fascist 'new' labour's latest 'promise'...we will pay females _15,000 to _30,000 for your vote

[Keema's Nan]

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000

we will take the money from others...

As NI is not put into a personal pot, all state pension payments are
'taking money from others'. So do you have a general problem with
this notion or only when 'females' are on the receiving end?

The state pension may not consist of precisely the same fivers that we
paid in, but it used to be fairly closely linked to the number of years
in which we paid NI i.e. most people didn't get back money that they
hadn't already paid in long ago.
What is puzzling is why the pension ages were not equalised as soon as
the Sex Discrimination Acts started being passed i.e. getting on for
half a century ago.

What I find puzzling is that some people are so wrapped up in their
misogyny that it fails to occur to them that a reduction in expected
income into a home affects the men of the house as much as it affects
the women.

In what possible sense can support for a long-overdue redressing of a
significant injustice (males getting their pensions later than women,
despite having markedly lower life expectation) be credibly termed
"misogyny"?

Because the argument is not about equalisation but about how the
equalisation has been managed - and none of the WASPI women as far as I
am aware are asking for the equalisation to be unrolled.
And to repeat - this affects men and women as it affects household
income.

You aren't being clear.
Are you saying that only females entering the workforce for the first
time on leaving education should have had their pension ages raised? In
other words, that a whole working life's period of notice was required?

Very few people are objecting to the pension age being raised, although no
one is ever happy about having to work for longer.
My wife was quite used to the idea that she would get her state pension at
63
and 1/2 years (despite the fact that her elder sister of 2 years had hers at
60) but it was the sudden decision by the coalition government around 2011
which upset the women concerned.
Having planned to retire at 63.5 years old, my wife was suddenly informed
that the goal posts had been moved and she would now not get her pension
until she was 65 and a half. Yes, she had a few years warning of this, but
not many; and had already made plans with her company for her retirement and
training of new or existing staff to take over her job.
As it turned out, the extra two years at work was not too much of a burden
on
her because she enjoys good health, but it seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister’s births has meant she has had to
work
5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

You're not being clear. Does that mean that Parliament had no right to
increase pension age with less than a working lifetime's notice?

I am being clear.

It is just that as a troll, you don’t understand English; and you would
rather turn the discussion around to a point you can argue against.

Or just no right to increase it for women (which is what Yellow's point
seems to be)?

I have followed the entire debate (on behalf of my wife, because she was at
work - surprise, surprise) and the worst performance was by some typical
overweight overpaid Tory MP slob, who after a very well presented plea by
another MP on behalf of the women who had their pension date altered twice,
stood up at the Select Committee table and patronised almost everyone in an
arrogant manner, managed to be sexist and ageist in almost every sentence,
and revealed that the efforts to gain recognition would not succeed because
(a) the complainants were old women and (b) there were only a few hundred
thousand of them, and so they could be safely ignored.

[JNugent]

Post by Keema's Nan

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000

we will take the money from others...

As NI is not put into a personal pot, all state pension payments are
'taking money from others'. So do you have a general problem with
this notion or only when 'females' are on the receiving end?

The state pension may not consist of precisely the same fivers that we
paid in, but it used to be fairly closely linked to the number of years
in which we paid NI i.e. most people didn't get back money that they
hadn't already paid in long ago.
What is puzzling is why the pension ages were not equalised as soon as
the Sex Discrimination Acts started being passed i.e. getting on for
half a century ago.

What I find puzzling is that some people are so wrapped up in their
misogyny that it fails to occur to them that a reduction in expected
income into a home affects the men of the house as much as it affects
the women.

In what possible sense can support for a long-overdue redressing of a
significant injustice (males getting their pensions later than women,
despite having markedly lower life expectation) be credibly termed
"misogyny"?

Because the argument is not about equalisation but about how the
equalisation has been managed - and none of the WASPI women as far as I
am aware are asking for the equalisation to be unrolled.
And to repeat - this affects men and women as it affects household
income.

You aren't being clear.
Are you saying that only females entering the workforce for the first
time on leaving education should have had their pension ages raised? In
other words, that a whole working life's period of notice was required?

Very few people are objecting to the pension age being raised, although no
one is ever happy about having to work for longer.
My wife was quite used to the idea that she would get her state pension at
63
and 1/2 years (despite the fact that her elder sister of 2 years had hers at
60) but it was the sudden decision by the coalition government around 2011
which upset the women concerned.
Having planned to retire at 63.5 years old, my wife was suddenly informed
that the goal posts had been moved and she would now not get her pension
until she was 65 and a half. Yes, she had a few years warning of this, but
not many; and had already made plans with her company for her retirement and
training of new or existing staff to take over her job.
As it turned out, the extra two years at work was not too much of a burden
on
her because she enjoys good health, but it seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister’s births has meant she has had to
work
5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

You're not being clear. Does that mean that Parliament had no right to
increase pension age with less than a working lifetime's notice?

I am being clear.

It is not at all clear which side of the "argument" you are taking.

Is it OK or isn't it?

Post by Keema's Nan
It is just that as a troll, you don’t understand English; and you would
rather turn the discussion around to a point you can argue against.

Or just no right to increase it for women (which is what Yellow's point
seems to be)?

I have followed the entire debate (on behalf of my wife, because she was at
work - surprise, surprise) and the worst performance was by some typical
overweight overpaid Tory MP slob, who after a very well presented plea by
another MP on behalf of the women who had their pension date altered twice,
stood up at the Select Committee table and patronised almost everyone in an
arrogant manner, managed to be sexist and ageist in almost every sentence,
and revealed that the efforts to gain recognition would not succeed because
(a) the complainants were old women and (b) there were only a few hundred
thousand of them, and so they could be safely ignored.

I had no idea that it was about performance in the House.

And you still aren't being clear. Was it unacceptable to change the
pensionable age for women but perfectly OK to change it even more
adversely for men?

[Keema's Nan]

Post by JNugent

Post by Keema's Nan

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000

we will take the money from others...

As NI is not put into a personal pot, all state pension payments are
'taking money from others'. So do you have a general problem with
this notion or only when 'females' are on the receiving end?

The state pension may not consist of precisely the same fivers that
we
paid in, but it used to be fairly closely linked to the number of
years
in which we paid NI i.e. most people didn't get back money that they
hadn't already paid in long ago.
What is puzzling is why the pension ages were not equalised as soon
as
the Sex Discrimination Acts started being passed i.e. getting on for
half a century ago.

What I find puzzling is that some people are so wrapped up in their
misogyny that it fails to occur to them that a reduction in expected
income into a home affects the men of the house as much as it affects
the women.

In what possible sense can support for a long-overdue redressing of a
significant injustice (males getting their pensions later than women,
despite having markedly lower life expectation) be credibly termed
"misogyny"?

Because the argument is not about equalisation but about how the
equalisation has been managed - and none of the WASPI women as far as I
am aware are asking for the equalisation to be unrolled.
And to repeat - this affects men and women as it affects household
income.

You aren't being clear.
Are you saying that only females entering the workforce for the first
time on leaving education should have had their pension ages raised? In
other words, that a whole working life's period of notice was required?

Very few people are objecting to the pension age being raised, although no
one is ever happy about having to work for longer.
My wife was quite used to the idea that she would get her state pension at
63
and 1/2 years (despite the fact that her elder sister of 2 years had hers at
60) but it was the sudden decision by the coalition government around 2011
which upset the women concerned.
Having planned to retire at 63.5 years old, my wife was suddenly informed
that the goal posts had been moved and she would now not get her pension
until she was 65 and a half. Yes, she had a few years warning of this, but
not many; and had already made plans with her company for her retirement and
training of new or existing staff to take over her job.
As it turned out, the extra two years at work was not too much of a burden
on
her because she enjoys good health, but it seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister’s births has meant she has had to
work
5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

You're not being clear. Does that mean that Parliament had no right to
increase pension age with less than a working lifetime's notice?

I am being clear.

It is not at all clear which side of the "argument" you are taking.

Why does that matter to anyone other than a troll?

Post by JNugent
Is it OK or isn't it?

Is what OK?

Post by JNugent

Post by Keema's Nan
It is just that as a troll, you don’t understand English; and you would
rather turn the discussion around to a point you can argue against.

Or just no right to increase it for women (which is what Yellow's point
seems to be)?

I have followed the entire debate (on behalf of my wife, because she was at
work - surprise, surprise) and the worst performance was by some typical
overweight overpaid Tory MP slob, who after a very well presented plea by
another MP on behalf of the women who had their pension date altered twice,
stood up at the Select Committee table and patronised almost everyone in an
arrogant manner, managed to be sexist and ageist in almost every sentence,
and revealed that the efforts to gain recognition would not succeed because
(a) the complainants were old women and (b) there were only a few hundred
thousand of them, and so they could be safely ignored.

I had no idea that it was about performance in the House.

That was just an example of the government’s attitude.

Aka “Ignore the old bags, and they will go away, after all they are not the
remotest bit sexy"

Post by JNugent
And you still aren't being clear. Was it unacceptable to change the
pensionable age for women but perfectly OK to change it even more
adversely for men?

You are trying to discuss a completely different subject entirely.

[JNugent]

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by JNugent

Post by Keema's Nan

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000

we will take the money from others...

As NI is not put into a personal pot, all state pension payments are
'taking money from others'. So do you have a general problem with
this notion or only when 'females' are on the receiving end?

The state pension may not consist of precisely the same fivers that we
paid in, but it used to be fairly closely linked to the number of years
in which we paid NI i.e. most people didn't get back money that they
hadn't already paid in long ago.
What is puzzling is why the pension ages were not equalised as soon as
the Sex Discrimination Acts started being passed i.e. getting on for
half a century ago.

What I find puzzling is that some people are so wrapped up in their
misogyny that it fails to occur to them that a reduction in expected
income into a home affects the men of the house as much as it affects
the women.

In what possible sense can support for a long-overdue redressing of a
significant injustice (males getting their pensions later than women,
despite having markedly lower life expectation) be credibly termed
"misogyny"?

Because the argument is not about equalisation but about how the
equalisation has been managed - and none of the WASPI women as far as I
am aware are asking for the equalisation to be unrolled.
And to repeat - this affects men and women as it affects household
income.

You aren't being clear.
Are you saying that only females entering the workforce for the first
time on leaving education should have had their pension ages raised? In
other words, that a whole working life's period of notice was required?

Very few people are objecting to the pension age being raised, although no
one is ever happy about having to work for longer.
My wife was quite used to the idea that she would get her state pension at
63
and 1/2 years (despite the fact that her elder sister of 2 years had hers at
60) but it was the sudden decision by the coalition government around 2011
which upset the women concerned.
Having planned to retire at 63.5 years old, my wife was suddenly informed
that the goal posts had been moved and she would now not get her pension
until she was 65 and a half. Yes, she had a few years warning of this, but
not many; and had already made plans with her company for her retirement and
training of new or existing staff to take over her job.
As it turned out, the extra two years at work was not too much of a burden
on
her because she enjoys good health, but it seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister’s births has meant she has had to
work
5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

You're not being clear. Does that mean that Parliament had no right to
increase pension age with less than a working lifetime's notice?

I am being clear.

It is not at all clear which side of the "argument" you are taking.

Why does that matter to anyone other than a troll?

Post by JNugent
Is it OK or isn't it?

Is what OK?

Is it OK for Parliament to increase pension age with less than a working
lifetime's notice?

It's all there, a few lines above.

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by JNugent

Post by Keema's Nan
It is just that as a troll, you don’t understand English; and you would
rather turn the discussion around to a point you can argue against.

Or just no right to increase it for women (which is what Yellow's point
seems to be)?

I have followed the entire debate (on behalf of my wife, because she was at
work - surprise, surprise) and the worst performance was by some typical
overweight overpaid Tory MP slob, who after a very well presented plea by
another MP on behalf of the women who had their pension date altered twice,
stood up at the Select Committee table and patronised almost everyone in an
arrogant manner, managed to be sexist and ageist in almost every sentence,
and revealed that the efforts to gain recognition would not succeed because
(a) the complainants were old women and (b) there were only a few hundred
thousand of them, and so they could be safely ignored.

I had no idea that it was about performance in the House.

That was just an example of the government’s attitude.
Aka “Ignore the old bags, and they will go away, after all they are not the
remotest bit sexy"

Post by JNugent
And you still aren't being clear. Was it unacceptable to change the
pensionable age for women but perfectly OK to change it even more
adversely for men?

You are trying to discuss a completely different subject entirely.

In a sense, you are right. But only in a limited sense: the thread
subject is actually *Labour's* posturing (see above in the subject
line), though the topic has drifted from that to being about the
unfairness as between the sexes (in favour of females) generally.

[Keema's Nan]

Post by JNugent

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by JNugent

Post by Keema's Nan

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000

we will take the money from others...

As NI is not put into a personal pot, all state pension payments
are
'taking money from others'. So do you have a general problem with
this notion or only when 'females' are on the receiving end?

The state pension may not consist of precisely the same fivers that
we
paid in, but it used to be fairly closely linked to the number of
years
in which we paid NI i.e. most people didn't get back money that
they
hadn't already paid in long ago.
What is puzzling is why the pension ages were not equalised as soon
as
the Sex Discrimination Acts started being passed i.e. getting on
for
half a century ago.

What I find puzzling is that some people are so wrapped up in their
misogyny that it fails to occur to them that a reduction in expected
income into a home affects the men of the house as much as it
affects
the women.

In what possible sense can support for a long-overdue redressing of a
significant injustice (males getting their pensions later than women,
despite having markedly lower life expectation) be credibly termed
"misogyny"?

Because the argument is not about equalisation but about how the
equalisation has been managed - and none of the WASPI women as far as
I
am aware are asking for the equalisation to be unrolled.
And to repeat - this affects men and women as it affects household
income.

You aren't being clear.
Are you saying that only females entering the workforce for the first
time on leaving education should have had their pension ages raised? In
other words, that a whole working life's period of notice was required?

Very few people are objecting to the pension age being raised, although
no
one is ever happy about having to work for longer.
My wife was quite used to the idea that she would get her state pension
at
63
and 1/2 years (despite the fact that her elder sister of 2 years had
hers
at
60) but it was the sudden decision by the coalition government around
2011
which upset the women concerned.
Having planned to retire at 63.5 years old, my wife was suddenly
informed
that the goal posts had been moved and she would now not get her pension
until she was 65 and a half. Yes, she had a few years warning of this,
but
not many; and had already made plans with her company for her retirement
and
training of new or existing staff to take over her job.
As it turned out, the extra two years at work was not too much of a
burden
on
her because she enjoys good health, but it seems rather unfair that a
gap
of
two years between her and her sister’s births has meant she has had to
work
5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

You're not being clear. Does that mean that Parliament had no right to
increase pension age with less than a working lifetime's notice?

I am being clear.

It is not at all clear which side of the "argument" you are taking.

Why does that matter to anyone other than a troll?

Post by JNugent
Is it OK or isn't it?

Is what OK?

Is it OK for Parliament to increase pension age with less than a working
lifetime's notice?

That depends if you accept 3-4 years as a "working lifetime”. I expect most
wealthy Tories do.

Post by JNugent
It's all there, a few lines above.

No it isn’t. That is your contrive question. Nothing to do with the
subject.

Post by JNugent

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by JNugent

Post by Keema's Nan
It is just that as a troll, you don’t understand English; and you would
rather turn the discussion around to a point you can argue against.

Or just no right to increase it for women (which is what Yellow's point
seems to be)?

I have followed the entire debate (on behalf of my wife, because she was at
work - surprise, surprise) and the worst performance was by some typical
overweight overpaid Tory MP slob, who after a very well presented plea by
another MP on behalf of the women who had their pension date altered twice,
stood up at the Select Committee table and patronised almost everyone in an
arrogant manner, managed to be sexist and ageist in almost every sentence,
and revealed that the efforts to gain recognition would not succeed because
(a) the complainants were old women and (b) there were only a few hundred
thousand of them, and so they could be safely ignored.

I had no idea that it was about performance in the House.

That was just an example of the government’s attitude.
Aka “Ignore the old bags, and they will go away, after all they are not the
remotest bit sexy"

Post by JNugent
And you still aren't being clear. Was it unacceptable to change the
pensionable age for women but perfectly OK to change it even more
adversely for men?

You are trying to discuss a completely different subject entirely.

In a sense, you are right. But only in a limited sense: the thread
subject is actually *Labour's* posturing (see above in the subject
line), though the topic has drifted from that to being about the
unfairness as between the sexes (in favour of females) generally.

Only because certain ignorants want it to drift that way, in order to
contradict people and show off their usual “black is white because I said
so” arguments.

[Keema's Nan]

[... I]t seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister’s births has meant she has had to
work
5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

SWMBO meets a few of her old schoolfriends occasionally for an
informal reunion. About a year ago when they met, one of their number
was celebrating as her pension had just come through, and she was able
to use her bus pass, etc., etc. The others looked a little startled
-- "Oh, got mine six months ago", and similar comments. Except SWMBO,
who still today has another six months to wait. These are people all
the same age, all in the same class at school, with more than two
years variation in date of receipt. To say that SWMBO was slightly
miffed would be one of the understatements of the century. She only
heard about WASPI a few days ago, otherwise she'd have joined them
on the spot.

Exactly the point the WASPI people are making. Your wife appears to be caught
in the same trap as mine.
It tends to be women born between April 1953 and April 1955 who are worst
affected.

In those two years (approx) the original and carefully stepped retirement age
increase, suddenly rose the second time from 62 to 66 with a one month
difference in birth date equating to a four month difference in pension date.
Therefore two people born just three months apart in 1954 would end up with
the youngest having to wait a whole year longer for the state pension.

It didn't help that at around the same time she was in a battle
with TPS over her pension rights for a few years spent teaching. In
the end she had to settle for her contributions back instead of a
small pension. Had she been teaching today rather than in the '70s
she would have got the pension; likewise if she'd realised there was
a problem and transferred her pension to the university scheme. But
she didn't think about it at the time, partly in the belief that TPS
was a good scheme.

