Discussion:
fascist 'new' labour's latest 'promise'...we will pay females _15,000 to _30,000 for your vote
Add Reply
abelard
2019-11-24 11:38:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
we will take the money from others...
--
www.abelard.org
Yellow
2019-11-24 16:17:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
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?
abelard
2019-11-24 16:34:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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
only/primarily with the pretence/lie, that it is not just more tax
Post by Yellow
notion or only when 'females' are on the receiving end?
how is that relevant? any more than if the vote buying
attempt was aimed particularly at snooker players?
--
www.abelard.org
Yellow
2019-11-24 17:32:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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
only/primarily with the pretence/lie, that it is not just more tax
Post by Yellow
notion or only when 'females' are on the receiving end?
how is that relevant?
Can you not read what you posted?????
Post by abelard
any more than if the vote buying
attempt was aimed particularly at snooker players?
abelard
2019-11-24 17:35:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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
only/primarily with the pretence/lie, that it is not just more tax
Post by Yellow
notion or only when 'females' are on the receiving end?
how is that relevant?
Can you not read what you posted?????
yes thanx...
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
any more than if the vote buying
attempt was aimed particularly at snooker players?
--
www.abelard.org
Joe
2019-11-24 17:38:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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.
--
Joe
Basil Jet
2019-11-24 18:40:10 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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.
Why puzzling? "Equality" is always a one way street.
--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
7 Worlds Collide - 2009 - The Sun Came Out
Yellow
2019-11-24 21:50:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Joe
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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.
JNugent
2019-11-25 00:12:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by Joe
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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"?
Yellow
2019-11-25 22:47:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by Joe
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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.
JNugent
2019-11-26 02:08:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by Joe
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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?
Keema's Nan
2019-11-26 09:47:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by Joe
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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.
JNugent
2019-11-26 12:28:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by Joe
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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?

Or just no right to increase it for women (which is what Yellow's point
seems to be)?
Andy Walker
2019-11-26 12:57:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 26/11/2019 12:28, JNugent wrote:
[To Keema:]
Post by JNugent
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 can't answer for Keema or Yellow, but what SWMBO is miffed
about is that the goalposts moved rather a long way with rather little
notice. Changes to pension rights are usually made very cautiously and
over a long time-scale precisely because people close to retirement are
usually making long-term plans for a time when they will no longer be
able to change their finances significantly. I doubt whether there
would have been any complaint had the increase in pension age taken
place at a rate of, say, three months per year. Instead, it was all
rather "big bang", meaning that a relatively small group of people
were very badly affected. That's normally thought to be unfair, tho'
some political parties have a habit of describing changes that affect
few people as "ipso facto" fair, an inversion of the usual meaning.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2019-11-26 13:28:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
[To Keema:]
Post by JNugent
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 can't answer for Keema or Yellow, but what SWMBO is miffed
about is that the goalposts moved rather a long way with rather little
notice. Changes to pension rights are usually made very cautiously and
over a long time-scale precisely because people close to retirement are
usually making long-term plans for a time when they will no longer be
able to change their finances significantly. I doubt whether there
would have been any complaint had the increase in pension age taken
place at a rate of, say, three months per year. Instead, it was all
rather "big bang", meaning that a relatively small group of people
were very badly affected. That's normally thought to be unfair, tho'
some political parties have a habit of describing changes that affect
few people as "ipso facto" fair, an inversion of the usual meaning.
Yes, it is the same in our household. In the end we have agreed the
position that her state pension deal is unfair, but mine is even
unfairer.
--
Evremonde
JNugent
2019-11-26 14:01:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by Andy Walker
[To Keema:]
Post by JNugent
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 can't answer for Keema or Yellow, but what SWMBO is miffed
about is that the goalposts moved rather a long way with rather little
notice.  Changes to pension rights are usually made very cautiously and
over a long time-scale precisely because people close to retirement are
usually making long-term plans for a time when they will no longer be
able to change their finances significantly.  I doubt whether there
would have been any complaint had the increase in pension age taken
place at a rate of, say, three months per year.  Instead, it was all
rather "big bang", meaning that a relatively small group of people
were very badly affected.  That's normally thought to be unfair, tho'
some political parties have a habit of describing changes that affect
few people as "ipso facto" fair, an inversion of the usual meaning.
Yes, it is the same in our household. In the end we have agreed the
position that her state pension deal is unfair, but mine is even unfairer.
A rational position.

