To think the back to 60 campaign is grabby

[Neaoll]

It's been known about for a long time that state pension ages would be equalised.

State pension is just unsustainable, it was never supposed to be something people claim for 20-30 years. Was for people that had a hard time so they didn't starve to death in their last few years. Now it's a top-up to the richest part of society. It should have been linked with life expectancy a long time ago.

I'm in my 40s and dont expect to ever get a state pension. I've been contributing to my private pension ever since I worked to support myself.

Are we expected to mark your posts, in the manner of homework? All of your arguments have already been addressed. We don’t need to discount them again.

Apart from ‘Ros Altmann thinks it was bungled!’ of course. I have great respect for Ros Altmann. She’s a clever woman who has contributed to pension reform. However, she is also a politician. Do you think that all the other politicians jumping on the ‘poor mistreated WASPIs’ bandwagon support your cause 100%? Or are they just making placatory statements in order not to alienate 300,000 voters in an age group known for turning up to the polling station?

they didn’t need to make changes or save for retirement - it’s already been pointed out that they just needed to continue working (even if only in a minimum wage job) for a bit longer. Oh how fucking terrible and demeaning for them...

I suspect they have comfortably off retired DPs or DPILs who are enjoying the proverbial world cruises and this is the reason they are so peeved and thus determined to prove that waspis are scrounges and they the younger generation have it hard. It is pointless explaining it again

No you are wrong. My DH is working as am I.
And in any case your own personal situation should not dictate your moral compass. You ought to be able to see beyond that and judge what is best for society at large.

It is pointless explaining it again to you who seem a( unable to understand women had at least 8 years from 2011 and that working for 2-3 more years is not the end of the world.
The women who are pushing this case are in 2 groups:

they stopped work early in their 50s or have not worked much at all and banked on getting a SP at 60
they are comfortably off and see it as another lump sum to use for cruises.

HAHAHAHA at my parents going on world cruises!

There comes a point when you just have to accept news that you don’t like. You can’t retire at 60, or 63. The change was fair and the information was out there. Giving you what you want will disadvantage other people, just so that you can retire earlier than them. Accept it. Or don’t: bring your own case. I will follow it with interest.

I am not sure what a DPILS is? A 'dear partner in law? That's a new one. Or are you talking 'dear parents' and dear parents in law?

Either way it's bollocks.

@Fatshedra MY father died recently if you must know (in his 90s) and my mum is still hanging on but not to the side of cruise ship.

Happy now you know the truth?

I suspect you’re right @Fatshedra. And complete failure to recognise that you could have your pension three months sooner if you were born 7 hours earlier illustrates the utter lunacy of the transition. That appears to have been calculated by a bunch of civil servants after a boozy lunch.

@Fatshedra My parents (my mum is a waspi) aren't going on world cruises but they could absolutely afford to, so yes, the fact that they want me to fund them to have some additional money earlier makes me peeved!
I'm not sure why that's in any way irrational...

it’s already been pointed out that they just needed to continue working (even if only in a minimum wage job) for a bit longer.

You can make up a similar amount to state pension by working just a couple of days per week in a minimum wage job. It's not as if those who are "suffering" have to work full time in a high pressure/intensive job.

@Alsohuman I have never come across anyone who cannot understand something so simple. That is that whatever the cut off point was, it was bound to affect some people. But the small impact this has on 300K women is far less than the impact of paying out millions that could be used better for the benefit of society.

I notice you have had zero comments on the change to student fees, which affects the young's ability to buy a home, (have you any idea of the impact of the amount taken each month?) men's pensions age and how they could bring a case.

*The women who are pushing this case are in 2 groups:

they stopped work early in their 50s or have not worked much at all and banked on getting a SP at 60
they are comfortably off and see it as another lump sum to use for cruises.*

Or the third group, of which I’m one, who don’t want more money for themselves but for those women who were relying on their pension so they could retire from manual jobs which affect their health and carry no occupational pension.

Interesting essay from the mid-2000s about pension inequality...
www.historyandpolicy.org/policy-papers/papers/the-scandal-of-womens-pensions-in-britain-how-did-it-come-about

Still chuckling here about the idea of cruises! Fact is, it’s the waspi women on this thread who are the entitled ones, who clearly find the idea of - shock horror - working a few years longer utterly beneath them

And complete failure to recognise that you could have your pension three months sooner if you were born 7 hours earlier illustrates the utter lunacy of the transition. That appears to have been calculated by a bunch of civil servants after a boozy lunch.

There has to be cut-off points. There will inevitably be winners and losers. As pointed out above, Uni students paying £9k per year tuition fees will feel peeved that people born a year earlier didn't have to - that, too would mean someone born a few hours earlier didn't pay £9k if it meant they were born just before the school year cut off, and went to school a year earlier, and therefore went to Uni a year earlier.

Just to be clear, I don’t think that Ros Altmann is bandwagon jumping. She doesn’t need to: she’s the UK’s leading expert on pensions, which is why she is in the lords now and was previously pensions minister. During which time she enacted some really sensible legislation, including the 2013 act equalising the retirement age for public sector schemes with state pension age, and the removal of the requirement to buy an annuity on retirement. She slays. So I’m not judging her harshly but can you see that her saying it was bungled a bit isn’t much of an indictment and doesn’t help your argument?

Isn’t it the case that the vast majority of student loans never get repaid?

And complete failure to recognise that you could have your pension three months sooner if you were born 7 hours earlier illustrates the utter lunacy of the transition. That appears to have been calculated by a bunch of civil servants after a boozy lunch.

so what exactly, stone cold sober, would you have done? Where would YOU have had the transition point?

Isn’t it the case that the vast majority of student loans never get repaid?

Hardly, no. It is written off after 25 years if not re-paid in full.

You start paying when your income is above £25K which is also the average starting grad salary and like tax, the repayments increase the more you earn. One of my DCs is paying almost £150 a month

And that is not a reason for accepting the injustice of some students being charged £3K and other £9K a year.

Isn’t it the case that the vast majority of student loans never get repaid?

The threshold for starting to make repayments is below the national average wage level, and Uni students should be expected to earn more than average by virtue of their degree, so the majority of Uni students should be making repayments. Of course, some people will get low paid work (especially with the number of kids going to uni with no real idea of why!), and some in higher paid work will stop to have children etc., but ultimately, lots of people will pay off their loans in full and most will repay partially.

There must have been a more sensible way of doing it. Equally there’s clearly a more sensible way of administering child benefit than a household with two earners receiving it on a £98k joint income but one earner losing it at £50k. Government departments are useless at this stuff, why is it so hard for you to admit that @Jinglinghellsbells?

@Kazzyhoward

fullfact.org/education/about-17-students-are-forecast-fully-pay-back-their-loans/

Please answer the question about what transitional arrangements you would have recommended after this boozy civil service lunch. Before you got started on the digestifs, which we all did when I was in the civil service. Every day.

Thing is, if you are reduced to claiming that a decision you don’t like was only taken because the decision makers were drunk or incompetent, it doesn’t say much for your capacity for reasoned debate.

And I’m with @Kazzyhoward on the student loans: like hell will most of them not be repaid.

There must have been a more sensible way of doing it.

So what is YOUR answer @Alsohuman

You have plenty to say on it but no apparent answer.

You don't have a clue about student loans and repayment so why should we think you understand anything on pensions?

I don't have to admit (agree with?) anything.

Alsohuman- clearly your only ‘solution’ would be to implement the changes so that you personally didn’t feel hard done by. Talk about self serving