Keema's Nan
2019-11-26 14:07:28 UTC
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
'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 theirwe 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?
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.
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.
significant injustice (males getting their pensions later than women,
despite having markedly lower life expectation) be credibly termed
"misogyny"?
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.
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?
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.
increase pension age with less than a working lifetime's notice?
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 atseems to be)?
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.