[abelard]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:14:17 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

[... I]t seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister’s births has meant she has had to
work
5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

SWMBO meets a few of her old schoolfriends occasionally for an
informal reunion. About a year ago when they met, one of their number
was celebrating as her pension had just come through, and she was able
to use her bus pass, etc., etc. The others looked a little startled
-- "Oh, got mine six months ago", and similar comments. Except SWMBO,
who still today has another six months to wait. These are people all
the same age, all in the same class at school, with more than two
years variation in date of receipt. To say that SWMBO was slightly
miffed would be one of the understatements of the century. She only
heard about WASPI a few days ago, otherwise she'd have joined them
on the spot.

Exactly the point the WASPI people are making. Your wife appears to be caught
in the same trap as mine.
It tends to be women born between April 1953 and April 1955 who are worst
affected.
In those two years (approx) the original and carefully stepped retirement age
increase, suddenly rose the second time from 62 to 66 with a one month
difference in birth date equating to a four month difference in pension date.
Therefore two people born just three months apart in 1954 would end up with
the youngest having to wait a whole year longer for the state pension.

the act warning was dated 1995...
it said that the changes would start in 6 apr 2010...
and continue over10 years...

not my fault if you were all sleeping

people were thus warned at around the age of 40!

[JNugent]

Post by abelard
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:14:17 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

[... I]t seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister’s births has meant she has had to
work
5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

SWMBO meets a few of her old schoolfriends occasionally for an
informal reunion. About a year ago when they met, one of their number
was celebrating as her pension had just come through, and she was able
to use her bus pass, etc., etc. The others looked a little startled
-- "Oh, got mine six months ago", and similar comments. Except SWMBO,
who still today has another six months to wait. These are people all
the same age, all in the same class at school, with more than two
years variation in date of receipt. To say that SWMBO was slightly
miffed would be one of the understatements of the century. She only
heard about WASPI a few days ago, otherwise she'd have joined them
on the spot.

Exactly the point the WASPI people are making. Your wife appears to be caught
in the same trap as mine.
It tends to be women born between April 1953 and April 1955 who are worst
affected.
In those two years (approx) the original and carefully stepped retirement age
increase, suddenly rose the second time from 62 to 66 with a one month
difference in birth date equating to a four month difference in pension date.
Therefore two people born just three months apart in 1954 would end up with
the youngest having to wait a whole year longer for the state pension.

the act warning was dated 1995...
it said that the changes would start in 6 apr 2010...
and continue over10 years...
not my fault if you were all sleeping
people were thus warned at around the age of 40!

I wasn't following it all that closely because even then, I thought of
myself as still quite young, but that certainly accords with the bits I
remember.

Of course, if it had been seen as "unfair", Labour had the whole period
from 1997 to 2010 to reverse it. But they didn't.

[Keema's Nan]

Post by abelard
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:14:17 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

[... I]t seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister’s births has meant she has had to
work
5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

SWMBO meets a few of her old schoolfriends occasionally for an
informal reunion. About a year ago when they met, one of their number
was celebrating as her pension had just come through, and she was able
to use her bus pass, etc., etc. The others looked a little startled
-- "Oh, got mine six months ago", and similar comments. Except SWMBO,
who still today has another six months to wait. These are people all
the same age, all in the same class at school, with more than two
years variation in date of receipt. To say that SWMBO was slightly
miffed would be one of the understatements of the century. She only
heard about WASPI a few days ago, otherwise she'd have joined them
on the spot.

Exactly the point the WASPI people are making. Your wife appears to be caught
in the same trap as mine.
It tends to be women born between April 1953 and April 1955 who are worst
affected.
In those two years (approx) the original and carefully stepped retirement age
increase, suddenly rose the second time from 62 to 66 with a one month
difference in birth date equating to a four month difference in pension date.
Therefore two people born just three months apart in 1954 would end up with
the youngest having to wait a whole year longer for the state pension.

the act warning was dated 1995...

Well done for the speed you managed to skim Wikipedia in order to appear
knowledgeable.

Like Nugent, you have no idea of the reality.

Post by abelard
it said that the changes would start in 6 apr 2010...

Which they did.

Post by abelard
and continue over10 years...

Which they may do, but not at the rate the 1995 act laid out.

Post by abelard
not my fault if you were all sleeping
people were thus warned at around the age of 40!

Initially they were, but had you done your homework - or bothered to read any
of my posts, you would discover that the coalition government ditched that
plan in 2011 and speeded the whole process up, plus extended it to 66.

This is what the fuss is about.

Most people took your precious “warnings" (at aged 40) in good faith, and
did not expect the rules to be changed again, but they were.

[abelard]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 15:27:14 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:14:17 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

[... I]t seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister’s births has meant she has
had to
work
5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

SWMBO meets a few of her old schoolfriends occasionally for an
informal reunion. About a year ago when they met, one of their number
was celebrating as her pension had just come through, and she was able
to use her bus pass, etc., etc. The others looked a little startled
-- "Oh, got mine six months ago", and similar comments. Except SWMBO,
who still today has another six months to wait. These are people all
the same age, all in the same class at school, with more than two
years variation in date of receipt. To say that SWMBO was slightly
miffed would be one of the understatements of the century. She only
heard about WASPI a few days ago, otherwise she'd have joined them
on the spot.

Exactly the point the WASPI people are making. Your wife appears to be caught
in the same trap as mine.
It tends to be women born between April 1953 and April 1955 who are worst
affected.
In those two years (approx) the original and carefully stepped retirement age
increase, suddenly rose the second time from 62 to 66 with a one month
difference in birth date equating to a four month difference in pension date.
Therefore two people born just three months apart in 1954 would end up with
the youngest having to wait a whole year longer for the state pension.

the act warning was dated 1995...

Well done for the speed you managed to skim Wikipedia in order to appear
knowledgeable.

not wikipedia...someone effected

Post by Keema's Nan
Like Nugent, you have no idea of the reality.

Post by abelard
it said that the changes would start in 6 apr 2010...

Which they did.

Post by abelard
and continue over10 years...

Which they may do, but not at the rate the 1995 act laid out.

Post by abelard
not my fault if you were all sleeping
people were thus warned at around the age of 40!

Initially they were, but had you done your homework - or bothered to read any
of my posts, you would discover that the coalition government ditched that
plan in 2011 and speeded the whole process up, plus extended it to 66.
This is what the fuss is about.
Most people took your precious “warnings" (at aged 40) in good faith, and
did not expect the rules to be changed again, but they were.

more fool them

[Keema's Nan]

Post by abelard
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 15:27:14 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:14:17 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

[... I]t seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister’s births has meant she has
had to
work
5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

SWMBO meets a few of her old schoolfriends occasionally for an
informal reunion. About a year ago when they met, one of their number
was celebrating as her pension had just come through, and she was able
to use her bus pass, etc., etc. The others looked a little startled
-- "Oh, got mine six months ago", and similar comments. Except SWMBO,
who still today has another six months to wait. These are people all
the same age, all in the same class at school, with more than two
years variation in date of receipt. To say that SWMBO was slightly
miffed would be one of the understatements of the century. She only
heard about WASPI a few days ago, otherwise she'd have joined them
on the spot.

Exactly the point the WASPI people are making. Your wife appears to be caught
in the same trap as mine.
It tends to be women born between April 1953 and April 1955 who are worst
affected.
In those two years (approx) the original and carefully stepped retirement age
increase, suddenly rose the second time from 62 to 66 with a one month
difference in birth date equating to a four month difference in pension date.
Therefore two people born just three months apart in 1954 would end up with
the youngest having to wait a whole year longer for the state pension.

the act warning was dated 1995...

Well done for the speed you managed to skim Wikipedia in order to appear
knowledgeable.

not wikipedia...someone effected

Post by Keema's Nan
Like Nugent, you have no idea of the reality.

Post by abelard
it said that the changes would start in 6 apr 2010...

Which they did.

Post by abelard
and continue over10 years...

Which they may do, but not at the rate the 1995 act laid out.

Post by abelard
not my fault if you were all sleeping
people were thus warned at around the age of 40!

Initially they were, but had you done your homework - or bothered to read any
of my posts, you would discover that the coalition government ditched that
plan in 2011 and speeded the whole process up, plus extended it to 66.
This is what the fuss is about.
Most people took your precious “warnings" (at aged 40) in good faith, and
did not expect the rules to be changed again, but they were.

more fool them

For taking Tory governments at their word?

Yes I suppose so, but they seem never to renege on high earners’ tax cuts.

[abelard]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 17:04:50 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 15:27:14 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:14:17 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

[... I]t seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister’s births has meant she has
had to
work
5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

SWMBO meets a few of her old schoolfriends occasionally for an
informal reunion. About a year ago when they met, one of their number
was celebrating as her pension had just come through, and she was able
to use her bus pass, etc., etc. The others looked a little startled
-- "Oh, got mine six months ago", and similar comments. Except SWMBO,
who still today has another six months to wait. These are people all
the same age, all in the same class at school, with more than two
years variation in date of receipt. To say that SWMBO was slightly
miffed would be one of the understatements of the century. She only
heard about WASPI a few days ago, otherwise she'd have joined them
on the spot.

Exactly the point the WASPI people are making. Your wife appears to be caught
in the same trap as mine.
It tends to be women born between April 1953 and April 1955 who are worst
affected.
In those two years (approx) the original and carefully stepped retirement age
increase, suddenly rose the second time from 62 to 66 with a one month
difference in birth date equating to a four month difference in pension date.
Therefore two people born just three months apart in 1954 would end up with
the youngest having to wait a whole year longer for the state pension.

the act warning was dated 1995...

Well done for the speed you managed to skim Wikipedia in order to appear
knowledgeable.

not wikipedia...someone effected

Post by Keema's Nan
Like Nugent, you have no idea of the reality.

Post by abelard
it said that the changes would start in 6 apr 2010...

Which they did.

Post by abelard
and continue over10 years...

Which they may do, but not at the rate the 1995 act laid out.

Post by abelard
not my fault if you were all sleeping
people were thus warned at around the age of 40!

Initially they were, but had you done your homework - or bothered to read any
of my posts, you would discover that the coalition government ditched that
plan in 2011 and speeded the whole process up, plus extended it to 66.
This is what the fuss is about.
Most people took your precious “warnings" (at aged 40) in good faith, and
did not expect the rules to be changed again, but they were.

more fool them

For taking Tory governments at their word?
Yes I suppose so, but they seem never to renege on high earners’ tax cuts.

i'm delighted to see you trying to change the subject...

[JNugent]

Post by Keema's Nan

[... I]t seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister’s births has meant she has had to
work 5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

SWMBO meets a few of her old schoolfriends occasionally for an
informal reunion. About a year ago when they met, one of their number
was celebrating as her pension had just come through, and she was able
to use her bus pass, etc., etc. The others looked a little startled
-- "Oh, got mine six months ago", and similar comments. Except SWMBO,
who still today has another six months to wait. These are people all
the same age, all in the same class at school, with more than two
years variation in date of receipt. To say that SWMBO was slightly
miffed would be one of the understatements of the century. She only
heard about WASPI a few days ago, otherwise she'd have joined them
on the spot.

Exactly the point the WASPI people are making. Your wife appears to be caught
in the same trap as mine.
It tends to be women born between April 1953 and April 1955 who are worst
affected.
In those two years (approx) the original and carefully stepped retirement age
increase, suddenly rose the second time from 62 to 66 with a one month
difference in birth date equating to a four month difference in pension date.
Therefore two people born just three months apart in 1954 would end up with
the youngest having to wait a whole year longer for the state pension.

With the best will in the world, it's hard to see how that - or some
other outcome very similar to it - could have been avoided whilst still
pursuing the policy (of changing pension age) over a timescale which met
the requirements implicit within the need for change in the first place.

The only way in which Yellow's objections could have been fully
addressed (in the absence of further information from her) would have
been to give females 40+ years of notice, immediately on leaving FT
eduucation so that their retirement plans could venever be disrupted in
any way. That could never happen, for a variety of reasons.

So, is it a good situation - for anyone?

No, it probably isn't.

But anything else would have been worse overall. There is certainly no
chance whatever of a government giving 40 years' notice of changes in
benefit entitlement. See another post nearby for the reasons (though
they're obvious).

[Incubus]

Post by JNugent

Post by Keema's Nan

[... I]t seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister’s births has meant she has had to
work 5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

SWMBO meets a few of her old schoolfriends occasionally for an
informal reunion. About a year ago when they met, one of their number
was celebrating as her pension had just come through, and she was able
to use her bus pass, etc., etc. The others looked a little startled
-- "Oh, got mine six months ago", and similar comments. Except SWMBO,
who still today has another six months to wait. These are people all
the same age, all in the same class at school, with more than two
years variation in date of receipt. To say that SWMBO was slightly
miffed would be one of the understatements of the century. She only
heard about WASPI a few days ago, otherwise she'd have joined them
on the spot.

Exactly the point the WASPI people are making. Your wife appears to be caught
in the same trap as mine.
It tends to be women born between April 1953 and April 1955 who are worst
affected.
In those two years (approx) the original and carefully stepped retirement age
increase, suddenly rose the second time from 62 to 66 with a one month
difference in birth date equating to a four month difference in pension date.
Therefore two people born just three months apart in 1954 would end up with
the youngest having to wait a whole year longer for the state pension.

With the best will in the world, it's hard to see how that - or some
other outcome very similar to it - could have been avoided whilst still
pursuing the policy (of changing pension age) over a timescale which met
the requirements implicit within the need for change in the first place.
The only way in which Yellow's objections could have been fully
addressed (in the absence of further information from her) would have
been to give females 40+ years of notice, immediately on leaving FT
eduucation so that their retirement plans could venever be disrupted in
any way. That could never happen, for a variety of reasons.
So, is it a good situation - for anyone?
No, it probably isn't.
But anything else would have been worse overall. There is certainly no
chance whatever of a government giving 40 years' notice of changes in
benefit entitlement. See another post nearby for the reasons (though
they're obvious).

One could certainly argue that overall, it would be more unfair not to make the
changes. Unfair to men, that is, which might not count for much where some
schools of thought are concerned.

[Keema's Nan]

Post by JNugent

Post by Keema's Nan

[... I]t seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister’s births has meant she has had to
work 5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

SWMBO meets a few of her old schoolfriends occasionally for an
informal reunion. About a year ago when they met, one of their number
was celebrating as her pension had just come through, and she was able
to use her bus pass, etc., etc. The others looked a little startled
-- "Oh, got mine six months ago", and similar comments. Except SWMBO,
who still today has another six months to wait. These are people all
the same age, all in the same class at school, with more than two
years variation in date of receipt. To say that SWMBO was slightly
miffed would be one of the understatements of the century. She only
heard about WASPI a few days ago, otherwise she'd have joined them
on the spot.

Exactly the point the WASPI people are making. Your wife appears to be caught
in the same trap as mine.
It tends to be women born between April 1953 and April 1955 who are worst
affected.
In those two years (approx) the original and carefully stepped retirement age
increase, suddenly rose the second time from 62 to 66 with a one month
difference in birth date equating to a four month difference in pension date.
Therefore two people born just three months apart in 1954 would end up with
the youngest having to wait a whole year longer for the state pension.

With the best will in the world, it's hard to see how that - or some
other outcome very similar to it - could have been avoided whilst still
pursuing the policy (of changing pension age) over a timescale which met
the requirements implicit within the need for change in the first place.

I’ve told you that you have no idea of the precise nature of the subject.

And your continued posts on this thread simply prove that.

Post by JNugent
The only way in which Yellow's objections could have been fully
addressed (in the absence of further information from her) would have
been to give females 40+ years of notice, immediately on leaving FT
eduucation so that their retirement plans could venever be disrupted in
any way. That could never happen, for a variety of reasons.
So, is it a good situation - for anyone?
No, it probably isn't.
But anything else would have been worse overall.

No it wouldn’t. You are now plumbing the depths of ignorance.

But, you were warned.

Post by JNugent
There is certainly no
chance whatever of a government giving 40 years' notice of changes in
benefit entitlement. See another post nearby for the reasons (though
they're obvious).

[Yellow]

Post by JNugent
The only way in which Yellow's objections

I am explaining the situation the WASPI women find themselves in so not
"Yellow's objections", not an opinion, but the situation as it actually
stands.

And just to be clear, I was born in the 60's so am not in the group.

Post by JNugent
could have been fully
addressed (in the absence of further information from her) would have
been to give females 40+ years of notice, immediately on leaving FT
eduucation so that their retirement plans could venever be disrupted in
any way. That could never happen, for a variety of reasons.

The rule of thumb seems to be that people need at least 10 years to
prepare for change. Personally I am not so sure even that is long enough
especially as you reach the end of your ability to earn but if you did
the research you would know that the WASPI women were not not given that
long.

Meanwhile, I find it bizarre that anyone thinks what has happened to
them is in any sense fair. And arguing that others have been treated
even less fair (as I am sure you will) does not resolve the issue for
the WASPI women and their partners.

[JNugent]

Post by Yellow

Post by JNugent
The only way in which Yellow's objections

I am explaining the situation the WASPI women find themselves in so not
"Yellow's objections", not an opinion, but the situation as it actually
stands.
And just to be clear, I was born in the 60's so am not in the group.

Post by JNugent
could have been fully
addressed (in the absence of further information from her) would have
been to give females 40+ years of notice, immediately on leaving FT
eduucation so that their retirement plans could venever be disrupted in
any way. That could never happen, for a variety of reasons.

The rule of thumb seems to be that people need at least 10 years to
prepare for change. Personally I am not so sure even that is long enough
especially as you reach the end of your ability to earn but if you did
the research you would know that the WASPI women were not not given that
long.
Meanwhile, I find it bizarre that anyone thinks what has happened to
them is in any sense fair. And arguing that others have been treated
even less fair (as I am sure you will) does not resolve the issue for
the WASPI women and their partners.

Thank you.

It fully supports what I said.

Many thanks.

[Yellow]

Post by JNugent

Post by Yellow

Post by JNugent
The only way in which Yellow's objections

I am explaining the situation the WASPI women find themselves in so not
"Yellow's objections", not an opinion, but the situation as it actually
stands.
And just to be clear, I was born in the 60's so am not in the group.

Post by JNugent
could have been fully
addressed (in the absence of further information from her) would have
been to give females 40+ years of notice, immediately on leaving FT
eduucation so that their retirement plans could venever be disrupted in
any way. That could never happen, for a variety of reasons.

