| Women - we want equality on 11:39 - Oct 3 with 1304 views | flimflam |
Is this not what they have always wanted, equality?
"There was no direct discrimination on grounds of sex, because this legislation does not treat women less favourably than men in law. Rather it equalises a historic asymmetry between men and women and thereby corrects historic direct discrimination against men." |  |
| All men and women are created, by the, you know the, you know the thing. |
|  |
| Women - we want equality on 11:45 - Oct 3 with 1281 views | Swansea_Blue |
Isn't it actually about the timing of the the announcement (it was brought forward, I believe) meaning they had less time to adjust/prepare that was originally claimed? |  |
| |
| Women - we want equality on 11:49 - Oct 3 with 1271 views | chicoazul |
| Women - we want equality on 11:45 - Oct 3 by Swansea_Blue |
Isn't it actually about the timing of the the announcement (it was brought forward, I believe) meaning they had less time to adjust/prepare that was originally claimed? |
It's almost as if egalitarianism of the type wielded by our idiot governments of the last 20 years is a blunt tool that leaves wreckage in its' wake. |  |
| |
| Women - we want equality on 11:52 - Oct 3 with 1259 views | lowhouseblue |
| Women - we want equality on 11:49 - Oct 3 by chicoazul |
It's almost as if egalitarianism of the type wielded by our idiot governments of the last 20 years is a blunt tool that leaves wreckage in its' wake. |
it's almost as if pensions are planned over decades and it's unfair to make substantial changes when it's too late for people to adjust their plans? |  |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Women - we want equality on 11:55 - Oct 3 with 1245 views | chicoazul |
| Women - we want equality on 11:52 - Oct 3 by lowhouseblue |
it's almost as if pensions are planned over decades and it's unfair to make substantial changes when it's too late for people to adjust their plans? |
Which, if you think about it, is what I said. | |
| |
| Women - we want equality on 11:57 - Oct 3 with 1240 views | lowhouseblue |
| Women - we want equality on 11:55 - Oct 3 by chicoazul |
Which, if you think about it, is what I said. |
except that the problem isn't egalitarianism - it's that it's been implemented badly. | |
| And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show |
| |
| Women - we want equality on 12:00 - Oct 3 with 1235 views | Dyland |
Poor implementation. Reminds me a little of the ITFC old age discount fiasco, commonly known as "Factersgate".
Anyone banging on about tough sh1t women, you want equality, suck it up, must be lovely people to be around. [Post edited 3 Oct 2019 12:00]
|  |
| |
| Women - we want equality on 12:00 - Oct 3 with 1230 views | jamesitfc |
A lot of those women in that age bracket would have been not working for various years of their life, this was normal and assumed meaning they would have had less money saved up (bringing up kids, housewife etc). Additionally, it is well published that the average working woman is paid less than the average man, another reason why they would have less money saved up for retirement.
To bring these changes upon these women in a relatively small amount of time is quite unfair and changes should have been phased in slower to give the people more time to prepare for this loss in income. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Women - we want equality on 12:07 - Oct 3 with 1198 views | chicoazul |
| Women - we want equality on 11:57 - Oct 3 by lowhouseblue |
except that the problem isn't egalitarianism - it's that it's been implemented badly. |
egalitarianism "of the type wielded by our idiot governments of the last 20 years" | |
| |
| Women - we want equality on 12:16 - Oct 3 with 1173 views | Sikamikanico |
My mum passed away in 2011. I have to be honest, I don't know when the age increased but this is her example.
When the age was first increased in the 1990's my mum, born in 1954 had a state pension age of 63 years and 8 months.
Her state pension age would have now been just under 65 years and 4 months.
This is a change of 20 months. She was fortunate she had a job with a good pension so could still have retired at the earlier age.
As I said above, I don't know when this date changed but the swing from someone born in early 1954 should have been manageable. |  | | |
| Women - we want equality on 12:27 - Oct 3 with 1142 views | itfcjoe |
| Women - we want equality on 12:16 - Oct 3 by Sikamikanico |
My mum passed away in 2011. I have to be honest, I don't know when the age increased but this is her example.
When the age was first increased in the 1990's my mum, born in 1954 had a state pension age of 63 years and 8 months.
Her state pension age would have now been just under 65 years and 4 months.
This is a change of 20 months. She was fortunate she had a job with a good pension so could still have retired at the earlier age.
As I said above, I don't know when this date changed but the swing from someone born in early 1954 should have been manageable. |
My Mum was born in 1959 and has had her retirement age go from 60-66, she’s fortunate she doesn’t rely on a state pension
Some of her friends struggle, those who are divorced had settlements that paid out up until they were 60, others who have lost their husbands are having to try and find work which isn’t easy as they aren’t a particularly attractive employee.
It’s the speed at which it changes for much which is the issue, and how poorly it was communicated. There are people who were born days apart that have to work for 2-3 years longer.
