you know anyone who could have done that even over your generous timescale?

At the end of the day , they are women i.e. second class citizens being blunt about it. Bit of a mistake me mentioning it on a male dominated car forum. I still think it will win votes.

[Doctor Gollum]

Tribal loyalty and promising other peoples money to stupid selfish people. Same way they are hoping to get into govt.

I meant that their fiscal ability suggests a level of stupidity such that getting to the front door in the morning is an incredible achievement in its own right, let alone finding Westminster...

[LC0112G]

Discrimination? I didnt see men fighting the corner demanding equality with women i.e. state pension at 60. Wonder why?

Yes discrimination. Women fought to end discrimination, and the way the politicians chose to do that wrt the state pension was to raise the SP age to equal that of men at 65. Lowering it to 60 for men was not seriously considered, and would have been prohibitively expensive anyway. How can it be right for a woman to retire at 60 when a man born on exactly the same date doesn't get to retire till 65? Such a policy will end up in the courts with men demanding to be compensated in the same way as some of these entitled women.

These women who had plenty of time. No doubt they were all in well paid jobs earning the same as their male counterparts and could salt away the necessary money to make up the shortfall? Lets say six years without £150 a week . Rough estimate of £43,000 . Do you know anyone who could have done that even over your generous timescale?

They had at least 15 years to sort something out. The change wasn't cliff edge either. The maximum increase under the 1995 change was 5 years (from age 60 to 65), but full equilisation didn't occur till 2018, so those women had 23 years to sort out a 5 year increase in their retirement age. Their SP also wouldn't have been £150 - more like £126 which is the old basic rate - if they were in poorly paid jobs they wouldn't have had much/any SERPS. So at best they've lost £32760. Saving that over 23 years = £27p/w assuming no interest.

At the end of the day , they are women i.e. second class citizens being blunt about it. Bit of a mistake me mentioning it on a male dominated car forum. I still think it will win votes.

In this instance they are being treated exactly the same as men of the same age. I've no doubt that there are still cases of discrimination, but re-introducing a discrimitory policy for a subset of women (those born between 1st Jan 1950 and 31st Dec 1959) is never going to happen. Yes the policy will win votes from those who want to believe.

[Varche]

Fantastic.

I noted you didn't say you knew anyone who had either saved this £27 a week or didn’t as they probably needed every penny to exist. Good politicians answers. Not a Labour politician though.

The other point is one of demographics.

For young people, retirement is something in he dim future
Retired people, it has happened sois a donedeal
Only a small percentage of the population are at the near retirement age . These are the only group that might object to changes in retirement ages.

[tunnie]

One for LC0112G as he appears in the know for these things....

From the Tory election pledges, one thing that sparked my interest was raise in 40% threshold from 50k to 80k, do you think this would actually take place and if so over how much time?

Can't see them doing it in one hit? 

[LC0112G]

Fantastic.

I noted you didn't say you knew anyone who had either saved this £27 a week or didn’t as they probably needed every penny to exist. Good politicians answers. Not a Labour politician though.

The other point is one of demographics.

For young people, retirement is something in he dim future
Retired people, it has happened sois a donedeal
Only a small percentage of the population are at the near retirement age . These are the only group that might object to changes in retirement ages.

Yes I do personally know people who adapted their plans to cover the 5 year increase in SP age - but why is that relevant to the rights and wrongs of the issue? For most it simply meant working a year or two longer. Just like you and I will have to - we won't get our SP till 67/68 incase you weren't aware.

The group that are moaning weren't 'near retirement age' when the changes were made either. They would have been in their mid 40's - remember no-one had less than 15 years to plan for it. They just chose to ignore it and hope it would go away. The policy was announced in the 1993 budget, and enacted in 1995 and came into force in 2010.

Your argument appears to be that two wrongs make a right? That 50's men should be discriminated against and not receive compensation when a woman born on the same day is? And the justification for this is that women have been discriminated against in other ways?

Also, the policy to compensate GRASPI women isn't in the Labour manifesto either. https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/ The closest it comes is a promise to "work with 50s' born women". The compensation thing appears to have been made up on the hoof by McDonald, and even he agreed it hadn't been costed or included in their 'grey book'.

[LC0112G]

One for LC0112G as he appears in the know for these things....

From the Tory election pledges, one thing that sparked my interest was raise in 40% threshold from 50k to 80k, do you think this would actually take place and if so over how much time?

Can't see them doing it in one hit? 

Why do you think I have any knowledge of this? My view is all politicians are liars (and this lot are worse than most), and all manifesto pledges are at best a 'wish list' of things they would like to implement if circumstances permit (which they rarely do). Why don't you ask your prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate the question - he/she will be in a better position to answer it.

My guess would be that if it were to happen it would be over the course of the next parliament - so gradually over 5 years probably. I'm not sure what they've promised on national insurance though - NI is sort of linked to tax rates. Up to £50K you currently pay 20% tax and 12% NI, so a total of 32% tax. Above £50K it's 40% tax and 2% NI, so a total of 42%. The delta is therefore 'only' 10% not the 20% headline change in tax rate, so the change might only result in half the saving you might expect.