The rule of thumb seems to be that people need at least 10 years to
prepare for change. Personally I am not so sure even that is long enough
especially as you reach the end of your ability to earn but if you did
the research you would know that the WASPI women were not not given that
long.
Meanwhile, I find it bizarre that anyone thinks what has happened to
them is in any sense fair. And arguing that others have been treated
even less fair (as I am sure you will) does not resolve the issue for
the WASPI women and their partners.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Post by JNugent
It fully supports what I said.

Actually it doesn't and as other posters have pointed out, you seem to
be totally impervious to the information that is being made available to
you.

Hohum.

[JNugent]

Post by Yellow

Post by JNugent

Post by Yellow

Post by JNugent
The only way in which Yellow's objections

I am explaining the situation the WASPI women find themselves in so not
"Yellow's objections", not an opinion, but the situation as it actually
stands.
And just to be clear, I was born in the 60's so am not in the group.

Post by JNugent
could have been fully
addressed (in the absence of further information from her) would have
been to give females 40+ years of notice, immediately on leaving FT
eduucation so that their retirement plans could venever be disrupted in
any way. That could never happen, for a variety of reasons.

The rule of thumb seems to be that people need at least 10 years to
prepare for change. Personally I am not so sure even that is long enough
especially as you reach the end of your ability to earn but if you did
the research you would know that the WASPI women were not not given that
long.
Meanwhile, I find it bizarre that anyone thinks what has happened to
them is in any sense fair. And arguing that others have been treated
even less fair (as I am sure you will) does not resolve the issue for
the WASPI women and their partners.

Thank you.

Welcome.

Post by JNugent
It fully supports what I said.

Actually it doesn't and as other posters have pointed out, you seem to
be totally impervious to the information that is being made available to
you.
Hohum.

You resort to your favourite techniques - snipping, misattribution and
fabrication - yet again.

I said (though you have chosen to snip it) that the only way in which
your objections could be overcome would be never to change pensionable
age except with a working lifetime's advance notice - so about 40 years
(or more).

Since your complaint is about notice periods being inadequate (at "only"
the time since the mid-1990s), that would appear to be correct.

You can only resist that reasonable conclusion by getting back to
snipping, misattributing and/or fabricating things I have not written
(again).

[Yellow]

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by JNugent
Thank you.

Welcome.

Post by JNugent
It fully supports what I said.

Actually it doesn't and as other posters have pointed out, you seem to
be totally impervious to the information that is being made available to
you.
Hohum.

I said

You say a lot, most of it crap, which is fine and your call but what you
perhaps need to do is learn to read what other people are telling you
and make the effort to process it instead of getting all het up and
narked.

"Live and learn" is good advice; take it.

[JNugent]

Post by Yellow

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by JNugent
Thank you.

Welcome.

Post by JNugent
It fully supports what I said.

Actually it doesn't and as other posters have pointed out, you seem to
be totally impervious to the information that is being made available to
you.
Hohum.

I said

You say a lot, most of it crap, which is fine and your call but what you
perhaps need to do is learn to read what other people are telling you
and make the effort to process it instead of getting all het up and
narked.
"Live and learn" is good advice; take it.

More creative snipping and fabrication from you. It's your trademark.

[pamela]

Post by JNugent

Post by Yellow

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by JNugent
Thank you.

Welcome.

Post by JNugent
It fully supports what I said.

Actually it doesn't and as other posters have pointed out, you seem
to be totally impervious to the information that is being made
available to you.
Hohum.

I said

You say a lot, most of it crap, which is fine and your call but what
you perhaps need to do is learn to read what other people are telling
you and make the effort to process it instead of getting all het up and
narked.
"Live and learn" is good advice; take it.

More creative snipping and fabrication from you. It's your trademark.

Yellow also likes putting words in people's mouths and then asking
questions about what was purportedly said.

Back on topic, there was adequate notice given in this instance. Somew
folks may even not be happy with the 40 years you mention and perhaps
prefer a full 60 years.

[Yellow]

Post by JNugent

Post by Yellow

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by JNugent
Thank you.

Welcome.

Post by JNugent
It fully supports what I said.

Actually it doesn't and as other posters have pointed out, you seem to
be totally impervious to the information that is being made available to
you.
Hohum.

I said

You say a lot, most of it crap, which is fine and your call but what you
perhaps need to do is learn to read what other people are telling you
and make the effort to process it instead of getting all het up and
narked.
"Live and learn" is good advice; take it.

More creative snipping and fabrication from you. It's your trademark.

In fact I am just fighting back. Or do you really think I should just
sit back and take your abuse?

[JNugent]

Post by Yellow

Post by JNugent

Post by Yellow

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by JNugent
Thank you.

Welcome.

Post by JNugent
It fully supports what I said.

Actually it doesn't and as other posters have pointed out, you seem to
be totally impervious to the information that is being made available to
you.
Hohum.

I said

You say a lot, most of it crap, which is fine and your call but what you
perhaps need to do is learn to read what other people are telling you
and make the effort to process it instead of getting all het up and
narked.
"Live and learn" is good advice; take it.

More creative snipping and fabrication from you. It's your trademark.

In fact I am just fighting back.

So you admit your offences.

Post by Yellow
Or do you really think I should just
sit back and take your abuse?

I rarely abuse other posters. That, I would suggest, is fairly
well-known. I have certainly never abused you. I have from time to time
pointed out your inadvertent or deliberate errors.

[Yellow]

Post by JNugent

Post by Yellow

Post by JNugent

Post by Yellow

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by JNugent
Thank you.

Welcome.

Post by JNugent
It fully supports what I said.

Actually it doesn't and as other posters have pointed out, you seem to
be totally impervious to the information that is being made available to
you.
Hohum.

I said

You say a lot, most of it crap, which is fine and your call but what you
perhaps need to do is learn to read what other people are telling you
and make the effort to process it instead of getting all het up and
narked.
"Live and learn" is good advice; take it.

More creative snipping and fabrication from you. It's your trademark.

In fact I am just fighting back.

So you admit your offences.

Post by Yellow
Or do you really think I should just
sit back and take your abuse?

I rarely abuse other posters.

Only rarely? So that makes it OK then? LOL! But for whatever reason only
known to yourself, you certainly seem to struggle to be civil to me.

Just be on notice that when you are rude to me I /will/ be just as rude
back but if you want to pack this odd behaviour towards me in, then that
is better. :-)

[JNugent]

Post by Yellow

Post by JNugent

Post by Yellow

Post by JNugent

Post by Yellow

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by JNugent
Thank you.

Welcome.

Post by JNugent
It fully supports what I said.

Actually it doesn't and as other posters have pointed out, you seem to
be totally impervious to the information that is being made available to
you.
Hohum.

I said

You say a lot, most of it crap, which is fine and your call but what you
perhaps need to do is learn to read what other people are telling you
and make the effort to process it instead of getting all het up and
narked.
"Live and learn" is good advice; take it.

More creative snipping and fabrication from you. It's your trademark.

In fact I am just fighting back.

So you admit your offences.

Post by Yellow
Or do you really think I should just
sit back and take your abuse?

I rarely abuse other posters.

Only rarely? So that makes it OK then?

*Very* rarely. And only in (mild) response to abue from them, which they
have always initiated.

Post by Yellow
LOL! But for whatever reason only
known to yourself, you certainly seem to struggle to be civil to me.

Pointing out an inaccuracy is not being uncivil. Pointing out that you
have been dishonest is not uncivil.

If you were to consistently employe rational debating techniques and to
eschew your usual tactic of misrepresenting what others have said,
perhaps it would be easier for more peoppe to be consistently polite to you.

Post by Yellow
Just be on notice that when you are rude to me I /will/ be just as rude
back but if you want to pack this odd behaviour towards me in, then that
is better. :-)

And you have done it yet again.

I went on to point out that I have certainly never abused you (and in
fact, hardly anyone), though I have pointed out your factual errors,
whether deliberate or inadvertent...

...and you snipped it.

Why do you do it? Do you think it makes you look clever?

[Yellow]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:14:17 +0000 Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

[... I]t seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister�s births has meant she has had to
work
5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

SWMBO meets a few of her old schoolfriends occasionally for an
informal reunion. About a year ago when they met, one of their number
was celebrating as her pension had just come through, and she was able
to use her bus pass, etc., etc. The others looked a little startled
-- "Oh, got mine six months ago", and similar comments. Except SWMBO,
who still today has another six months to wait. These are people all
the same age, all in the same class at school, with more than two
years variation in date of receipt. To say that SWMBO was slightly
miffed would be one of the understatements of the century. She only
heard about WASPI a few days ago, otherwise she'd have joined them
on the spot.

Exactly the point the WASPI people are making. Your wife appears to be caught
in the same trap as mine.
It tends to be women born between April 1953 and April 1955 who are worst
affected.
In those two years (approx) the original and carefully stepped retirement age
increase, suddenly rose the second time from 62 to 66 with a one month
difference in birth date equating to a four month difference in pension date.
Therefore two people born just three months apart in 1954 would end up with
the youngest having to wait a whole year longer for the state pension.

The complaint, as I understand it, is one of implementation and not, as
some here are trying to twist it, about these women wanting more than
they believed themselves (quite reasonably) to be due.

While I am little younger, I was not hugely pleased that my pension aged
slipped from 60 to 65 but accepted it as it brought in a fairness, but
now of course it has been bumped again to 67 so I will be losing 7 years
pension in total. I take a keen interest in such things, being involved
in a landmark case against an employer who plundered our company scheme,
so knew about these changes promptly so have at least been able to
prepare.

But now I have 'retired' as I was made redundant, another bump of my
pension age would cause me a real problem, even though I have 10 years
to go before I hit 67. Quite simply, the years of me being able to save
significant sums have now passed and low paid work to tide me over any
future missing year(s) outside of what I have already prepared for would
leave quite a hole in my finances.

So my sympathy is well and truly with the WASPI women and I hope
something can be done for them but as the figures released by Labour
show, it is not a trivial sum to make everyone whole.

And as I have tried to explain to some of the dunderheads here who
cannot see beyond their notion that putting this right is an act against
the male sex, this loss of pension affects men too because it affects
the amount of money in the household.

[abelard]

Post by Yellow
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:14:17 +0000 Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

[... I]t seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister�s births has meant she has had to
work
5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

SWMBO meets a few of her old schoolfriends occasionally for an
informal reunion. About a year ago when they met, one of their number
was celebrating as her pension had just come through, and she was able
to use her bus pass, etc., etc. The others looked a little startled
-- "Oh, got mine six months ago", and similar comments. Except SWMBO,
who still today has another six months to wait. These are people all
the same age, all in the same class at school, with more than two
years variation in date of receipt. To say that SWMBO was slightly
miffed would be one of the understatements of the century. She only
heard about WASPI a few days ago, otherwise she'd have joined them
on the spot.

Exactly the point the WASPI people are making. Your wife appears to be caught
in the same trap as mine.
It tends to be women born between April 1953 and April 1955 who are worst
affected.
In those two years (approx) the original and carefully stepped retirement age
increase, suddenly rose the second time from 62 to 66 with a one month
difference in birth date equating to a four month difference in pension date.
Therefore two people born just three months apart in 1954 would end up with
the youngest having to wait a whole year longer for the state pension.

The complaint, as I understand it, is one of implementation and not, as
some here are trying to twist it, about these women wanting more than
they believed themselves (quite reasonably) to be due.
While I am little younger, I was not hugely pleased that my pension aged
slipped from 60 to 65 but accepted it as it brought in a fairness, but
now of course it has been bumped again to 67 so I will be losing 7 years
pension in total. I take a keen interest in such things, being involved
in a landmark case against an employer who plundered our company scheme,
so knew about these changes promptly so have at least been able to
prepare.
But now I have 'retired' as I was made redundant, another bump of my
pension age would cause me a real problem, even though I have 10 years
to go before I hit 67. Quite simply, the years of me being able to save
significant sums have now passed and low paid work to tide me over any
future missing year(s) outside of what I have already prepared for would
leave quite a hole in my finances.
So my sympathy is well and truly with the WASPI women and I hope
something can be done for them but as the figures released by Labour
show, it is not a trivial sum to make everyone whole.
And as I have tried to explain to some of the dunderheads here who
cannot see beyond their notion that putting this right is an act against
the male sex, this loss of pension affects men too because it affects
the amount of money in the household.

i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

[Keema's Nan]

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:14:17 +0000 Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

[... I]t seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister�s births has meant she has had to
work
5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

SWMBO meets a few of her old schoolfriends occasionally for an
informal reunion. About a year ago when they met, one of their number
was celebrating as her pension had just come through, and she was able
to use her bus pass, etc., etc. The others looked a little startled
-- "Oh, got mine six months ago", and similar comments. Except SWMBO,
who still today has another six months to wait. These are people all
the same age, all in the same class at school, with more than two
years variation in date of receipt. To say that SWMBO was slightly
miffed would be one of the understatements of the century. She only
heard about WASPI a few days ago, otherwise she'd have joined them
on the spot.

Exactly the point the WASPI people are making. Your wife appears to be caught
in the same trap as mine.
It tends to be women born between April 1953 and April 1955 who are worst
affected.
In those two years (approx) the original and carefully stepped retirement age
increase, suddenly rose the second time from 62 to 66 with a one month
difference in birth date equating to a four month difference in pension date.
Therefore two people born just three months apart in 1954 would end up with
the youngest having to wait a whole year longer for the state pension.

The complaint, as I understand it, is one of implementation and not, as
some here are trying to twist it, about these women wanting more than
they believed themselves (quite reasonably) to be due.
While I am little younger, I was not hugely pleased that my pension aged
slipped from 60 to 65 but accepted it as it brought in a fairness, but
now of course it has been bumped again to 67 so I will be losing 7 years
pension in total. I take a keen interest in such things, being involved
in a landmark case against an employer who plundered our company scheme,
so knew about these changes promptly so have at least been able to
prepare.
But now I have 'retired' as I was made redundant, another bump of my
pension age would cause me a real problem, even though I have 10 years
to go before I hit 67. Quite simply, the years of me being able to save
significant sums have now passed and low paid work to tide me over any
future missing year(s) outside of what I have already prepared for would
leave quite a hole in my finances.
So my sympathy is well and truly with the WASPI women and I hope
something can be done for them but as the figures released by Labour
show, it is not a trivial sum to make everyone whole.
And as I have tried to explain to some of the dunderheads here who
cannot see beyond their notion that putting this right is an act against
the male sex, this loss of pension affects men too because it affects
the amount of money in the household.

i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I know lots of people who worked as much as possible for as long as possible
prior to retirement, in order to have a luxury life after work....

And died aged 69.

[abelard]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 21:59:23 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:14:17 +0000 Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

[... I]t seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister�s births has meant she has had
to
work
5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

SWMBO meets a few of her old schoolfriends occasionally for an
informal reunion. About a year ago when they met, one of their number
was celebrating as her pension had just come through, and she was able
to use her bus pass, etc., etc. The others looked a little startled
-- "Oh, got mine six months ago", and similar comments. Except SWMBO,
who still today has another six months to wait. These are people all
the same age, all in the same class at school, with more than two
years variation in date of receipt. To say that SWMBO was slightly
miffed would be one of the understatements of the century. She only
heard about WASPI a few days ago, otherwise she'd have joined them
on the spot.

Exactly the point the WASPI people are making. Your wife appears to be caught
in the same trap as mine.
It tends to be women born between April 1953 and April 1955 who are worst
affected.
In those two years (approx) the original and carefully stepped retirement age
increase, suddenly rose the second time from 62 to 66 with a one month
difference in birth date equating to a four month difference in pension date.
Therefore two people born just three months apart in 1954 would end up with
the youngest having to wait a whole year longer for the state pension.

The complaint, as I understand it, is one of implementation and not, as
some here are trying to twist it, about these women wanting more than
they believed themselves (quite reasonably) to be due.
While I am little younger, I was not hugely pleased that my pension aged
slipped from 60 to 65 but accepted it as it brought in a fairness, but
now of course it has been bumped again to 67 so I will be losing 7 years
pension in total. I take a keen interest in such things, being involved
in a landmark case against an employer who plundered our company scheme,
so knew about these changes promptly so have at least been able to
prepare.
But now I have 'retired' as I was made redundant, another bump of my
pension age would cause me a real problem, even though I have 10 years
to go before I hit 67. Quite simply, the years of me being able to save
significant sums have now passed and low paid work to tide me over any
future missing year(s) outside of what I have already prepared for would
leave quite a hole in my finances.
So my sympathy is well and truly with the WASPI women and I hope
something can be done for them but as the figures released by Labour
show, it is not a trivial sum to make everyone whole.
And as I have tried to explain to some of the dunderheads here who
cannot see beyond their notion that putting this right is an act against
the male sex, this loss of pension affects men too because it affects
the amount of money in the household.

i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I know lots of people who worked as much as possible for as long as possible
prior to retirement, in order to have a luxury life after work....
And died aged 69.

lots of them eh!

i expect they enjoyed the work and saved themselves from boredom

[Yellow]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 21:59:23 +0000 Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I know lots of people who worked as much as possible for as long as possible
prior to retirement, in order to have a luxury life after work....
And died aged 69.

Yep - my husband died at 45 so his NI record died with him as no pension
was yet in payment. My Grandfather was 65 and my Dad 69 but at least
their wives kept some of the state pensions as they were in payment so
there is that I guess.

But these events have lead me to forgo new cars, holidays and meals out
to save enough to retire while I am still in my 50s, while I am actually
still alive.

[Keema's Nan]

Post by Yellow
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 21:59:23 +0000 Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I know lots of people who worked as much as possible for as long as possible
prior to retirement, in order to have a luxury life after work....
And died aged 69.

Yep - my husband died at 45 so his NI record died with him

Goodness me, that is so sad. 45 is no age at all, is it?

Post by Yellow
as no pension
was yet in payment. My Grandfather was 65 and my Dad 69 but at least
their wives kept some of the state pensions as they were in payment so
there is that I guess.
But these events have lead me to forgo new cars, holidays and meals out
to save enough to retire while I am still in my 50s, while I am actually
still alive.

That is a very sensible idea. I retired early, although I did get an
actuarily reduced pension; but although it seemed very small at the time I
found that cutting out all the un-necessary spending and not having to
commute to work that my outgoings were surprisingly less than I imagined and
I soon got used to it. I knew how many years I had until the state pension
started, and so all I had to do was survive financially until then.