But there are people around who are prepared to completely overlook the
unfairness to males which was built in from the off by Lloyd-George.
Farmer Giles
2019-11-26 16:16:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by Andy Walker
[To Keema:]
Post by JNugent
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 can't answer for Keema or Yellow, but what SWMBO is miffed
about is that the goalposts moved rather a long way with rather little
notice.  Changes to pension rights are usually made very cautiously and
over a long time-scale precisely because people close to retirement are
usually making long-term plans for a time when they will no longer be
able to change their finances significantly.  I doubt whether there
would have been any complaint had the increase in pension age taken
place at a rate of, say, three months per year.  Instead, it was all
rather "big bang", meaning that a relatively small group of people
were very badly affected.  That's normally thought to be unfair, tho'
some political parties have a habit of describing changes that affect
few people as "ipso facto" fair, an inversion of the usual meaning.
Yes, it is the same in our household. In the end we have agreed the
position that her state pension deal is unfair, but mine is even unfairer.
A rational position.
But there are people around who are prepared to completely overlook the
unfairness to males which was built in from the off by Lloyd-George.
Was it? AFAIAA, the 1908 Pensions Act was a means-tested benefit which
provided a pension to both men and women who qualified at the age of 70.
The rate being 5/- per week for a single person and 7/6 for a couple.
JNugent
2019-11-26 13:59:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
[To Keema:]
Post by JNugent
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 can't answer for Keema or Yellow, but what SWMBO is miffed
about is that the goalposts moved rather a long way with rather little
notice.  Changes to pension rights are usually made very cautiously and
over a long time-scale precisely because people close to retirement are
usually making long-term plans for a time when they will no longer be
able to change their finances significantly.  I doubt whether there
would have been any complaint had the increase in pension age taken
place at a rate of, say, three months per year.  Instead, it was all
rather "big bang", meaning that a relatively small group of people
were very badly affected.  That's normally thought to be unfair, tho'
some political parties have a habit of describing changes that affect
few people as "ipso facto" fair, an inversion of the usual meaning.
Expecting Parliament (which effectively means a government) to start a
process which gives decades - or even a single decade - of notice of
something like that is naive.

The Parliament which initiated the prospective change would get all the
blame and opprobrium (opening them up to immediate attack by the
opposition), whilst the benefits would start to accrue - very possibly
to another party in government - only all those years later.

And the government would still have to make current spending decisions
based on current pension entitlements.

It isn't realistic to expect it.
Keema's Nan
2019-11-26 14:19:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Andy Walker
[To Keema:]
Post by JNugent
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 can't answer for Keema or Yellow, but what SWMBO is miffed
about is that the goalposts moved rather a long way with rather little
notice. Changes to pension rights are usually made very cautiously and
over a long time-scale precisely because people close to retirement are
usually making long-term plans for a time when they will no longer be
able to change their finances significantly. I doubt whether there
would have been any complaint had the increase in pension age taken
place at a rate of, say, three months per year. Instead, it was all
rather "big bang", meaning that a relatively small group of people
were very badly affected. That's normally thought to be unfair, tho'
some political parties have a habit of describing changes that affect
few people as "ipso facto" fair, an inversion of the usual meaning.
Expecting Parliament (which effectively means a government) to start a
process which gives decades - or even a single decade - of notice of
something like that is naive.
You have no idea what you are blabbering about, so my advice to you would be
to STFU on this subject or end up looking even more of an ignorant idiot than
you do normally.
Post by JNugent
The Parliament which initiated the prospective change would get all the
blame and opprobrium (opening them up to immediate attack by the
opposition), whilst the benefits would start to accrue - very possibly
to another party in government - only all those years later.
And the government would still have to make current spending decisions
based on current pension entitlements.
It isn't realistic to expect it.
Andy Walker
2019-11-26 18:43:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 26/11/2019 13:59, JNugent wrote:
[Pension changes:]
Post by JNugent
Expecting Parliament (which effectively means a government) to start
a process which gives decades - or even a single decade - of notice
of something like that is naive.
Nevertheless, it is usual to change pensions very cautiously,
and a decade of notice for a major change is not unusual. ...
Post by JNugent
The Parliament which initiated the prospective change would get all
the blame and opprobrium (opening them up to immediate attack by the
opposition), whilst the benefits would start to accrue - very
possibly to another party in government - only all those years
later.
... That depends on whether (a) the long-prospective change
is judged to deserve blame and opprobrium [most don't] and (b) the
change enjoys support from all or most parties. Note that, eg, the
effective abolition of compulsory retirement ages and the relaxing
of rules on taking compulsory annuities have gone through with very
little comment or complaint. As per nearby articles, the complaint
about the raising of the pension age is not the change per se, which
was widely accepted, but changes to the rate and extent of the
increase which came in at very short notice, giving people little
chance to re-consider their long-term options.