Equalising it was probably correct, but it was done fairly poorly, and then in 2011 was just ripped up and massively affected some in timescales that couldn’t be managed |  |
| |
| Women - we want equality on 13:00 - Oct 3 with 1054 views | north_stand77 |
| Women - we want equality on 12:27 - Oct 3 by itfcjoe |
My Mum was born in 1959 and has had her retirement age go from 60-66, she’s fortunate she doesn’t rely on a state pension
Some of her friends struggle, those who are divorced had settlements that paid out up until they were 60, others who have lost their husbands are having to try and find work which isn’t easy as they aren’t a particularly attractive employee.
It’s the speed at which it changes for much which is the issue, and how poorly it was communicated. There are people who were born days apart that have to work for 2-3 years longer.
Equalising it was probably correct, but it was done fairly poorly, and then in 2011 was just ripped up and massively affected some in timescales that couldn’t be managed |
I have lost over £42,000 as a result of this change. Fortunately I wasn't totally reliant on it but I have many friends who were and their circumstances are such that they are struggling financially.
The problem was the way it came about and the lack of thought by the government. Many women were stay at home mums or working part time as was quite usual then, so werent in a position to pay in to a pension fund. We were not given enough time to change things - the details given out were wishy washy and inadequate. This is what the argument is about, fairness. |  | | |
| Women - we want equality on 13:04 - Oct 3 with 1033 views | Marshalls_Mullet |
| Women - we want equality on 13:00 - Oct 3 by north_stand77 |
I have lost over £42,000 as a result of this change. Fortunately I wasn't totally reliant on it but I have many friends who were and their circumstances are such that they are struggling financially.
The problem was the way it came about and the lack of thought by the government. Many women were stay at home mums or working part time as was quite usual then, so werent in a position to pay in to a pension fund. We were not given enough time to change things - the details given out were wishy washy and inadequate. This is what the argument is about, fairness. |
I think the raising of the age for women is 100% correct, but I do think that some form of phasing could have been brought in to make it more manageable. |  |
| |
| Women - we want equality on 13:15 - Oct 3 with 994 views | Darth_Koont |
| Women - we want equality on 12:00 - Oct 3 by jamesitfc |
A lot of those women in that age bracket would have been not working for various years of their life, this was normal and assumed meaning they would have had less money saved up (bringing up kids, housewife etc). Additionally, it is well published that the average working woman is paid less than the average man, another reason why they would have less money saved up for retirement.
To bring these changes upon these women in a relatively small amount of time is quite unfair and changes should have been phased in slower to give the people more time to prepare for this loss in income. |
Well said.
Turning it into an equality issue now (once the horse has bolted) is a little silly. |  |
| |
| Women - we want equality on 13:28 - Oct 3 with 956 views | stonojnr |
| Women - we want equality on 13:04 - Oct 3 by Marshalls_Mullet |
I think the raising of the age for women is 100% correct, but I do think that some form of phasing could have been brought in to make it more manageable. |
Which is exactly what they did and are still doing even today and if you think the ages they quote now for you are set in stone, think again they will rise,anyone even in their 40s should expect no state pension provison till they are 70 at least.
The problem is these women got it set in their head they only had to work till 60,they missed the changes somehow even though it was extensively publicised,and got a surprise when they found out that wasnt the case anymore. But that's why you PLAN for your retirement not just years or even decades out,for your whole working life, its why you work out how much money you need to live on and how long you have to work for to get it and neither of those two things are necessarily linked to your state pension age. | | | |
| Women - we want equality on 13:34 - Oct 3 with 929 views | Swansea_Blue |
| Women - we want equality on 13:04 - Oct 3 by Marshalls_Mullet |
I think the raising of the age for women is 100% correct, but I do think that some form of phasing could have been brought in to make it more manageable. |
I'd have preferred they lowered mens to 60 personally and increased contributions. | |
| |
| Women - we want equality on 13:39 - Oct 3 with 912 views | Sikamikanico |
| Women - we want equality on 12:27 - Oct 3 by itfcjoe |
My Mum was born in 1959 and has had her retirement age go from 60-66, she’s fortunate she doesn’t rely on a state pension
Some of her friends struggle, those who are divorced had settlements that paid out up until they were 60, others who have lost their husbands are having to try and find work which isn’t easy as they aren’t a particularly attractive employee.
It’s the speed at which it changes for much which is the issue, and how poorly it was communicated. There are people who were born days apart that have to work for 2-3 years longer.
Equalising it was probably correct, but it was done fairly poorly, and then in 2011 was just ripped up and massively affected some in timescales that couldn’t be managed |
so the next change was 2011 - probably explains why that did not register for me.
The first change I think was fair enough. The act was 1995 and came in 15 years later.
While appreciating the difficulties this is not the last group that will struggle with money in later life and shows that we all need to do something about it | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