Now I get the state pension, it is like manna from heaven and I can now enjoy
a few luxuries again.

Actually, I found meals out to be the easiest to give up because I would sit
there in a restaurant and think “I could make this myself for a quarter of
the price” and so that is what I did.

[Grikkbassturde®™]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:02:49 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 21:59:23 +0000 Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I know lots of people who worked as much as possible for as long as possible
prior to retirement, in order to have a luxury life after work....
And died aged 69.

Yep - my husband died at 45 so his NI record died with him

Goodness me, that is so sad. 45 is no age at all, is it?

Post by Yellow
as no pension
was yet in payment. My Grandfather was 65 and my Dad 69 but at least
their wives kept some of the state pensions as they were in payment so
there is that I guess.
But these events have lead me to forgo new cars, holidays and meals out
to save enough to retire while I am still in my 50s, while I am actually
still alive.

That is a very sensible idea. I retired early, although I did get an
actuarily reduced pension; but although it seemed very small at the time I
found that cutting out all the un-necessary spending and not having to
commute to work that my outgoings were surprisingly less than I imagined and
I soon got used to it. I knew how many years I had until the state pension
started, and so all I had to do was survive financially until then.
Now I get the state pension, it is like manna from heaven and I can now enjoy
a few luxuries again.
Actually, I found meals out to be the easiest to give up because I would sit
there in a restaurant and think “I could make this myself for a quarter of
the price” and so that is what I did.

And avoid catching amoebic dysentery at the same time.

[Peeler]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:09:53 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikkbassturde®™", farted

Post by Grikkbassturde®™
And avoid catching amoebic dysentery at the same time.

YOU would know everything about dysentery, eh, "Miss Recktum", you abnormal
arsebandit?

[Yellow]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:02:49 +0000 Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 21:59:23 +0000 Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I know lots of people who worked as much as possible for as long as possible
prior to retirement, in order to have a luxury life after work....
And died aged 69.

Yep - my husband died at 45 so his NI record died with him

Goodness me, that is so sad. 45 is no age at all, is it?

I am still narked at him for buggering off and leaving me but
unfortunately it was outside of our control.

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow
as no pension
was yet in payment. My Grandfather was 65 and my Dad 69 but at least
their wives kept some of the state pensions as they were in payment so
there is that I guess.
But these events have lead me to forgo new cars, holidays and meals out
to save enough to retire while I am still in my 50s, while I am actually
still alive.

That is a very sensible idea. I retired early, although I did get an
actuarily reduced pension; but although it seemed very small at the time I
found that cutting out all the un-necessary spending and not having to
commute to work that my outgoings were surprisingly less than I imagined and
I soon got used to it. I knew how many years I had until the state pension
started, and so all I had to do was survive financially until then.

I stopped work a couple of years ago now, which was a bit earlier than I
had planned as I was made redundant, but my experience so far is very
similar to yours. I am living purely on savings and carefully managed I
have enough to take me through to receiving my pensions.

I live simply, every penny spent being justified, but love that I have
the time I have to do as I wish, and having just heard a few days ago
that a friend of mine who retired at 65 a year before I stopped work has
just had a stroke, I regret my decision not at all.

The days of bed work bed work and then trying to get everything done at
the weekend are firmly behind me!

Post by Keema's Nan
Now I get the state pension, it is like manna from heaven and I can now enjoy
a few luxuries again.

:-)

I am also somewhat at the mercy of low interest rates and live in hope
they might rise just little as that would give me a tad more wriggle
room but time is the more precious commodity to me and I am not exactly
on the breadline, I just have to be careful and budget.

Post by Keema's Nan
Actually, I found meals out to be the easiest to give up because I would sit
there in a restaurant and think ?I could make this myself for a quarter of
the price? and so that is what I did.

I can understand that. :-)

[Yellow]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 10:05:14 +0000 Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow
I live simply, every penny spent being justified, but love that I have
the time I have to do as I wish, and having just heard a few days ago
that a friend of mine who retired at 65 a year before I stopped work has
just had a stroke, I regret my decision not at all.
The days of bed work bed work and then trying to get everything done at
the weekend are firmly behind me!

Yes, it is a different type of freedom, and one that few people seem to
understand. I discovered that I didn?t need money to enjoy myself; and
didn?t even have to leave my back garden. I could sit outside on a sunny
day and just watch the wildlife doing what they do, listen to the birds
chirping away - and I had spent nothing and had a very pleasant and relaxing
time.

Sitting in the garden in the Summer, reading a book or in the evening I
take out the tablet and watch a film. Bliss. And I like watching the
bees as it happens and I am extremely fond of the sparrows, especially
when they arrive at my bird table with all the young in tow.

The thing for me though is that I am never bored and never run out of
things to do and in fact the list just seems to get longer.

[Incubus]

Post by Yellow
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 21:59:23 +0000 Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I know lots of people who worked as much as possible for as long as possible
prior to retirement, in order to have a luxury life after work....
And died aged 69.

Yep - my husband died at 45 so his NI record died with him as no pension
was yet in payment. My Grandfather was 65 and my Dad 69 but at least
their wives kept some of the state pensions as they were in payment so
there is that I guess.
But these events have lead me to forgo new cars, holidays and meals out
to save enough to retire while I am still in my 50s, while I am actually
still alive.

Sounds like you're catching up with Gen-X :D

[Yellow]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:21:03 -0000 (UTC) Incubus <incubus9536612

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 21:59:23 +0000 Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I know lots of people who worked as much as possible for as long as possible
prior to retirement, in order to have a luxury life after work....
And died aged 69.

Yep - my husband died at 45 so his NI record died with him as no pension
was yet in payment. My Grandfather was 65 and my Dad 69 but at least
their wives kept some of the state pensions as they were in payment so
there is that I guess.
But these events have lead me to forgo new cars, holidays and meals out
to save enough to retire while I am still in my 50s, while I am actually
still alive.

Sounds like you're catching up with Gen-X :D

I think I am "generation x". Mid 60s?

Always in the middle so not a baby boomer, hit the lack of jobs in the
early 80s along with the 3 day week and then the house price explosion
when the married couple tax thingy was abolished.

No final salary pensions for us unless you went into the public sector
and state pensions are now being pushed out together with free bus
passes (both too old and too young) and the heating allowance.

Not all bad though, as we did get 80s music which made up for a lot. :-)

[Keema's Nan]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:21:03 -0000 (UTC) Incubus<incubus9536612

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 21:59:23 +0000 Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I know lots of people who worked as much as possible for as long as possible
prior to retirement, in order to have a luxury life after work....
And died aged 69.

Yep - my husband died at 45 so his NI record died with him as no pension
was yet in payment. My Grandfather was 65 and my Dad 69 but at least
their wives kept some of the state pensions as they were in payment so
there is that I guess.
But these events have lead me to forgo new cars, holidays and meals out
to save enough to retire while I am still in my 50s, while I am actually
still alive.

Sounds like you're catching up with Gen-X :D

I think I am "generation x". Mid 60s?
Always in the middle so not a baby boomer, hit the lack of jobs in the
early 80s along with the 3 day week and then the house price explosion
when the married couple tax thingy was abolished.

That’s right, and when we had mortgages but no savings and needed low
interest rates, we ended up with the highest in living memory.

Now, with some savings and no mortgage (when savings rates of 7% would be
very useful) we have had the lowest rates in living memory.

It seems that we are doomed to have things working against us throughout our
lives.

No final salary pensions for us unless you went into the public sector
and state pensions are now being pushed out together with free bus
passes (both too old and too young) and the heating allowance.
Not all bad though, as we did get 80s music which made up for a lot. :-)

[Yellow]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 10:11:12 +0000 Keema's Nan

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:21:03 -0000 (UTC) Incubus<incubus9536612

Post by Incubus

Post by Yellow
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 21:59:23 +0000 Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I know lots of people who worked as much as possible for as long as
possible
prior to retirement, in order to have a luxury life after work....
And died aged 69.

Yep - my husband died at 45 so his NI record died with him as no pension
was yet in payment. My Grandfather was 65 and my Dad 69 but at least
their wives kept some of the state pensions as they were in payment so
there is that I guess.
But these events have lead me to forgo new cars, holidays and meals out
to save enough to retire while I am still in my 50s, while I am actually
still alive.

Sounds like you're catching up with Gen-X :D

I think I am "generation x". Mid 60s?
Always in the middle so not a baby boomer, hit the lack of jobs in the
early 80s along with the 3 day week and then the house price explosion
when the married couple tax thingy was abolished.

That?s right, and when we had mortgages but no savings and needed low
interest rates, we ended up with the highest in living memory.
Now, with some savings and no mortgage (when savings rates of 7% would be
very useful) we have had the lowest rates in living memory.
It seems that we are doomed to have things working against us throughout our
lives.

I had forgotten about the interest rates. Yes. My mortgage rate went up
to 15.5% and for three months I did not actually have enough money to
cover it, pay my bills and eat as I had only budgeted on a max of 15%
when I committed to the purchase of my flat.

(But the way some talk anyone would think doing a full time job but not
having enough money for housing, bills and food is new and it was not
like we had easy access to food banks back then either!)

Now, I am living off savings, I am scrapping around to get 1.9% for
money locked away.

No final salary pensions for us unless you went into the public sector
and state pensions are now being pushed out together with free bus
passes (both too old and too young) and the heating allowance.
Not all bad though, as we did get 80s music which made up for a lot. :-)

[Andy Walker]

Post by Yellow
No final salary pensions for us unless you went into the public sector
and state pensions are now being pushed out together with free bus
passes (both too old and too young) and the heating allowance.

Final-salary pension schemes aren't all they're cracked up to
be. The big advantage is that they are absolutely painless. But they
don't represent a good return for the money that goes into them. I've
written long articles on this before, so I'm not going to repeat myself.
But the upshot is that you don't need to be envious of people with
f-s pensions. They could have done much better for themselves if
their salary had been used better [but, of course, many occupations
are or were absolutely tied to their schemes, so they didn't have any
choice in the matter]. [To be clear, you're entitled, if you feel so
inclined, to be envious of their jobs and their general financial
security as compared with yours, but not of their pensions relative
to those jobs.]

[pamela]

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:14:17 +0000 Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

[... I]t seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister�s births has meant
she has had to
work
5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

SWMBO meets a few of her old schoolfriends occasionally for an
informal reunion. About a year ago when they met, one of their
number was celebrating as her pension had just come through, and
she was able to use her bus pass, etc., etc. The others looked a
little startled -- "Oh, got mine six months ago", and similar
comments. Except SWMBO, who still today has another six months to
wait. These are people all the same age, all in the same class at
school, with more than two years variation in date of receipt. To
say that SWMBO was slightly miffed would be one of the
understatements of the century. She only heard about WASPI a few
days ago, otherwise she'd have joined them on the spot.

Exactly the point the WASPI people are making. Your wife appears to be caught
in the same trap as mine.
It tends to be women born between April 1953 and April 1955 who are
worst affected.
In those two years (approx) the original and carefully stepped retirement age
increase, suddenly rose the second time from 62 to 66 with a one
month difference in birth date equating to a four month difference
in pension date.
Therefore two people born just three months apart in 1954 would end
up with the youngest having to wait a whole year longer for the
state pension.

The complaint, as I understand it, is one of implementation and not,
as some here are trying to twist it, about these women wanting more
than they believed themselves (quite reasonably) to be due.
While I am little younger, I was not hugely pleased that my pension
aged slipped from 60 to 65 but accepted it as it brought in a
fairness, but now of course it has been bumped again to 67 so I will
be losing 7 years pension in total. I take a keen interest in such
things, being involved in a landmark case against an employer who
plundered our company scheme, so knew about these changes promptly so
have at least been able to prepare.
But now I have 'retired' as I was made redundant, another bump of my
pension age would cause me a real problem, even though I have 10
years to go before I hit 67. Quite simply, the years of me being able
to save significant sums have now passed and low paid work to tide me
over any future missing year(s) outside of what I have already
prepared for would leave quite a hole in my finances.
So my sympathy is well and truly with the WASPI women and I hope
something can be done for them but as the figures released by Labour
show, it is not a trivial sum to make everyone whole.
And as I have tried to explain to some of the dunderheads here who
cannot see beyond their notion that putting this right is an act
against the male sex, this loss of pension affects men too because it
affects the amount of money in the household.

i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I know lots of people who worked as much as possible for as long as
possible prior to retirement, in order to have a luxury life after
work....
And died aged 69.

That was in the olden days but average life expectancy has been increasing
to about 81 now.

[Yellow]

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?

Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.

Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.

So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Post by abelard
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I have no lost years, and as I say above, once you have completed the
maximum, it grows no more.

[Farmer Giles]

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Post by abelard
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I have no lost years, and as I say above, once you have completed the
maximum, it grows no more.

Don't confuse him with facts.

[abelard]

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?

yes

Post by Yellow
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.

trust me, i'm the government and i'm your bestie

i intend to live for ever...or die trying

Post by Yellow
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

combining resources tends to improve your lot...but i observe
that most people resist such methods
esp outside blood relations...

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I have no lost years, and as I say above, once you have completed the
maximum, it grows no more.

i didn't know that.....but your payments surely increase the longer
you put off taking it...
or there would be no point...

i know people who are doing it...including mathematicians!

[Keema's Nan]

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?

yes

Post by Yellow
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.

trust me, i'm the government and i'm your bestie
i intend to live for ever...or die trying

Post by Yellow
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

combining resources tends to improve your lot...but i observe
that most people resist such methods
esp outside blood relations...

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I have no lost years, and as I say above, once you have completed the
maximum, it grows no more.

i didn't know that.....but your payments surely increase the longer
you put off taking it...

No

Post by abelard
or there would be no point...

Precisely. I think most people believe that.

Post by abelard
i know people who are doing it...including mathematicians!

[abelard]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:05:24 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?

yes

Post by Yellow
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.

trust me, i'm the government and i'm your bestie
i intend to live for ever...or die trying

Post by Yellow
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

combining resources tends to improve your lot...but i observe
that most people resist such methods
esp outside blood relations...

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I have no lost years, and as I say above, once you have completed the
maximum, it grows no more.

i didn't know that.....but your payments surely increase the longer
you put off taking it...

No

"Your State Pension will increase every week you defer, as long as you
defer for at least 5 weeks. Your State Pension increases by the
equivalent of 1% for every 5 weeks you defer. This works out as 10.4%
for every 52 weeks. The extra amount is paid with your regular State
Pension payment."

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
or there would be no point...

Precisely. I think most people believe that.

i wonder why? perhaps because it is plausible...or even factual!

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
i know people who are doing it...including mathematicians!

[Grikkbassturde®™]

Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:05:24 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?

yes

Post by Yellow
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.

trust me, i'm the government and i'm your bestie
i intend to live for ever...or die trying

Post by Yellow
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

combining resources tends to improve your lot...but i observe
that most people resist such methods
esp outside blood relations...

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I have no lost years, and as I say above, once you have completed the
maximum, it grows no more.

i didn't know that.....but your payments surely increase the longer
you put off taking it...

No

"Your State Pension will increase every week you defer, as long as you
defer for at least 5 weeks. Your State Pension increases by the
equivalent of 1% for every 5 weeks you defer. This works out as 10.4%
for every 52 weeks. The extra amount is paid with your regular State
Pension payment."

Or you can take a lump sum if you think you'll croak in the next 10
years.

[Peeler]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:09:59 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikkbassturde®™", farted

Post by Grikkbassturde®™
Or you can take a lump sum

Not YOU, you incapacitated unemployable mental, physical and sexual cripple!

[Yellow]

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?

yes

Post by Yellow
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.

trust me, i'm the government and i'm your bestie
i intend to live for ever...or die trying

Post by Yellow
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

combining resources tends to improve your lot...but i observe
that most people resist such methods
esp outside blood relations...

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I have no lost years, and as I say above, once you have completed the
maximum, it grows no more.

i didn't know that.....but your payments surely increase the longer
you put off taking it...
or there would be no point...
i know people who are doing it...including mathematicians!

Once you reach state pension age you can put of taking it and when you
do take it your pension will be higher to compensate for the years you
did not take it, at least those are the current rules.

But this is not to be confused with the situation before you hit state
pension age where, again under current rules, once you have paid 35
years of NI your pension reaches the maximum.

[abelard]

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?

yes

Post by Yellow
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.

trust me, i'm the government and i'm your bestie
i intend to live for ever...or die trying

Post by Yellow
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

combining resources tends to improve your lot...but i observe
that most people resist such methods
esp outside blood relations...

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I have no lost years, and as I say above, once you have completed the
maximum, it grows no more.

i didn't know that.....but your payments surely increase the longer
you put off taking it...
or there would be no point...
i know people who are doing it...including mathematicians!

Once you reach state pension age you can put of taking it and when you
do take it your pension will be higher to compensate for the years you
did not take it, at least those are the current rules.
But this is not to be confused with the situation before you hit state
pension age where, again under current rules, once you have paid 35
years of NI your pension reaches the maximum.

ok...in as much as those two comments are not contradictory

[Yellow]

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
Once you reach state pension age you can put of taking it and when you
do take it your pension will be higher to compensate for the years you
did not take it, at least those are the current rules.
But this is not to be confused with the situation before you hit state
pension age where, again under current rules, once you have paid 35
years of NI your pension reaches the maximum.

ok...in as much as those two comments are not contradictory

Not contradictory - honest! The two things affect how much your state
pension payments but they independent of each other.

Your entitlement is a function of how many years NI you paid by your
normal retirement age, capped at 35 years under current rules.

You can then start taking that entitlement at your normal retirement age
or if you so choose you can delay taking it for up to 5 years (I think
it is) meaning the actual amount of cash you get in each payment when
you do actually start to draw it is increased to make up for the years
when you did not.

But your entitlement is still on the back of how many years NI you paid,
capped at 35 years. Pay 45 years NI by your normal retirement age and
you will not get any more than if you only paid 35 years. If you only
paid 30 years NI by your normal retirement age and you will of course
get less.

