Equality (but only when it suits)

Eurofighter · 4 Oct 2019 at 05:00

I think they should have been given more time and the change been more gradual. My mum has lost 40k.

morbid42 · 4 Oct 2019 at 07:13

A general comment, if it was the other way round, and women had to work longer before retiring, 100% it would have been raised and changed, want equality when it suits.

I do feel sorry for people affected by it, perhaps could be handled better

theone8181 · 4 Oct 2019 at 07:45

My mum chuckles at this, shes about to turn 70 and just made it in before the change. I personally (as a youngish person) don't see the issue. Men and woman should work the same length, and as above its not exactly last minute (apart from the change form 65 to whatever it is now).

Nasher · 4 Oct 2019 at 07:58

KingOfTheDaves said:
There were 2 separate changes that were handled very differently.

1. The first was announced in 1992 (live on TV) and came into law in 1995, which equalised the state pension age for both men and women at age 65 from 2010. This wasn't an immediate jump but was staggered over 5 years. Women had 15 years to sort out their retirement provision and claims 'they didn't know' doesn't hold much water to me.

2. In 2011 the government decided to accelerate the timescale for the change from age 65 to 66 for both men and women. This was dumb, as it occurred slap bang in the middle of women changing from 60 to 65, so women were doubly penalised. It also gave next to no notice for women (and men) to do anything about.

In my opinion change 1 was reasonable because it gave plenty of notice for people to do something about it.

However change 2 was rushed, ill thought and should have occured after the state pension ages had been shifted to 65 for both.

Its always poorly done. They sort themselves out first and dont care much for the workers. Its like whe the public sector pay freeze finaly "got lifted", they immediately gave themselves pay rises and then didnt really bother after that.

Dolph · 4 Oct 2019 at 08:23

Are some people here really advocating the case for compensation where favourable discriminatory practices by the state have been ended?

That's the real principle under discussion here. If you were due to benefit from state mandated discrimination, should you be compensated when the discrimination ends without you getting your extra benefits?

All the emotional and sexist nonsense about women being victims in this is irrelevant appeals to emotion that shouldn't enter into it.

Lord-Jaffa · 4 Oct 2019 at 09:14

Eurofighter said:
I think they should have been given more time and the change been more gradual. My mum has lost 40k.

How has she lost 40k as a direct result of this out of interest?

StriderX · 4 Oct 2019 at 11:35

Dolph said:
Are some people here really advocating the case for compensation where favourable discriminatory practices by the state have been ended?

That's the real principle under discussion here. If you were due to benefit from state mandated discrimination, should you be compensated when the discrimination ends without you getting your extra benefits?

All the emotional and sexist nonsense about women being victims in this is irrelevant appeals to emotion that shouldn't enter into it.

What was a women doing in say the 1970s vs a man in the same decade? Were they doing all the housework while the husbando flittered off to some pub to give himself a long-term illness and anger issues? (hyperbole, but it was certainly my experience, not the 70s, but a similar environment)

The WASPI desire to take it back to 60 is dumb and shouldn't happen, i don't know why they're even trying to do it, it's the wrong message. But the social differences they had to live with in adulthood in context with the changes semi-recently is hardly worthless to talk about...

Eurofighter · 4 Oct 2019 at 12:18

Lord-Jaffa said:
How has she lost 40k as a direct result of this out of interest?

I haven't done the calculations but she was 60 least year and she is missing out on 6 years pension.

They should give these women at least something.

Our pension system is one of the worst in the developed world. I think everyone should retire at the most at 65.

Tony Edwards · 4 Oct 2019 at 12:21

Dolph said:
Are some people here really advocating the case for compensation where favourable discriminatory practices by the state have been ended?

That's the real principle under discussion here. If you were due to benefit from state mandated discrimination, should you be compensated when the discrimination ends without you getting your extra benefits?

All the emotional and sexist nonsense about women being victims in this is irrelevant appeals to emotion that shouldn't enter into it.

But it only happened to women. That is why they are protesting.

Dolph · 4 Oct 2019 at 12:28

Tony Edwards said:
But it only happened to women. That is why they are protesting.

That's because the discrimination was along gender lines.

Mason- · 4 Oct 2019 at 12:28

Oh no I have to work another 6 years to get my pension!!! So do the men. They never even got a sniff of getting their pensions early. Suck it up.

Tony Edwards · 4 Oct 2019 at 12:30

Dolph said:
That's because the discrimination was along gender lines.

But that doesnt take away why they were protesting. If they suddenly wanted to bump all pensions up by 5-7 years there would have been a lot more than just the women complaining.

Dolph · 4 Oct 2019 at 12:31

StriderX said:
What was a women doing in say the 1970s vs a man in the same decade? Were they doing all the housework while the husbando flittered off to some pub to give himself a long-term illness and anger issues? (hyperbole, but it was certainly my experience, not the 70s, but a similar environment)

The WASPI desire to take it back to 60 is dumb and shouldn't happen, i don't know why they're even trying to do it, it's the wrong message. But the social differences they had to live with in adulthood in context with the changes semi-recently is hardly worthless to talk about...

Even in the 1970s, life expectancy was several years more for women than men.

Do you believe in the principle of equal treatment under the law or not?

Dolph · 4 Oct 2019 at 12:33

Tony Edwards said:
But that doesnt take away why they were protesting. If they suddenly wanted to bump all pensions up by 5-7 years there would have been a lot more than just the women complaining.

They were protesting because they were losing an advantage caused by state mandated discrimination.

Are you advocating that all men over the pension age be compensated for the discrimination they suffered?

Disadvantage isn't inherently discriminatory, especially when it is to correct previous discrimination.

R.P.L · 4 Oct 2019 at 13:47

Tony Edwards said:
But that doesnt take away why they were protesting. If they suddenly wanted to bump all pensions up by 5-7 years there would have been a lot more than just the women complaining.

They should be happy to make that sacrifice in the name of equality.

Lord-Jaffa · 4 Oct 2019 at 14:14

Eurofighter said:
I haven't done the calculations but she was 60 least year and she is missing out on 6 years pension.

They should give these women at least something.

Our pension system is one of the worst in the developed world. I think everyone should retire at the most at 65.

Why should they give them something? What about the men who have worked years extra over women?

Hades · 4 Oct 2019 at 14:27

It's a tough one with no right or wrong answer. It's clearly wrong for men to be expected to work longer than women, especially as they have a shorter life span too. In today's drive for equality it is right that the age is equalised (preferably women going up and men coming down a bit to meet in the middle). But I can also see the point being made about such a sudden change preventing women planning properly.

However, I disagree that there is no option for women. They clearly can just continue to work. It's not ideal as I would not want to work longer in their shoes either. But then again they are currently expecting men to subsidise their early retirement as taxes would most likely rise if they were successful.

Tough decision either way. Some people will certainly be hurt by it. But probably the least-worst option.

Sabitech · 4 Oct 2019 at 14:29

I think bringing in compromise is always best. My parents both worked past retirement age, they got bored so went back to work haha!

Admiral Huddy · 4 Oct 2019 at 14:32

Sounds fair to me in a world that wants equality.

If I recall, wasn't the different ages set because the average gap between a married man and women was 5 years? They could therefore retire together?

Eurofighter · 4 Oct 2019 at 14:59

Eurofighter said:
I haven't done the calculations but she was 60 least year and she is missing out on 6 years pension.

Lord-Jaffa said:
Why should they give them something? What about the men who have worked years extra over women?

Because they have thought for most of their life they would retire 7 years earlier. Not easy to plan for with such short notice.