[tunnie]

One for LC0112G as he appears in the know for these things....

From the Tory election pledges, one thing that sparked my interest was raise in 40% threshold from 50k to 80k, do you think this would actually take place and if so over how much time?

Can't see them doing it in one hit? 

Why do you think I have any knowledge of this? My view is all politicians are liars (and this lot are worse than most), and all manifesto pledges are at best a 'wish list' of things they would like to implement if circumstances permit (which they rarely do). Why don't you ask your prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate the question - he/she will be in a better position to answer it.

My guess would be that if it were to happen it would be over the course of the next parliament - so gradually over 5 years probably. I'm not sure what they've promised on national insurance though - NI is sort of linked to tax rates. Up to £50K you currently pay 20% tax and 12% NI, so a total of 32% tax. Above £50K it's 40% tax and 2% NI, so a total of 42%. The delta is therefore 'only' 10% not the 20% headline change in tax rate, so the change might only result in half the saving you might expect.

You appear to know a fair bit about tax/finance, hence the question 

Thanks, not considered the NI impact.

[STEMO]

One for LC0112G as he appears in the know for these things....

From the Tory election pledges, one thing that sparked my interest was raise in 40% threshold from 50k to 80k, do you think this would actually take place and if so over how much time?

Can't see them doing it in one hit? 

That's been put on the back burner, so to speak. It's in the news reports.

[tunnie]

One for LC0112G as he appears in the know for these things....

From the Tory election pledges, one thing that sparked my interest was raise in 40% threshold from 50k to 80k, do you think this would actually take place and if so over how much time?

Can't see them doing it in one hit? 

That's been put on the back burner, so to speak. It's in the news reports.

Damn 

[STEMO]

One for LC0112G as he appears in the know for these things....

From the Tory election pledges, one thing that sparked my interest was raise in 40% threshold from 50k to 80k, do you think this would actually take place and if so over how much time?

Can't see them doing it in one hit? 

That's been put on the back burner, so to speak. It's in the news reports.

Damn 

Yes, damn, but not really a vote winner.

[Andy B]

One for LC0112G as he appears in the know for these things....

From the Tory election pledges, one thing that sparked my interest was raise in 40% threshold from 50k to 80k, do you think this would actually take place and if so over how much time?

Can't see them doing it in one hit? 

Funny how Lawson managed to cut the higher threshold from 60% to 40% in one go 

 ...... (late 80s )

[Varche]

Fantastic.

I noted you didn't say you knew anyone who had either saved this £27 a week or didn’t as they probably needed every penny to exist. Good politicians answers. Not a Labour politician though.

The other point is one of demographics.

For young people, retirement is something in he dim future
Retired people, it has happened sois a donedeal
Only a small percentage of the population are at the near retirement age . These are the only group that might object to changes in retirement ages.

Yes I do personally know people who adapted their plans to cover the 5 year increase in SP age - but why is that relevant to the rights and wrongs of the issue? For most it simply meant working a year or two longer. Just like you and I will have to - we won't get our SP till 67/68 incase you weren't aware.

The group that are moaning weren't 'near retirement age' when the changes were made either. They would have been in their mid 40's - remember no-one had less than 15 years to plan for it. They just chose to ignore it and hope it would go away. The policy was announced in the 1993 budget, and enacted in 1995 and came into force in 2010.

Your argument appears to be that two wrongs make a right? That 50's men should be discriminated against and not receive compensation when a woman born on the same day is? And the justification for this is that women have been discriminated against in other ways?

Also, the policy to compensate GRASPI women isn't in the Labour manifesto either. https://labour.org.uk/manifesto/ The closest it comes is a promise to "work with 50s' born women". The compensation thing appears to have been made up on the hoof by McDonald, and even he agreed it hadn't been costed or included in their 'grey book'.

I never said 50’s men should be discriminated against.

I think we will just have to agree to disagree. We are poles apart on the subject.

[LC0112G]

I never said 50’s men should be discriminated against.

You may not have said it, but that IS the exact effect of the policy you appear to be supporting.

And what about 1940's, 1930's and 1920's men? Why shouldn't they be compensated for having to wait till 65 to collect their SP when the women of the same age got theirs at 60?

And what about me - why shouldn't I be compensated for my retirement age being increased by 2 years (due to the 2011 act) with 'only' 21 years notice (my SP date is currently 2032).

The GRASPI claim is bollux. The courts have ruled so, the Judicial review has ruled so, and any pension 'expert' you talk to will tell you so. Labour reopening that can of worms is just a cynical vote winning ploy that has no realistic chance of actually happening.   

[Migv6 le Frog Fan]

Exactly. They have announced this to try to bribe a particular group of the female population to vote for them. I have little doubt that once elected there would be some unfortunate, but very valid reason why they couldn't actually do it.