[abelard]

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow
Once you reach state pension age you can put of taking it and when you
do take it your pension will be higher to compensate for the years you
did not take it, at least those are the current rules.
But this is not to be confused with the situation before you hit state
pension age where, again under current rules, once you have paid 35
years of NI your pension reaches the maximum.

ok...in as much as those two comments are not contradictory

Not contradictory - honest!

i have some times trouble with your clarity...i have no problem
with your honesty

Post by Yellow
The two things affect how much your state
pension payments but they independent of each other.
Your entitlement is a function of how many years NI you paid by your
normal retirement age, capped at 35 years under current rules.
You can then start taking that entitlement at your normal retirement age
or if you so choose you can delay taking it for up to 5 years (I think
it is) meaning the actual amount of cash you get in each payment when
you do actually start to draw it is increased to make up for the years
when you did not.
But your entitlement is still on the back of how many years NI you paid,
capped at 35 years. Pay 45 years NI by your normal retirement age and
you will not get any more than if you only paid 35 years.

i'm the govt and i'm your best friend

there are life insurances that work like that

obviously there are advantages it a short life! you can stop
paying so-called n.i. can you not?
thoughtful people seem to prefer a singapore model...you split
insurance into 'catastrophic' and everyday...the everyday
become yours and part of your estate
catastrophic means permanent (currently) problems like
wasting diseases and serious reductions in capability(e.g
blindness or auto-immune problems)

france has just recently introduced government insurance
as an alternative to commercial
commercial insurance must of necessity seek to avoid paying out

Post by Yellow
If you only
paid 30 years NI by your normal retirement age and you will of course
get less.

that lot looks like sense

[Keema's Nan]

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Yes, that is the biggest con of them all. After 35 years the contributions
still have to be made but there is no pension benefit later.

My wife started work at 16 and (apart from working part time when the
children were young) retired at 65, and still she was denied a state pension
at 63 as per the original carefully 1990s planned increase to 65/66.

How many of the ‘clever’ contributors to this thread can say they had a
working life of 49 years?

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I have no lost years, and as I say above, once you have completed the
maximum, it grows no more.

[Farmer Giles]

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Yes, that is the biggest con of them all. After 35 years the contributions
still have to be made but there is no pension benefit later.
My wife started work at 16 and (apart from working part time when the
children were young) retired at 65, and still she was denied a state pension
at 63 as per the original carefully 1990s planned increase to 65/66.
How many of the ‘clever’ contributors to this thread can say they had a
working life of 49 years?

Some of us were clever and hard working enough not to require our wives
to go out to work at all. My wife of 45 years has never gone out to work
since we were married. Her job was to look after the children and be the
housekeeper - what I couldn't earn we went without.

[Keema's Nan]

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Yes, that is the biggest con of them all. After 35 years the contributions
still have to be made but there is no pension benefit later.
My wife started work at 16 and (apart from working part time when the
children were young) retired at 65, and still she was denied a state pension
at 63 as per the original carefully 1990s planned increase to 65/66.
How many of the ‘clever’ contributors to this thread can say they had a
working life of 49 years?

Some of us were clever and hard working enough not to require our wives
to go out to work at all. My wife of 45 years has never gone out to work
since we were married. Her job was to look after the children and be the
housekeeper - what I couldn't earn we went without.

I doubt that my wife would consider her working life was down to my lack of
cleverness. I’m sure that the last thing she would have wanted was to be a
housekeeper. She started work while I was still at school, and if she
hadn’t worked I would never have met her, because we worked together
briefly both before and after marriage.

Each to their own of course, but I think she enjoyed her various job for much
of her time, and I had no objection to cooking and cleaning while I was at
home on my own.

[Yellow]

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Yes, that is the biggest con of them all. After 35 years the contributions
still have to be made but there is no pension benefit later.
My wife started work at 16 and (apart from working part time when the
children were young) retired at 65, and still she was denied a state pension
at 63 as per the original carefully 1990s planned increase to 65/66.
How many of the ?clever? contributors to this thread can say they had a
working life of 49 years?

Some of us were clever and hard working enough not to require our wives
to go out to work at all. My wife of 45 years has never gone out to work
since we were married. Her job was to look after the children and be the
housekeeper - what I couldn't earn we went without.

Unfortunately not all us women are lucky enough to be 'kept' and have
had to earn our own money and our own pensions.

[Farmer Giles]

Post by Yellow

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Yes, that is the biggest con of them all. After 35 years the contributions
still have to be made but there is no pension benefit later.
My wife started work at 16 and (apart from working part time when the
children were young) retired at 65, and still she was denied a state pension
at 63 as per the original carefully 1990s planned increase to 65/66.
How many of the ?clever? contributors to this thread can say they had a
working life of 49 years?

Some of us were clever and hard working enough not to require our wives
to go out to work at all. My wife of 45 years has never gone out to work
since we were married. Her job was to look after the children and be the
housekeeper - what I couldn't earn we went without.

Unfortunately not all us women are lucky enough to be 'kept' and have
had to earn our own money and our own pensions.

My wife has never been a 'kept' woman. She brought up our four children
and worked extremely hard, with no grandparents or nearby relatives to
help out. Our children never came home to a 'latch key', but to a warm
comfortable home with their mother always there to greet them. Perhaps
that's why they are all graduates with good careers, and who have never
been in any kind of trouble.

Call me an old reactionary, if you like, but that's how I believe it
should be. And we weren't lucky - other than the fact that there is an
element of luck in being able to do anything. The business that I'd
almost killed myself building up went downhill in the 1980s, and things
were very bleak for a spell. I did anything I could, even taking on two
quite poor jobs at one time - and more that once working completely
around the clock.

At no time during that did I ever consider having my wife go out to work
and neglect our children. Other people have different ideas and
different values, and that's up to them, but I practise what I preach.

[Incubus]

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Yellow

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Yes, that is the biggest con of them all. After 35 years the contributions
still have to be made but there is no pension benefit later.
My wife started work at 16 and (apart from working part time when the
children were young) retired at 65, and still she was denied a state pension
at 63 as per the original carefully 1990s planned increase to 65/66.
How many of the ?clever? contributors to this thread can say they had a
working life of 49 years?

Some of us were clever and hard working enough not to require our wives
to go out to work at all. My wife of 45 years has never gone out to work
since we were married. Her job was to look after the children and be the
housekeeper - what I couldn't earn we went without.

Unfortunately not all us women are lucky enough to be 'kept' and have
had to earn our own money and our own pensions.

My wife has never been a 'kept' woman. She brought up our four children
and worked extremely hard, with no grandparents or nearby relatives to
help out. Our children never came home to a 'latch key', but to a warm
comfortable home with their mother always there to greet them. Perhaps
that's why they are all graduates with good careers, and who have never
been in any kind of trouble.
Call me an old reactionary, if you like, but that's how I believe it
should be. And we weren't lucky - other than the fact that there is an
element of luck in being able to do anything. The business that I'd
almost killed myself building up went downhill in the 1980s, and things
were very bleak for a spell. I did anything I could, even taking on two
quite poor jobs at one time - and more that once working completely
around the clock.
At no time during that did I ever consider having my wife go out to work
and neglect our children. Other people have different ideas and
different values, and that's up to them, but I practise what I preach.

I feel the same way. My wife's job is raising our children. It annoys me when
people think I'm well off because of my tax bracket; I'm supporting a family of
four and get absolutely nothing from the government in terms of tax breaks
because I don't qualify. People like Corbyn want me to pay yet more tax,
howevever.

At least my student loan is finally paid off (just this month). That's an
extra £300 or on my payslip.

[kat]

Post by Incubus

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Yellow

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Yes, that is the biggest con of them all. After 35 years the contributions
still have to be made but there is no pension benefit later.
My wife started work at 16 and (apart from working part time when the
children were young) retired at 65, and still she was denied a state pension
at 63 as per the original carefully 1990s planned increase to 65/66.
How many of the ?clever? contributors to this thread can say they had a
working life of 49 years?

Some of us were clever and hard working enough not to require our wives
to go out to work at all. My wife of 45 years has never gone out to work
since we were married. Her job was to look after the children and be the
housekeeper - what I couldn't earn we went without.

Unfortunately not all us women are lucky enough to be 'kept' and have
had to earn our own money and our own pensions.

My wife has never been a 'kept' woman. She brought up our four children
and worked extremely hard, with no grandparents or nearby relatives to
help out. Our children never came home to a 'latch key', but to a warm
comfortable home with their mother always there to greet them. Perhaps
that's why they are all graduates with good careers, and who have never
been in any kind of trouble.
Call me an old reactionary, if you like, but that's how I believe it
should be. And we weren't lucky - other than the fact that there is an
element of luck in being able to do anything. The business that I'd
almost killed myself building up went downhill in the 1980s, and things
were very bleak for a spell. I did anything I could, even taking on two
quite poor jobs at one time - and more that once working completely
around the clock.
At no time during that did I ever consider having my wife go out to work
and neglect our children. Other people have different ideas and
different values, and that's up to them, but I practise what I preach.

I feel the same way. My wife's job is raising our children. It annoys me when
people think I'm well off because of my tax bracket; I'm supporting a family of
four and get absolutely nothing from the government in terms of tax breaks
because I don't qualify. People like Corbyn want me to pay yet more tax,
howevever.
At least my student loan is finally paid off (just this month). That's an
extra £300 or on my payslip.

Many years ago, when I was raising my children, I was asked, from time to time,
"do you work?" .
"Yes, as a cook, cleaner, nanny, dress maker, taxi-driver..."

I recall, back then, one particular insurance company used to cost out the price
of replacing a wife with paid help ( to encourage men to take out life cover on
their wives) and it would have been nice to have been paid the amount they
quoted. :-)

[Joe]

On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 13:52:53 +0000

Post by kat
I recall, back then, one particular insurance company used to cost
out the price of replacing a wife with paid help ( to encourage men
to take out life cover on their wives) and it would have been nice to
have been paid the amount they quoted. :-)

Newspapers often do that when they're pushed for material.

What I've noticed is that none of them have ever done it for *husbands*.

Plumber, electrician, bricklayer, plasterer, lawyer, locksmith.....

[kat]

Post by Joe
On Thu, 28 Nov 2019 13:52:53 +0000

Post by kat
I recall, back then, one particular insurance company used to cost
out the price of replacing a wife with paid help ( to encourage men
to take out life cover on their wives) and it would have been nice to
have been paid the amount they quoted. :-)

Newspapers often do that when they're pushed for material.
What I've noticed is that none of them have ever done it for *husbands*.
Plumber, electrician, bricklayer, plasterer, lawyer, locksmith.....

True, but this was back when women tended no to go out to work, and men did
think about covering themselves so their wives had an income, but didn't think
about the costs they would incur if they lost their wife. It was an advertisment.

[Yellow]

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Yellow

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Yes, that is the biggest con of them all. After 35 years the contributions
still have to be made but there is no pension benefit later.
My wife started work at 16 and (apart from working part time when the
children were young) retired at 65, and still she was denied a state pension
at 63 as per the original carefully 1990s planned increase to 65/66.
How many of the ?clever? contributors to this thread can say they had a
working life of 49 years?

Some of us were clever and hard working enough not to require our wives
to go out to work at all. My wife of 45 years has never gone out to work
since we were married. Her job was to look after the children and be the
housekeeper - what I couldn't earn we went without.

Unfortunately not all us women are lucky enough to be 'kept' and have
had to earn our own money and our own pensions.

My wife has never been a 'kept' woman. She brought up our four children
and worked extremely hard, with no grandparents or nearby relatives to
help out. Our children never came home to a 'latch key', but to a warm
comfortable home with their mother always there to greet them. Perhaps
that's why they are all graduates with good careers, and who have never
been in any kind of trouble.
Call me an old reactionary, if you like, but that's how I believe it
should be. And we weren't lucky - other than the fact that there is an
element of luck in being able to do anything. The business that I'd
almost killed myself building up went downhill in the 1980s, and things
were very bleak for a spell. I did anything I could, even taking on two
quite poor jobs at one time - and more that once working completely
around the clock.
At no time during that did I ever consider having my wife go out to work
and neglect our children. Other people have different ideas and
different values, and that's up to them, but I practise what I preach.

On the defensive! Good. And so you should be because what you posted to
Keema was pretty naff.

[Farmer Giles]

Post by Yellow

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Yellow

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Yes, that is the biggest con of them all. After 35 years the contributions
still have to be made but there is no pension benefit later.
My wife started work at 16 and (apart from working part time when the
children were young) retired at 65, and still she was denied a state pension
at 63 as per the original carefully 1990s planned increase to 65/66.
How many of the ?clever? contributors to this thread can say they had a
working life of 49 years?

Some of us were clever and hard working enough not to require our wives
to go out to work at all. My wife of 45 years has never gone out to work
since we were married. Her job was to look after the children and be the
housekeeper - what I couldn't earn we went without.

Unfortunately not all us women are lucky enough to be 'kept' and have
had to earn our own money and our own pensions.

My wife has never been a 'kept' woman. She brought up our four children
and worked extremely hard, with no grandparents or nearby relatives to
help out. Our children never came home to a 'latch key', but to a warm
comfortable home with their mother always there to greet them. Perhaps
that's why they are all graduates with good careers, and who have never
been in any kind of trouble.
Call me an old reactionary, if you like, but that's how I believe it
should be. And we weren't lucky - other than the fact that there is an
element of luck in being able to do anything. The business that I'd
almost killed myself building up went downhill in the 1980s, and things
were very bleak for a spell. I did anything I could, even taking on two
quite poor jobs at one time - and more that once working completely
around the clock.
At no time during that did I ever consider having my wife go out to work
and neglect our children. Other people have different ideas and
different values, and that's up to them, but I practise what I preach.

On the defensive! Good.

Not at all, just a response to your offensive 'kept' woman remark. The
point I was making, which seems to have completely evaded you, was that
my wife and I have had a true working 'partnership', with both of us
complementing the other's role - and neither being 'kept'by the other.


And so you should be because what you posted to

Post by Yellow
Keema was pretty naff.

Why, and in what sense?

[Keema's Nan]

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Yellow

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Yellow

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Yes, that is the biggest con of them all. After 35 years the
contributions
still have to be made but there is no pension benefit later.
My wife started work at 16 and (apart from working part time when the
children were young) retired at 65, and still she was denied a state
pension
at 63 as per the original carefully 1990s planned increase to 65/66.
How many of the ?clever? contributors to this thread can say they had a
working life of 49 years?

Some of us were clever and hard working enough not to require our wives
to go out to work at all. My wife of 45 years has never gone out to work
since we were married. Her job was to look after the children and be the
housekeeper - what I couldn't earn we went without.

Unfortunately not all us women are lucky enough to be 'kept' and have
had to earn our own money and our own pensions.

My wife has never been a 'kept' woman. She brought up our four children
and worked extremely hard, with no grandparents or nearby relatives to
help out. Our children never came home to a 'latch key', but to a warm
comfortable home with their mother always there to greet them. Perhaps
that's why they are all graduates with good careers, and who have never
been in any kind of trouble.
Call me an old reactionary, if you like, but that's how I believe it
should be. And we weren't lucky - other than the fact that there is an
element of luck in being able to do anything. The business that I'd
almost killed myself building up went downhill in the 1980s, and things
were very bleak for a spell. I did anything I could, even taking on two
quite poor jobs at one time - and more that once working completely
around the clock.
At no time during that did I ever consider having my wife go out to work
and neglect our children. Other people have different ideas and
different values, and that's up to them, but I practise what I preach.

On the defensive! Good.

Not at all, just a response to your offensive 'kept' woman remark. The
point I was making, which seems to have completely evaded you, was that
my wife and I have had a true working 'partnership', with both of us
complementing the other's role - and neither being 'kept'by the other.

Good grief.

When someone feels proud that *his* wife (note the subtle implication of
ownership) never had to go to work, I just wonder how much say she had in
that decision at any time in her life?

The idea that a man can earn enough to keep a family without anyone else ever
having to work, and then using it in what appears to be some prehistoric form
of bragging rights, is anathema to me; as well as being arrogant by
implication.

The implication being that any married woman who worked, did so through
financial necessity rather than a career choice.

Post by Farmer Giles
And so you should be because what you posted to

Post by Yellow
Keema was pretty naff.

Why, and in what sense?

I disagreed with his views, and still do. Sometimes I get myself kf’d just
for having a difference of opinion, but I am used to that nonsense now.

[Farmer Giles]

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Yellow

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Yellow

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Yes, that is the biggest con of them all. After 35 years the contributions
still have to be made but there is no pension benefit later.
My wife started work at 16 and (apart from working part time when the
children were young) retired at 65, and still she was denied a state pension
at 63 as per the original carefully 1990s planned increase to 65/66.
How many of the ?clever? contributors to this thread can say they had a
working life of 49 years?

Some of us were clever and hard working enough not to require our wives
to go out to work at all. My wife of 45 years has never gone out to work
since we were married. Her job was to look after the children and be the
housekeeper - what I couldn't earn we went without.

Unfortunately not all us women are lucky enough to be 'kept' and have
had to earn our own money and our own pensions.

My wife has never been a 'kept' woman. She brought up our four children
and worked extremely hard, with no grandparents or nearby relatives to
help out. Our children never came home to a 'latch key', but to a warm
comfortable home with their mother always there to greet them. Perhaps
that's why they are all graduates with good careers, and who have never
been in any kind of trouble.
Call me an old reactionary, if you like, but that's how I believe it
should be. And we weren't lucky - other than the fact that there is an
element of luck in being able to do anything. The business that I'd
almost killed myself building up went downhill in the 1980s, and things
were very bleak for a spell. I did anything I could, even taking on two
quite poor jobs at one time - and more that once working completely
around the clock.
At no time during that did I ever consider having my wife go out to work
and neglect our children. Other people have different ideas and
different values, and that's up to them, but I practise what I preach.

On the defensive! Good.

Not at all, just a response to your offensive 'kept' woman remark. The
point I was making, which seems to have completely evaded you, was that
my wife and I have had a true working 'partnership', with both of us
complementing the other's role - and neither being 'kept'by the other.

Good grief.

Oh dear, straight out of the Babbelardian lexicon of pretentious bullshit.

Post by Keema's Nan
When someone feels proud that *his* wife (note the subtle implication of
ownership) never had to go to work, I just wonder how much say she had in
that decision at any time in her life?

How do you describe your wife - 'the' wife? She is my wife, and I am her
husband - nothing to do with ownership. 'My' wife always wanted
children, and believed that bringing them up 'properly'was a full-time
occupation. I was happy with that, and did my best to accomodate what
she wanted.

Post by Keema's Nan
The idea that a man can earn enough to keep a family without anyone else ever
having to work, and then using it in what appears to be some prehistoric form
of bragging rights, is anathema to me; as well as being arrogant by
implication.

More wooden prose from someone who 'bragged' that his wife had worked
for 49 years.

Post by Keema's Nan
The implication being that any married woman who worked, did so through
financial necessity rather than a career choice.

You were the one who said when you retired early, and presumably only
had one income coming into the household, you had to give up a 'few
luxuries' - so the 'implication' was there that there was a 'financial
necessity' for both of you to work.

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Farmer Giles
And so you should be because what you posted to

Post by Yellow
Keema was pretty naff.

Why, and in what sense?

I disagreed with his views, and still do. Sometimes I get myself kf’d just
for having a difference of opinion, but I am used to that nonsense now.

You are entitled to disagree with my views - in fact I much prefer it
that way. If a perverse, scratch-looking-for-an-itch, specimen like you
ever has views that approach my own I'd have serious concerns that I've
got things wrong.

[abelard]

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 10:15:25 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Yellow

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Yellow

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Yes, that is the biggest con of them all. After 35 years the
contributions
still have to be made but there is no pension benefit later.
My wife started work at 16 and (apart from working part time when the
children were young) retired at 65, and still she was denied a state
pension
at 63 as per the original carefully 1990s planned increase to 65/66.
How many of the ?clever? contributors to this thread can say they had a
working life of 49 years?

Some of us were clever and hard working enough not to require our wives
to go out to work at all. My wife of 45 years has never gone out to work
since we were married. Her job was to look after the children and be the
housekeeper - what I couldn't earn we went without.

Unfortunately not all us women are lucky enough to be 'kept' and have
had to earn our own money and our own pensions.

My wife has never been a 'kept' woman. She brought up our four children
and worked extremely hard, with no grandparents or nearby relatives to
help out. Our children never came home to a 'latch key', but to a warm
comfortable home with their mother always there to greet them. Perhaps
that's why they are all graduates with good careers, and who have never
been in any kind of trouble.
Call me an old reactionary, if you like, but that's how I believe it
should be. And we weren't lucky - other than the fact that there is an
element of luck in being able to do anything. The business that I'd
almost killed myself building up went downhill in the 1980s, and things
were very bleak for a spell. I did anything I could, even taking on two
quite poor jobs at one time - and more that once working completely
around the clock.
At no time during that did I ever consider having my wife go out to work
and neglect our children. Other people have different ideas and
different values, and that's up to them, but I practise what I preach.

On the defensive! Good.

Not at all, just a response to your offensive 'kept' woman remark. The
point I was making, which seems to have completely evaded you, was that
my wife and I have had a true working 'partnership', with both of us
complementing the other's role - and neither being 'kept'by the other.

Good grief.
When someone feels proud that *his* wife (note the subtle implication of
ownership) never had to go to work, I just wonder how much say she had in
that decision at any time in her life?
The idea that a man can earn enough to keep a family without anyone else ever
having to work, and then using it in what appears to be some prehistoric form
of bragging rights, is anathema to me; as well as being arrogant by
implication.
The implication being that any married woman who worked, did so through
financial necessity rather than a career choice.

he is both insecure and unusually dumb...make allowances

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Farmer Giles
And so you should be because what you posted to

Post by Yellow
Keema was pretty naff.

Why, and in what sense?

I disagreed with his views, and still do. Sometimes I get myself kf’d just
for having a difference of opinion, but I am used to that nonsense now.

such is life...i've kf's swedehead for the one crime i do not
tolerate...he is terminally boring

[Farmer Giles]

Post by abelard
On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 10:15:25 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Yellow

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Yellow

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Yes, that is the biggest con of them all. After 35 years the contributions
still have to be made but there is no pension benefit later.
My wife started work at 16 and (apart from working part time when the
children were young) retired at 65, and still she was denied a state pension
at 63 as per the original carefully 1990s planned increase to 65/66.
How many of the ?clever? contributors to this thread can say they had a
working life of 49 years?

Some of us were clever and hard working enough not to require our wives
to go out to work at all. My wife of 45 years has never gone out to work
since we were married. Her job was to look after the children and be the
housekeeper - what I couldn't earn we went without.

Unfortunately not all us women are lucky enough to be 'kept' and have
had to earn our own money and our own pensions.

My wife has never been a 'kept' woman. She brought up our four children
and worked extremely hard, with no grandparents or nearby relatives to
help out. Our children never came home to a 'latch key', but to a warm
comfortable home with their mother always there to greet them. Perhaps
that's why they are all graduates with good careers, and who have never
been in any kind of trouble.
Call me an old reactionary, if you like, but that's how I believe it
should be. And we weren't lucky - other than the fact that there is an
element of luck in being able to do anything. The business that I'd
almost killed myself building up went downhill in the 1980s, and things
were very bleak for a spell. I did anything I could, even taking on two
quite poor jobs at one time - and more that once working completely
around the clock.
At no time during that did I ever consider having my wife go out to work
and neglect our children. Other people have different ideas and
different values, and that's up to them, but I practise what I preach.

On the defensive! Good.

Not at all, just a response to your offensive 'kept' woman remark. The
point I was making, which seems to have completely evaded you, was that
my wife and I have had a true working 'partnership', with both of us
complementing the other's role - and neither being 'kept'by the other.

Good grief.
When someone feels proud that *his* wife (note the subtle implication of
ownership) never had to go to work, I just wonder how much say she had in
that decision at any time in her life?
The idea that a man can earn enough to keep a family without anyone else ever
having to work, and then using it in what appears to be some prehistoric form
of bragging rights, is anathema to me; as well as being arrogant by
implication.
The implication being that any married woman who worked, did so through
financial necessity rather than a career choice.

he is both insecure and unusually dumb...make allowances

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Farmer Giles
And so you should be because what you posted to

Post by Yellow
Keema was pretty naff.

Why, and in what sense?

I disagreed with his views, and still do. Sometimes I get myself kf’d just
for having a difference of opinion, but I am used to that nonsense now.

such is life...i've kf's swedehead for the one crime i do not
tolerate...he is terminally boring

Hello, Babbelard's arrived with his single braincell to keep his mate's
lonely one company.

[Keema's Nan]

Post by Yellow

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Yellow

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Yes, that is the biggest con of them all. After 35 years the contributions
still have to be made but there is no pension benefit later.
My wife started work at 16 and (apart from working part time when the
children were young) retired at 65, and still she was denied a state
pension
at 63 as per the original carefully 1990s planned increase to 65/66.
How many of the ?clever? contributors to this thread can say they had a
working life of 49 years?

Some of us were clever and hard working enough not to require our wives
to go out to work at all. My wife of 45 years has never gone out to work
since we were married. Her job was to look after the children and be the
housekeeper - what I couldn't earn we went without.

Unfortunately not all us women are lucky enough to be 'kept' and have
had to earn our own money and our own pensions.

My wife has never been a 'kept' woman. She brought up our four children
and worked extremely hard, with no grandparents or nearby relatives to
help out. Our children never came home to a 'latch key', but to a warm
comfortable home with their mother always there to greet them. Perhaps
that's why they are all graduates with good careers, and who have never
been in any kind of trouble.
Call me an old reactionary, if you like, but that's how I believe it
should be. And we weren't lucky - other than the fact that there is an
element of luck in being able to do anything. The business that I'd
almost killed myself building up went downhill in the 1980s, and things
were very bleak for a spell. I did anything I could, even taking on two
quite poor jobs at one time - and more that once working completely
around the clock.
At no time during that did I ever consider having my wife go out to work
and neglect our children. Other people have different ideas and
different values, and that's up to them, but I practise what I preach.

On the defensive! Good. And so you should be because what you posted to
Keema was pretty naff.

Well, to be honest I would never have expected my wife to stay at home unless
she wanted to.

[abelard]

Post by Yellow

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Yes, that is the biggest con of them all. After 35 years the contributions
still have to be made but there is no pension benefit later.
My wife started work at 16 and (apart from working part time when the
children were young) retired at 65, and still she was denied a state pension
at 63 as per the original carefully 1990s planned increase to 65/66.
How many of the ?clever? contributors to this thread can say they had a
working life of 49 years?

Some of us were clever and hard working enough not to require our wives
to go out to work at all. My wife of 45 years has never gone out to work
since we were married. Her job was to look after the children and be the
housekeeper - what I couldn't earn we went without.

Unfortunately not all us women are lucky enough to be 'kept' and have
had to earn our own money and our own pensions.

if only males could get a keeper so readily!

[Yellow]

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Yes, that is the biggest con of them all. After 35 years the contributions
still have to be made but there is no pension benefit later.
My wife started work at 16 and (apart from working part time when the
children were young) retired at 65, and still she was denied a state pension
at 63 as per the original carefully 1990s planned increase to 65/66.
How many of the ?clever? contributors to this thread can say they had a
working life of 49 years?

Some of us were clever and hard working enough not to require our wives
to go out to work at all. My wife of 45 years has never gone out to work
since we were married. Her job was to look after the children and be the
housekeeper - what I couldn't earn we went without.

Unfortunately not all us women are lucky enough to be 'kept' and have
had to earn our own money and our own pensions.

if only males could get a keeper so readily!

What an odd comment. You are aware that some girlies actually earn more
than their men-folk in this day and age.

[abelard]

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard

Post by Yellow

Post by Farmer Giles

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Yes, that is the biggest con of them all. After 35 years the contributions
still have to be made but there is no pension benefit later.
My wife started work at 16 and (apart from working part time when the
children were young) retired at 65, and still she was denied a state pension
at 63 as per the original carefully 1990s planned increase to 65/66.
How many of the ?clever? contributors to this thread can say they had a
working life of 49 years?

Some of us were clever and hard working enough not to require our wives
to go out to work at all. My wife of 45 years has never gone out to work
since we were married. Her job was to look after the children and be the
housekeeper - what I couldn't earn we went without.

Unfortunately not all us women are lucky enough to be 'kept' and have
had to earn our own money and our own pensions.

if only males could get a keeper so readily!

What an odd comment. You are aware that some girlies actually earn more
than their men-folk in this day and age.

of course i am aware...
but it is far easier for girls to get a keeper

you will likely find me easier to cope with if you keep
in mind that i find the world excessively amusing

[kat]

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
if only males could get a keeper so readily!

What an odd comment. You are aware that some girlies actually earn more
than their men-folk in this day and age.

One of my daughter's does - and she works 3 days a week while he works 5!

[Dan S. MacAbre]

Post by kat

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
if only males could get a keeper so readily!

What an odd comment. You are aware that some girlies actually earn more
than their men-folk in this day and age.

One of my daughter's does - and she works 3 days a week while he works 5!

My missus does - mind you, I only work four hours a day. Being a clever
girl on a good hourly rate, she would make more than twice what I do;
but she pays far more in tax. Neither of us really likes work, if I'm
honest; but whereas I am able to live without spending much money, she
enjoys a bit of shopping. :-)

[kat]

Post by kat

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
if only males could get a keeper so readily!

What an odd comment. You are aware that some girlies actually earn more
than their men-folk in this day and age.

One of my daughter's does - and she works 3 days a week while he works 5!

My missus does - mind you, I only work four hours a day.  Being a clever girl on
a good hourly rate, she would make more than twice what I do; but she pays far
more in tax.  Neither of us really likes work, if I'm honest; but whereas I am
able to live without spending much money, she enjoys a bit of shopping. :-)

I expect my daughter's 3 day week is relatively tax eficient too but itis also
driven my having 2 small children, wanting to spend time with them, and the
costs of child care. when she returned to work after the second one she was
left, after costs, with less than get in state pension. i would imagine, for
many of the so-called "kept" women, there is a point when going to work costs
them more than they bring home. Or, indeed, for the "kept" man, if a couple
prefers it that way!

[Dan S. MacAbre]

Post by kat

Post by kat

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
if only males could get a keeper so readily!

What an odd comment. You are aware that some girlies actually earn more
than their men-folk in this day and age.

One of my daughter's does - and she works 3 days a week while he works 5!

My missus does - mind you, I only work four hours a day.  Being a
clever girl on a good hourly rate, she would make more than twice what
I do; but she pays far more in tax.  Neither of us really likes work,
if I'm honest; but whereas I am able to live without spending much
money, she enjoys a bit of shopping. :-)

I expect my daughter's 3 day week is relatively tax eficient too but
itis also driven my having 2 small children, wanting to spend time with
them, and the costs of child care.  when she returned to work after the
second one she was left, after costs, with less than  get in state
pension.   i would imagine, for many of the so-called "kept" women,
there is a point when going to work costs them more than they bring
home.  Or, indeed, for the "kept" man, if a couple prefers it that way!

I do feel a bit like a kept man sometimes; but really, I've just been
rather parsimonious all my working life, and have good savings and very
modest requirements. In a few years, I'll retire early-ish, with an
adequate DB pension. The missus has decided that work actually was
nothing like as much fun as she thought it would be when she was young;
and has informed me that she also plans to retire at the soonest
possible opportunity. She likes to spend more than I do; but actually
less than most people I know. :-)

[Incubus]

Post by Dan S. MacAbre

Post by kat

Post by kat

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
if only males could get a keeper so readily!

What an odd comment. You are aware that some girlies actually earn more
than their men-folk in this day and age.

One of my daughter's does - and she works 3 days a week while he works 5!

My missus does - mind you, I only work four hours a day.  Being a
clever girl on a good hourly rate, she would make more than twice what
I do; but she pays far more in tax.  Neither of us really likes work,
if I'm honest; but whereas I am able to live without spending much
money, she enjoys a bit of shopping. :-)

I expect my daughter's 3 day week is relatively tax eficient too but
itis also driven my having 2 small children, wanting to spend time with
them, and the costs of child care.  when she returned to work after the
second one she was left, after costs, with less than  get in state
pension.   i would imagine, for many of the so-called "kept" women,
there is a point when going to work costs them more than they bring
home.  Or, indeed, for the "kept" man, if a couple prefers it that way!

I do feel a bit like a kept man sometimes; but really, I've just been
rather parsimonious all my working life, and have good savings and very
modest requirements. In a few years, I'll retire early-ish, with an
adequate DB pension. The missus has decided that work actually was
nothing like as much fun as she thought it would be when she was young;
and has informed me that she also plans to retire at the soonest
possible opportunity. She likes to spend more than I do; but actually
less than most people I know. :-)

I really have to try and curb my spending. I have three full frame Nikon
cameras and manage to buy a vintage lens or two each month.

It could be worse. People into high end audio spend insane amounts of money
trying to get the best results when often the differences are entirely
subjective.

[Dan S. MacAbre]

Post by Incubus

Post by Dan S. MacAbre

Post by kat

Post by kat

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
if only males could get a keeper so readily!

What an odd comment. You are aware that some girlies actually earn more
than their men-folk in this day and age.

One of my daughter's does - and she works 3 days a week while he works 5!

My missus does - mind you, I only work four hours a day.  Being a
clever girl on a good hourly rate, she would make more than twice what
I do; but she pays far more in tax.  Neither of us really likes work,
if I'm honest; but whereas I am able to live without spending much
money, she enjoys a bit of shopping. :-)

I expect my daughter's 3 day week is relatively tax eficient too but
itis also driven my having 2 small children, wanting to spend time with
them, and the costs of child care.  when she returned to work after the
second one she was left, after costs, with less than  get in state
pension.   i would imagine, for many of the so-called "kept" women,
there is a point when going to work costs them more than they bring
home.  Or, indeed, for the "kept" man, if a couple prefers it that way!

I do feel a bit like a kept man sometimes; but really, I've just been
rather parsimonious all my working life, and have good savings and very
modest requirements. In a few years, I'll retire early-ish, with an
adequate DB pension. The missus has decided that work actually was
nothing like as much fun as she thought it would be when she was young;
and has informed me that she also plans to retire at the soonest
possible opportunity. She likes to spend more than I do; but actually
less than most people I know. :-)

I really have to try and curb my spending. I have three full frame Nikon
cameras and manage to buy a vintage lens or two each month.
It could be worse. People into high end audio spend insane amounts of money
trying to get the best results when often the differences are entirely
subjective.

I buy occasional luxuries like that. A few days ago, I ordered an
electric piano. Not high-end by any means - only £600 - but I don't
even play yet :-) It's just that in between, I buy very little. I
became a bit fed up of seeing everything I bought become obsolete and
end up in the bin.

I think there may be a sort of placebo effect with the high-end audio
:-) All I really use now is a Raspberry Pi playing mp3s from network
shares through a cheap power amp. I got what I thought were good
speakers, though. Not expensive - just bigger than the ones in the TV.
That definitely does make a difference. You need to be able to properly
hear the bass, I feel.

[Incubus]

Post by Dan S. MacAbre

Post by Incubus

Post by Dan S. MacAbre

Post by kat

Post by kat

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
if only males could get a keeper so readily!

What an odd comment. You are aware that some girlies actually earn more
than their men-folk in this day and age.

One of my daughter's does - and she works 3 days a week while he works 5!

My missus does - mind you, I only work four hours a day.  Being a
clever girl on a good hourly rate, she would make more than twice what
I do; but she pays far more in tax.  Neither of us really likes work,
if I'm honest; but whereas I am able to live without spending much
money, she enjoys a bit of shopping. :-)

I expect my daughter's 3 day week is relatively tax eficient too but
itis also driven my having 2 small children, wanting to spend time with
them, and the costs of child care.  when she returned to work after the
second one she was left, after costs, with less than  get in state
pension.   i would imagine, for many of the so-called "kept" women,
there is a point when going to work costs them more than they bring
home.  Or, indeed, for the "kept" man, if a couple prefers it that way!

I do feel a bit like a kept man sometimes; but really, I've just been
rather parsimonious all my working life, and have good savings and very
modest requirements. In a few years, I'll retire early-ish, with an
adequate DB pension. The missus has decided that work actually was
nothing like as much fun as she thought it would be when she was young;
and has informed me that she also plans to retire at the soonest
possible opportunity. She likes to spend more than I do; but actually
less than most people I know. :-)

I really have to try and curb my spending. I have three full frame Nikon
cameras and manage to buy a vintage lens or two each month.
It could be worse. People into high end audio spend insane amounts of money
trying to get the best results when often the differences are entirely
subjective.

I buy occasional luxuries like that. A few days ago, I ordered an
electric piano. Not high-end by any means - only £600 - but I don't
even play yet :-) It's just that in between, I buy very little. I
became a bit fed up of seeing everything I bought become obsolete and
end up in the bin.

Apart from my cameras, I prefer obsolete things.

Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think there may be a sort of placebo effect with the high-end audio
:-) All I really use now is a Raspberry Pi playing mp3s from network
shares through a cheap power amp. I got what I thought were good
speakers, though. Not expensive - just bigger than the ones in the TV.
That definitely does make a difference. You need to be able to properly
hear the bass, I feel.

I'm going to get rid of my MP3 player. The novelty of being able to carry my
entire collection around with me has worn off. There are only around thirty
albums I listen to regularly so I might as well pick up second hand extra
copies to play at work through a vintage Sony Discman. Much better audio
quality.

[Dan S. MacAbre]

Post by Incubus

Post by Dan S. MacAbre

Post by Incubus

Post by Dan S. MacAbre

Post by kat

Post by kat

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
if only males could get a keeper so readily!

What an odd comment. You are aware that some girlies actually earn more
than their men-folk in this day and age.

One of my daughter's does - and she works 3 days a week while he works 5!

My missus does - mind you, I only work four hours a day.  Being a
clever girl on a good hourly rate, she would make more than twice what
I do; but she pays far more in tax.  Neither of us really likes work,
if I'm honest; but whereas I am able to live without spending much
money, she enjoys a bit of shopping. :-)

I expect my daughter's 3 day week is relatively tax eficient too but
itis also driven my having 2 small children, wanting to spend time with
them, and the costs of child care.  when she returned to work after the
second one she was left, after costs, with less than  get in state
pension.   i would imagine, for many of the so-called "kept" women,
there is a point when going to work costs them more than they bring
home.  Or, indeed, for the "kept" man, if a couple prefers it that way!

I do feel a bit like a kept man sometimes; but really, I've just been
rather parsimonious all my working life, and have good savings and very
modest requirements. In a few years, I'll retire early-ish, with an
adequate DB pension. The missus has decided that work actually was
nothing like as much fun as she thought it would be when she was young;
and has informed me that she also plans to retire at the soonest
possible opportunity. She likes to spend more than I do; but actually
less than most people I know. :-)

I really have to try and curb my spending. I have three full frame Nikon
cameras and manage to buy a vintage lens or two each month.
It could be worse. People into high end audio spend insane amounts of money
trying to get the best results when often the differences are entirely
subjective.

I buy occasional luxuries like that. A few days ago, I ordered an
electric piano. Not high-end by any means - only £600 - but I don't
even play yet :-) It's just that in between, I buy very little. I
became a bit fed up of seeing everything I bought become obsolete and
end up in the bin.

Apart from my cameras, I prefer obsolete things.

Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think there may be a sort of placebo effect with the high-end audio
:-) All I really use now is a Raspberry Pi playing mp3s from network
shares through a cheap power amp. I got what I thought were good
speakers, though. Not expensive - just bigger than the ones in the TV.
That definitely does make a difference. You need to be able to properly
hear the bass, I feel.

I'm going to get rid of my MP3 player. The novelty of being able to carry my
entire collection around with me has worn off. There are only around thirty
albums I listen to regularly so I might as well pick up second hand extra
copies to play at work through a vintage Sony Discman. Much better audio
quality.

I don't have a portable mp3 player. I prefer to walk in quiet, and I
find that people don't say hello when I have earphones in. Also, I'm
not entirely sure that it's safe crossing the road, and with cyclists on
the paths. :-)

[Incubus]

Post by Dan S. MacAbre

Post by Incubus

Post by Dan S. MacAbre

Post by Incubus

Post by Dan S. MacAbre

Post by kat

Post by kat

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
if only males could get a keeper so readily!

What an odd comment. You are aware that some girlies actually earn more
than their men-folk in this day and age.

One of my daughter's does - and she works 3 days a week while he works 5!

My missus does - mind you, I only work four hours a day.  Being a
clever girl on a good hourly rate, she would make more than twice what
I do; but she pays far more in tax.  Neither of us really likes work,
if I'm honest; but whereas I am able to live without spending much
money, she enjoys a bit of shopping. :-)

I expect my daughter's 3 day week is relatively tax eficient too but
itis also driven my having 2 small children, wanting to spend time with
them, and the costs of child care.  when she returned to work after the
second one she was left, after costs, with less than  get in state
pension.   i would imagine, for many of the so-called "kept" women,
there is a point when going to work costs them more than they bring
home.  Or, indeed, for the "kept" man, if a couple prefers it that way!

I do feel a bit like a kept man sometimes; but really, I've just been
rather parsimonious all my working life, and have good savings and very
modest requirements. In a few years, I'll retire early-ish, with an
adequate DB pension. The missus has decided that work actually was
nothing like as much fun as she thought it would be when she was young;
and has informed me that she also plans to retire at the soonest
possible opportunity. She likes to spend more than I do; but actually
less than most people I know. :-)

I really have to try and curb my spending. I have three full frame Nikon
cameras and manage to buy a vintage lens or two each month.
It could be worse. People into high end audio spend insane amounts of money
trying to get the best results when often the differences are entirely
subjective.

I buy occasional luxuries like that. A few days ago, I ordered an
electric piano. Not high-end by any means - only £600 - but I don't
even play yet :-) It's just that in between, I buy very little. I
became a bit fed up of seeing everything I bought become obsolete and
end up in the bin.

Apart from my cameras, I prefer obsolete things.

Post by Dan S. MacAbre
I think there may be a sort of placebo effect with the high-end audio
:-) All I really use now is a Raspberry Pi playing mp3s from network
shares through a cheap power amp. I got what I thought were good
speakers, though. Not expensive - just bigger than the ones in the TV.
That definitely does make a difference. You need to be able to properly
hear the bass, I feel.

I'm going to get rid of my MP3 player. The novelty of being able to carry my
entire collection around with me has worn off. There are only around thirty
albums I listen to regularly so I might as well pick up second hand extra
copies to play at work through a vintage Sony Discman. Much better audio
quality.

I don't have a portable mp3 player. I prefer to walk in quiet, and I
find that people don't say hello when I have earphones in. Also, I'm
not entirely sure that it's safe crossing the road, and with cyclists on
the paths. :-)

I've only really been using it at work. I thought it would be less hassle but
I don't like the audio quality.

[Keema's Nan]

Post by Incubus

Post by Dan S. MacAbre

Post by kat

Post by kat

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
if only males could get a keeper so readily!

What an odd comment. You are aware that some girlies actually earn
more
than their men-folk in this day and age.

One of my daughter's does - and she works 3 days a week while he
works 5!

My missus does - mind you, I only work four hours a day. Being a
clever girl on a good hourly rate, she would make more than twice what
I do; but she pays far more in tax. Neither of us really likes work,
if I'm honest; but whereas I am able to live without spending much
money, she enjoys a bit of shopping. :-)

I expect my daughter's 3 day week is relatively tax eficient too but
itis also driven my having 2 small children, wanting to spend time with
them, and the costs of child care. when she returned to work after the
second one she was left, after costs, with less than get in state
pension. i would imagine, for many of the so-called "kept" women,
there is a point when going to work costs them more than they bring
home. Or, indeed, for the "kept" man, if a couple prefers it that way!

I do feel a bit like a kept man sometimes; but really, I've just been
rather parsimonious all my working life, and have good savings and very
modest requirements. In a few years, I'll retire early-ish, with an
adequate DB pension. The missus has decided that work actually was
nothing like as much fun as she thought it would be when she was young;
and has informed me that she also plans to retire at the soonest
possible opportunity. She likes to spend more than I do; but actually
less than most people I know. :-)

I really have to try and curb my spending. I have three full frame Nikon
cameras and manage to buy a vintage lens or two each month.
It could be worse. People into high end audio spend insane amounts of
money
trying to get the best results when often the differences are entirely
subjective.

I buy occasional luxuries like that. A few days ago, I ordered an
electric piano. Not high-end by any means - only £600 - but I don't
even play yet :-) It's just that in between, I buy very little. I
became a bit fed up of seeing everything I bought become obsolete and
end up in the bin.

Apart from my cameras, I prefer obsolete things.

I think there may be a sort of placebo effect with the high-end audio

-) All I really use now is a Raspberry Pi playing mp3s from network

shares through a cheap power amp. I got what I thought were good
speakers, though. Not expensive - just bigger than the ones in the TV.
That definitely does make a difference. You need to be able to properly
hear the bass, I feel.

I'm going to get rid of my MP3 player. The novelty of being able to carry
my
entire collection around with me has worn off. There are only around thirty
albums I listen to regularly so I might as well pick up second hand extra
copies to play at work through a vintage Sony Discman. Much better audio
quality.

I don't have a portable mp3 player. I prefer to walk in quiet, and I
find that people don't say hello when I have earphones in. Also, I'm
not entirely sure that it's safe crossing the road, and with cyclists on
the paths. :-)

I've only really been using it at work. I thought it would be less hassle but
I don't like the audio quality.

I remember when I bought my first Walkman with tiny headphones. I thought it
was the bees’ knees but the sound was probably crap. It was the ability to
listen to music in the garden that I loved.

[kat]

Post by Keema's Nan
I remember when I bought my first Walkman with tiny headphones. I thought it
was the bees’ knees but the sound was probably crap. It was the ability to
listen to music in the garden that I loved.

I felt like that with the small AM portable radio I got in the days of the
pirate radio stations.

[Keema's Nan]

Post by Dan S. MacAbre

Post by kat

Post by kat

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
if only males could get a keeper so readily!

What an odd comment. You are aware that some girlies actually earn more
than their men-folk in this day and age.

One of my daughter's does - and she works 3 days a week while he
works 5!

My missus does - mind you, I only work four hours a day. Being a
clever girl on a good hourly rate, she would make more than twice what
I do; but she pays far more in tax. Neither of us really likes work,
if I'm honest; but whereas I am able to live without spending much
money, she enjoys a bit of shopping. :-)

I expect my daughter's 3 day week is relatively tax eficient too but
itis also driven my having 2 small children, wanting to spend time with
them, and the costs of child care. when she returned to work after the
second one she was left, after costs, with less than get in state
pension. i would imagine, for many of the so-called "kept" women,
there is a point when going to work costs them more than they bring
home. Or, indeed, for the "kept" man, if a couple prefers it that way!

I do feel a bit like a kept man sometimes; but really, I've just been
rather parsimonious all my working life, and have good savings and very
modest requirements. In a few years, I'll retire early-ish, with an
adequate DB pension. The missus has decided that work actually was
nothing like as much fun as she thought it would be when she was young;
and has informed me that she also plans to retire at the soonest
possible opportunity. She likes to spend more than I do; but actually
less than most people I know. :-)

I really have to try and curb my spending. I have three full frame Nikon
cameras and manage to buy a vintage lens or two each month.
It could be worse. People into high end audio spend insane amounts of money
trying to get the best results when often the differences are entirely
subjective.

I buy occasional luxuries like that. A few days ago, I ordered an
electric piano. Not high-end by any means - only £600 - but I don't
even play yet :-) It's just that in between, I buy very little. I
became a bit fed up of seeing everything I bought become obsolete and
end up in the bin.

I remember paying just over £100 in the mid 1970s for a Pioneer amplifier,
which was considered silly money by my work colleagues at the time.

I loved the sound, although in the shop they played a sample record through
top of the range Wharfedale speakers (which at that time were counted as the
bees knees).

I still have the amp, and the Wharfedales I saved up for over the next
18months; but I don’t listen to much these days except on headphones and
the amp is past its best, but has done well over 40 years.

I think there may be a sort of placebo effect with the high-end audio

-) All I really use now is a Raspberry Pi playing mp3s from network

shares through a cheap power amp. I got what I thought were good
speakers, though. Not expensive - just bigger than the ones in the TV.
That definitely does make a difference. You need to be able to properly
hear the bass, I feel.

I like to feel the bass, as well as hear it.

[JNugent]

[ ... ]

Post by Keema's Nan

I buy occasional luxuries like that. A few days ago, I ordered an
electric piano. Not high-end by any means - only £600 - but I don't
even play yet :-) It's just that in between, I buy very little. I
became a bit fed up of seeing everything I bought become obsolete and
end up in the bin.

I remember paying just over £100 in the mid 1970s for a Pioneer amplifier,
which was considered silly money by my work colleagues at the time.

Those were the days, eh? Everything connected up with 7-pin DIN leads.
The RCA phone jack, already big for decades in the USA, still hadn't
really caught on here, because this was still pre-Japanese for most
buyers. I bought an Amstrad amplifier in 1975 to replace an Arena unit
stolen in a burglary. ISTR it cost me about £80.

Post by Keema's Nan
I loved the sound, although in the shop they played a sample record through
top of the range Wharfedale speakers (which at that time were counted as the
bees knees).
I still have the amp, and the Wharfedales I saved up for over the next
18months; but I don’t listen to much these days except on headphones and
the amp is past its best, but has done well over 40 years.

My Amstrad amp started giving trouble with its DIN sockets and they are
too fiddly to repair, so I got a JVC amp with RCA jacks - my first MIJ
item apart from cassette decks. Now the back of the stack is like a
rat's nest, since every connection has two cables and plugs and the
amp-to-tape (now used as an amp-to-PC) connection has to have four.

I still have the Amstrad tuner I bought in about 1978. Never use it,
though. :-(

Post by Keema's Nan

I think there may be a sort of placebo effect with the high-end audio

-) All I really use now is a Raspberry Pi playing mp3s from network

shares through a cheap power amp. I got what I thought were good
speakers, though. Not expensive - just bigger than the ones in the TV.
That definitely does make a difference. You need to be able to properly
hear the bass, I feel.

I like to feel the bass, as well as hear it.

I remember getting a pair of Wharfedale Lasers in around '82 or '83.
Still got them and still using them.

[Keema's Nan]

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Keema's Nan

I buy occasional luxuries like that. A few days ago, I ordered an
electric piano. Not high-end by any means - only £600 - but I don't
even play yet :-) It's just that in between, I buy very little. I
became a bit fed up of seeing everything I bought become obsolete and
end up in the bin.

I remember paying just over £100 in the mid 1970s for a Pioneer amplifier,
which was considered silly money by my work colleagues at the time.

Those were the days, eh? Everything connected up with 7-pin DIN leads.
The RCA phone jack, already big for decades in the USA, still hadn't
really caught on here, because this was still pre-Japanese for most
buyers. I bought an Amstrad amplifier in 1975 to replace an Arena unit
stolen in a burglary. ISTR it cost me about £80.

Post by Keema's Nan
I loved the sound, although in the shop they played a sample record through
top of the range Wharfedale speakers (which at that time were counted as the
bees knees).
I still have the amp, and the Wharfedales I saved up for over the next
18months; but I don’t listen to much these days except on headphones and
the amp is past its best, but has done well over 40 years.

My Amstrad amp started giving trouble with its DIN sockets and they are
too fiddly to repair, so I got a JVC amp with RCA jacks - my first MIJ
item apart from cassette decks. Now the back of the stack is like a
rat's nest, since every connection has two cables and plugs and the
amp-to-tape (now used as an amp-to-PC) connection has to have four.
I still have the Amstrad tuner I bought in about 1978. Never use it,
though. :-(

Post by Keema's Nan

I think there may be a sort of placebo effect with the high-end audio

-) All I really use now is a Raspberry Pi playing mp3s from network

shares through a cheap power amp. I got what I thought were good
speakers, though. Not expensive - just bigger than the ones in the TV.
That definitely does make a difference. You need to be able to properly
hear the bass, I feel.

I like to feel the bass, as well as hear it.

I remember getting a pair of Wharfedale Lasers in around '82 or '83.
Still got them and still using them.

Mine are (I think) Glendales. If they packed up I think I would have to buy a
second hand pair - because I have never heard anything from modern speaks
that sound as good.

[Dan S. MacAbre]

Post by JNugent
[ ... ]

Post by Keema's Nan

I buy occasional luxuries like that. A few days ago, I ordered an
electric piano. Not high-end by any means - only £600 - but I don't
even play yet :-) It's just that in between, I buy very little. I
became a bit fed up of seeing everything I bought become obsolete and
end up in the bin.

I remember paying just over £100 in the mid 1970s for a Pioneer amplifier,
which was considered silly money by my work colleagues at the time.

Those were the days, eh? Everything connected up with 7-pin DIN leads.

I really hated DIN connectors, because I could never solder them without
them melting and the pins losing alignment. By the time I discovered
that you really needed to plug them into a socket first, to hold them
together, I had a whole house that needed maintaining. :-)

Post by JNugent
The RCA phone jack, already big for decades in the USA, still hadn't
really caught on here, because this was still pre-Japanese for most
buyers. I bought an Amstrad amplifier in 1975 to replace an Arena unit
stolen in a burglary. ISTR it cost me about £80.

Post by Keema's Nan
I loved the sound, although in the shop they played a sample record through
top of the range Wharfedale speakers (which at that time were counted as the
bees knees).
I still have the amp, and the Wharfedales I saved up for over the next
18months; but I don’t listen to much these days except on headphones and
the amp is past its best, but has done well over 40 years.

My Amstrad amp started giving trouble with its DIN sockets and they are
too fiddly to repair, so I got a JVC amp with RCA jacks - my first MIJ
item apart from cassette decks. Now the back of the stack is like a
rat's nest, since every connection has two cables and plugs and the
amp-to-tape (now used as an amp-to-PC) connection has to have four.
I still have the Amstrad tuner I bought in about 1978. Never use it,
though. :-(

Post by Keema's Nan

I think there may be a sort of placebo effect with the high-end audio

-) All I really use now is a Raspberry Pi playing mp3s from network

shares through a cheap power amp. I got what I thought were good
speakers, though. Not expensive - just bigger than the ones in the TV.
That definitely does make a difference. You need to be able to properly
hear the bass, I feel.

I like to feel the bass, as well as hear it.

I remember getting a pair of Wharfedale Lasers in around '82 or '83.
Still got them and still using them.

[abelard]

On Fri, 29 Nov 2019 16:23:54 -0000 (UTC), Incubus

Post by Incubus
It could be worse. People into high end audio spend insane amounts of money
trying to get the best results when often the differences are entirely
subjective.

subjective is good!

[JNugent]

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Yes, that is the biggest con of them all. After 35 years the contributions
still have to be made but there is no pension benefit later.
My wife started work at 16 and (apart from working part time when the
children were young) retired at 65, and still she was denied a state pension
at 63 as per the original carefully 1990s planned increase to 65/66.
How many of the ‘clever’ contributors to this thread can say they had a
working life of 49 years?

I certainly can. It started when I was 15 (more then 50 years ago) and
has not finished yet* (though I no longer pay, or have to pay, national
"insurance"). Admittedly, I had a few years "off" while studying. But
even so, the net total is now more than 50 years and increasing.

I can recall a time when one had to pay NI for 40 years at least in
order to qualify for a "full" pension. That changed to just 30 years
some time back and has, AIUI, now changed again to 35 years. I assume
the reduction was aimed at keeping a larger proportion of retired people
out of a situation where they had need to claim the means-tested version
of the retirement pension.

[* These days, I do a limited amount of work on a limited amount of days
per year, but it still has to be accounted for and income tax still has
to be paid. I'm waiting for the 2018/2019 assessment at the moment.]

[kat]

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.
Meanwhile, unlike the situation before the last major state pension
change, you can no longer continue to grow your state pension
entitlement by continuing to pay NI until your state retirement age.
So once you have hit 35 years (which is the current maximum) you are
done regardless of how much longer you work and pay NI.

Post by abelard
you can also top up by using capital to increase lost
years...a *very* profitable investment'

I have no lost years, and as I say above, once you have completed the
maximum, it grows no more.

Some years ago - quite a lot - I got myself a pension forecast. At the time you
needed 40 years and assuming I worked until 60, I would have been 3 years short.
we decided it wasn't worth it to top up, in our particular circumstances those 3
years wouldn't make much difference.

So I paid NI for the remaining working years until 60 and a bit ( yes, I got
caught in the change) and was very glad I hadn't coughed up for the "missing"
years as by then you only needed 30 years. Then it went up to 35. I had 37.

But my basic pension is £35 a week less than people get now. I have a bit more
than the basic, but not a lot, some of my years were credits when I was at home
with children, and many when I wasn't earning a lot. A close friend with a lot
fewer years will retire next March with about 80% of what I get.

Who knows what will happen next.

[Grikkbassturde®™]

Post by Yellow

Post by abelard
i assume you re aware that you can opt to work
beyond 67 and thus increase you pension payouts
later

I assume you are talking about delaying taking the state pension?
Yes, that is currently allowed but we have no guarantee the option will
still be in the table when I hit 67, assuming the age has not been
pushed back further by then of course. You also have to factor in how
much beyond 67 you plan to live - if at all.

You also have to plan on living another 10 years if you take the
increased state pension instead of the lump sum representing
pensionable years forgone.

[Peeler]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:10:06 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous
sexual cripple, making an ass of herself as "Grikkbassturde®™", farted

Post by Grikkbassturde®™
You also have to plan on living another 10 years if you take the
increased state pension instead of the lump sum representing
pensionable years forgone.

YOU'll get neither any state pension NOR any lump sum in any country, you
incapacitated, unemployable, mental, physical and sexual cripple!

[Grikkbassturde]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:07:28 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000

we will take the money from others...

As NI is not put into a personal pot, all state pension payments are
'taking money from others'. So do you have a general problem with
this notion or only when 'females' are on the receiving end?

The state pension may not consist of precisely the same fivers that we
paid in, but it used to be fairly closely linked to the number of years
in which we paid NI i.e. most people didn't get back money that they
hadn't already paid in long ago.
What is puzzling is why the pension ages were not equalised as soon as
the Sex Discrimination Acts started being passed i.e. getting on for
half a century ago.

What I find puzzling is that some people are so wrapped up in their
misogyny that it fails to occur to them that a reduction in expected
income into a home affects the men of the house as much as it affects
the women.

In what possible sense can support for a long-overdue redressing of a
significant injustice (males getting their pensions later than women,
despite having markedly lower life expectation) be credibly termed
"misogyny"?

Because the argument is not about equalisation but about how the
equalisation has been managed - and none of the WASPI women as far as I
am aware are asking for the equalisation to be unrolled.
And to repeat - this affects men and women as it affects household
income.

You aren't being clear.
Are you saying that only females entering the workforce for the first
time on leaving education should have had their pension ages raised? In
other words, that a whole working life's period of notice was required?

Very few people are objecting to the pension age being raised, although no
one is ever happy about having to work for longer.
My wife was quite used to the idea that she would get her state pension at
63
and 1/2 years (despite the fact that her elder sister of 2 years had hers at
60) but it was the sudden decision by the coalition government around 2011
which upset the women concerned.
Having planned to retire at 63.5 years old, my wife was suddenly informed
that the goal posts had been moved and she would now not get her pension
until she was 65 and a half. Yes, she had a few years warning of this, but
not many; and had already made plans with her company for her retirement and
training of new or existing staff to take over her job.
As it turned out, the extra two years at work was not too much of a burden
on
her because she enjoys good health, but it seems rather unfair that a gap of
two years between her and her sister’s births has meant she has had to
work
5.5 extra years than her elder sibling just to get a state pension.

You're not being clear. Does that mean that Parliament had no right to
increase pension age with less than a working lifetime's notice?

I am being clear.
It is just that as a troll, you don’t understand English; and you would
rather turn the discussion around to a point you can argue against.

Or just no right to increase it for women (which is what Yellow's point
seems to be)?

I have followed the entire debate (on behalf of my wife, because she was at
work - surprise, surprise) and the worst performance was by some typical
overweight overpaid Tory MP slob, who after a very well presented plea by
another MP on behalf of the women who had their pension date altered twice,
stood up at the Select Committee table and patronised almost everyone in an
arrogant manner, managed to be sexist and ageist in almost every sentence,
and revealed that the efforts to gain recognition would not succeed because
(a) the complainants were old women and (b) there were only a few hundred
thousand of them, and so they could be safely ignored.

You almost make that sound like a Bad Thing™.

[Peeler]

On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 06:38:56 -0800, clinically insane, pedophilic, serbian
bitch Razovic, the resident psychopath of sci and scj and Usenet's famous

Post by Grikkbassturde

Post by Keema's Nan
arrogant manner, managed to be sexist and ageist in almost every sentence,
and revealed that the efforts to gain recognition would not succeed because
(a) the complainants were old women and (b) there were only a few hundred
thousand of them, and so they could be safely ignored.

You almost make that sound like a Bad Thing™.

You sound like you are a psychopathic swine, you psychopathic swine!

[Keema's Nan]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:49:54 +0000, Keema's Nan

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:47:53 +0000, Keema's Nan

There should never have been the need for a notice period for the second
readjustment, because it should never have happened at all.
The scheme was progressing quite nicely with the initial 1990s
legislation.
OK, so most women were not too keen on the thought of getting their
pension
at a later date, but I think they understood the “equality” argument.
Why Cameron and Clegg thought it was a great idea to interfere in
something
which did not require any interference, maybe they will reveal on their
death
beds?

that's easy....fascist 'new' labour had already bankrupted the
public finances

Which is the right wing parrot excuse - and they believe if they say it
often
enough it will become the truth. However, everyone knows it was greedy
bankers which brought the western economic system to the brink of collapse.

facts are stubborn things
'bankers' are part of a highly government controlled industry
the 'collapse' was not 'caused' by 'greedy bankers'...it was
caused by individual governments
that you don't understand the system is not my problem but
your ignorance...
you could of course study and learn
http://zorro:8083/economics/fannie_mae_freddie_mac.php

I prefer less biased sources, such as -

https://www.econcrises.org/2016/08/17/the-financial-crisis-of-2008/

[abelard]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:27:02 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:49:54 +0000, Keema's Nan

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:47:53 +0000, Keema's Nan

There should never have been the need for a notice period for the second
readjustment, because it should never have happened at all.
The scheme was progressing quite nicely with the initial 1990s
legislation.
OK, so most women were not too keen on the thought of getting their
pension
at a later date, but I think they understood the “equality” argument.
Why Cameron and Clegg thought it was a great idea to interfere in
something
which did not require any interference, maybe they will reveal on their
death
beds?

that's easy....fascist 'new' labour had already bankrupted the
public finances

Which is the right wing parrot excuse - and they believe if they say it
often
enough it will become the truth. However, everyone knows it was greedy
bankers which brought the western economic system to the brink of collapse.

facts are stubborn things
'bankers' are part of a highly government controlled industry
the 'collapse' was not 'caused' by 'greedy bankers'...it was
caused by individual governments
that you don't understand the system is not my problem but
your ignorance...
you could of course study and learn
http://zorro:8083/economics/fannie_mae_freddie_mac.php

I prefer less biased sources, such as -
https://www.econcrises.org/2016/08/17/the-financial-crisis-of-2008/

you don't want sources...you want myths


i doubt you even read or understood your own link which reads


"By magnitude, four primary causes of the crisis can be identified:

The US government push into housing and mortgages
Large and growing current account deficits
The Fed lowering of interest rates
Securitizing of loans"


nothing about 'greedy bankers'
plenty about government corruption

[Keema's Nan]

Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:27:02 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:49:54 +0000, Keema's Nan

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:47:53 +0000, Keema's Nan

There should never have been the need for a notice period for the second
readjustment, because it should never have happened at all.
The scheme was progressing quite nicely with the initial 1990s
legislation.
OK, so most women were not too keen on the thought of getting their
pension
at a later date, but I think they understood the “equality”
argument.
Why Cameron and Clegg thought it was a great idea to interfere in
something
which did not require any interference, maybe they will reveal on their
death
beds?

that's easy....fascist 'new' labour had already bankrupted the
public finances

Which is the right wing parrot excuse - and they believe if they say it
often
enough it will become the truth. However, everyone knows it was greedy
bankers which brought the western economic system to the brink of collapse.

facts are stubborn things
'bankers' are part of a highly government controlled industry
the 'collapse' was not 'caused' by 'greedy bankers'...it was
caused by individual governments
that you don't understand the system is not my problem but
your ignorance...
you could of course study and learn
http://zorro:8083/economics/fannie_mae_freddie_mac.php

I prefer less biased sources, such as -
https://www.econcrises.org/2016/08/17/the-financial-crisis-of-2008/

you don't want sources...you want myths
i doubt you even read or understood your own link which reads
The US government push into housing and mortgages
Large and growing current account deficits
The Fed lowering of interest rates
Securitizing of loans"
nothing about 'greedy bankers'

If the bankers had not have been greedy short-termists, the governments plans
would have never been agreed to.

Post by abelard
plenty about government corruption

Plenty about banks trading tranches of their own debt which they subsequently
had no further responsibility for.

[abelard]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:55:58 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:27:02 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:49:54 +0000, Keema's Nan

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:47:53 +0000, Keema's Nan

There should never have been the need for a notice period for the second
readjustment, because it should never have happened at all.
The scheme was progressing quite nicely with the initial 1990s
legislation.
OK, so most women were not too keen on the thought of getting their
pension
at a later date, but I think they understood the “equality”
argument.
Why Cameron and Clegg thought it was a great idea to interfere in
something
which did not require any interference, maybe they will reveal on their
death
beds?

that's easy....fascist 'new' labour had already bankrupted the
public finances

Which is the right wing parrot excuse - and they believe if they say it
often
enough it will become the truth. However, everyone knows it was greedy
bankers which brought the western economic system to the brink of collapse.

facts are stubborn things
'bankers' are part of a highly government controlled industry
the 'collapse' was not 'caused' by 'greedy bankers'...it was
caused by individual governments
that you don't understand the system is not my problem but
your ignorance...
you could of course study and learn
http://zorro:8083/economics/fannie_mae_freddie_mac.php

I prefer less biased sources, such as -
https://www.econcrises.org/2016/08/17/the-financial-crisis-of-2008/

you don't want sources...you want myths
i doubt you even read or understood your own link which reads
The US government push into housing and mortgages
Large and growing current account deficits
The Fed lowering of interest rates
Securitizing of loans"
nothing about 'greedy bankers'

If the bankers had not have been greedy short-termists, the governments plans
would have never been agreed to.

bankers are government servants in the modern world...
they occupy a position little different from tax collectors
or lottery franchisees

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
plenty about government corruption

Plenty about banks trading tranches of their own debt which they subsequently
had no further responsibility for.

why would you expect bankers to avoid the main chance
any more than any other fallen human?

brown the clown and bliar hobnobbed with the bankers and gave them
special shiny badges, as he ripped off the system everywhere
they could get their sticky fingers

as with every socialist project...they ran out of other people's money

the more resources government take, the less is available for the
rest of the population, including business...

as churchill put it, you cannot tax yourself into riches

[Keema's Nan]

Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:55:58 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:27:02 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:49:54 +0000, Keema's Nan

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:47:53 +0000, Keema's Nan

There should never have been the need for a notice period for the
second
readjustment, because it should never have happened at all.
The scheme was progressing quite nicely with the initial 1990s
legislation.
OK, so most women were not too keen on the thought of getting their
pension
at a later date, but I think they understood the “equality”
argument.
Why Cameron and Clegg thought it was a great idea to interfere in
something
which did not require any interference, maybe they will reveal on
their
death
beds?

that's easy....fascist 'new' labour had already bankrupted the
public finances

Which is the right wing parrot excuse - and they believe if they say it
often
enough it will become the truth. However, everyone knows it was greedy
bankers which brought the western economic system to the brink of
collapse.

facts are stubborn things
'bankers' are part of a highly government controlled industry
the 'collapse' was not 'caused' by 'greedy bankers'...it was
caused by individual governments
that you don't understand the system is not my problem but
your ignorance...
you could of course study and learn
http://zorro:8083/economics/fannie_mae_freddie_mac.php

I prefer less biased sources, such as -
https://www.econcrises.org/2016/08/17/the-financial-crisis-of-2008/

you don't want sources...you want myths
i doubt you even read or understood your own link which reads
The US government push into housing and mortgages
Large and growing current account deficits
The Fed lowering of interest rates
Securitizing of loans"
nothing about 'greedy bankers'

If the bankers had not have been greedy short-termists, the governments plans
would have never been agreed to.

bankers are government servants in the modern world...
they occupy a position little different from tax collectors
or lottery franchisees

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
plenty about government corruption

Plenty about banks trading tranches of their own debt which they subsequently
had no further responsibility for.

why would you expect bankers to avoid the main chance
any more than any other fallen human?
brown the clown and bliar hobnobbed with the bankers and gave them
special shiny badges, as he ripped off the system everywhere
they could get their sticky fingers

I’m not saying that Blair and Brown had no responsibility, but just that it
was not all their fault.

Every financial bubble is doomed to crash because of greed, and when you
start lending money to people who can’t even afford the repayments and then
trade those loans as if they are some form of currency, then disaster must be
around the corner.

Post by abelard
as with every socialist project...they ran out of other people's money

Most projects use other peoples’ money. The capitalists are not immune.

Post by abelard
the more resources government take, the less is available for the
rest of the population, including business...

But that is still other peoples’ money, however you dress it up.

Post by abelard
as churchill put it, you cannot tax yourself into riches

That would depend on how wisely one invested the tax money.

[abelard]

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 12:39:17 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:55:58 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:27:02 +0000, Keema's Nan

Post by Keema's Nan

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:49:54 +0000, Keema's Nan

On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:47:53 +0000, Keema's Nan

There should never have been the need for a notice period for the
second
readjustment, because it should never have happened at all.
The scheme was progressing quite nicely with the initial 1990s
legislation.
OK, so most women were not too keen on the thought of getting their
pension
at a later date, but I think they understood the “equality”
argument.
Why Cameron and Clegg thought it was a great idea to interfere in
something
which did not require any interference, maybe they will reveal on
their
death
beds?

that's easy....fascist 'new' labour had already bankrupted the
public finances

Which is the right wing parrot excuse - and they believe if they say it
often
enough it will become the truth. However, everyone knows it was greedy
bankers which brought the western economic system to the brink of
collapse.

facts are stubborn things
'bankers' are part of a highly government controlled industry
the 'collapse' was not 'caused' by 'greedy bankers'...it was
caused by individual governments
that you don't understand the system is not my problem but
your ignorance...
you could of course study and learn
http://zorro:8083/economics/fannie_mae_freddie_mac.php

I prefer less biased sources, such as -
https://www.econcrises.org/2016/08/17/the-financial-crisis-of-2008/

you don't want sources...you want myths
i doubt you even read or understood your own link which reads
The US government push into housing and mortgages
Large and growing current account deficits
The Fed lowering of interest rates
Securitizing of loans"
nothing about 'greedy bankers'

If the bankers had not have been greedy short-termists, the governments plans
would have never been agreed to.

bankers are government servants in the modern world...
they occupy a position little different from tax collectors
or lottery franchisees

Post by Keema's Nan

Post by abelard
plenty about government corruption

Plenty about banks trading tranches of their own debt which they subsequently
had no further responsibility for.

why would you expect bankers to avoid the main chance
any more than any other fallen human?
brown the clown and bliar hobnobbed with the bankers and gave them
special shiny badges, as he ripped off the system everywhere
they could get their sticky fingers

I’m not saying that Blair and Brown had no responsibility, but just that it
was not all their fault.
Every financial bubble is doomed to crash because of greed, and when you
start lending money to people who can’t even afford the repayments and then
trade those loans as if they are some form of currency, then disaster must be
around the corner.

Post by abelard
as with every socialist project...they ran out of other people's money

Most projects use other peoples’ money. The capitalists are not immune.

Post by abelard
the more resources government take, the less is available for the
rest of the population, including business...

But that is still other peoples’ money, however you dress it up.

Post by abelard
as churchill put it, you cannot tax yourself into riches

That would depend on how wisely one invested the tax money.

so now you talk a good degree of sense....always welcome

so now you needs must decide how much to spend and where
and who is to decide on the 'investments'

in the usa their medical system is as britain's was...private
and charity provision although much tainted
them spend nearly twice as much as we...much of that of
their own free will

you are forced to spend the half you do spend, and resent
any attempt to get you to contribute...eg swingeing
car parking charges and the ever present rationing plus
other indications of poor 'service' and scruffy outcomes

the idea of agent cob running an ice cream stand, let alone
'the best nhs in the world' is not a prospect that
gladdens sane people

but you do have votes to determine how much you will chance
your carcass to the delights of socialism