May be worth noting that the worst effects are not on those
who are in work at around 60 [who at least can continue to earn a
salary] but on those out of work, who typically have several extra
years to cover before their planned pension cuts in.
Post by JNugent
And the government would still have to make current spending
decisions based on current pension entitlements.
It isn't realistic to expect it.
Sure, but the changes are usually quite small in the early
years, so there is relatively little effect on national budgets.
The big impact is on relatively few individuals, which is why
governments should proceed cautiously.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Yellow
2019-11-27 03:16:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
[To Keema:]
Post by JNugent
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 can't answer for Keema or Yellow, but what SWMBO is miffed
about is that the goalposts moved rather a long way with rather little
notice. Changes to pension rights are usually made very cautiously and
over a long time-scale precisely because people close to retirement are
usually making long-term plans for a time when they will no longer be
able to change their finances significantly. I doubt whether there
would have been any complaint had the increase in pension age taken
place at a rate of, say, three months per year. Instead, it was all
rather "big bang", meaning that a relatively small group of people
were very badly affected. That's normally thought to be unfair, tho'
some political parties have a habit of describing changes that affect
few people as "ipso facto" fair, an inversion of the usual meaning.
I think you have summed up the situation extremely well.
JNugent
2019-11-27 09:23:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by Andy Walker
[To Keema:]
Post by JNugent
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 can't answer for Keema or Yellow, but what SWMBO is miffed
about is that the goalposts moved rather a long way with rather little
notice. Changes to pension rights are usually made very cautiously and
over a long time-scale precisely because people close to retirement are
usually making long-term plans for a time when they will no longer be
able to change their finances significantly. I doubt whether there
would have been any complaint had the increase in pension age taken
place at a rate of, say, three months per year. Instead, it was all
rather "big bang", meaning that a relatively small group of people
were very badly affected. That's normally thought to be unfair, tho'
some political parties have a habit of describing changes that affect
few people as "ipso facto" fair, an inversion of the usual meaning.
I think you have summed up the situation extremely well.
What no-one has done so far is said what notice period would have been
acceptable.

Since the complaint has been couched in terms of plans having to be
changed, it would appear that only a lifetime's notice (meaning no
changes of plan, not never, not nohow) would have been acceptable.
Keema's Nan
2019-11-27 09:47:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by Andy Walker
[To Keema:]
Post by JNugent
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 can't answer for Keema or Yellow, but what SWMBO is miffed
about is that the goalposts moved rather a long way with rather little
notice. Changes to pension rights are usually made very cautiously and
over a long time-scale precisely because people close to retirement are
usually making long-term plans for a time when they will no longer be
able to change their finances significantly. I doubt whether there
would have been any complaint had the increase in pension age taken
place at a rate of, say, three months per year. Instead, it was all
rather "big bang", meaning that a relatively small group of people
were very badly affected. That's normally thought to be unfair, tho'
some political parties have a habit of describing changes that affect
few people as "ipso facto" fair, an inversion of the usual meaning.
I think you have summed up the situation extremely well.
What no-one has done so far is said what notice period would have been
acceptable.
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?
Post by JNugent
Since the complaint has been couched in terms of plans having to be
changed, it would appear that only a lifetime's notice (meaning no
changes of plan, not never, not nohow) would have been acceptable.
JNugent
2019-11-27 09:55:31 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by Andy Walker
[To Keema:]
Post by JNugent
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 can't answer for Keema or Yellow, but what SWMBO is miffed
about is that the goalposts moved rather a long way with rather little
notice. Changes to pension rights are usually made very cautiously and
over a long time-scale precisely because people close to retirement are
usually making long-term plans for a time when they will no longer be
able to change their finances significantly. I doubt whether there
would have been any complaint had the increase in pension age taken
place at a rate of, say, three months per year. Instead, it was all
rather "big bang", meaning that a relatively small group of people
were very badly affected. That's normally thought to be unfair, tho'
some political parties have a habit of describing changes that affect
few people as "ipso facto" fair, an inversion of the usual meaning.
I think you have summed up the situation extremely well.
What no-one has done so far is said what notice period would have been
acceptable.
There should never have been the need for a notice period for the second
readjustment, because it should never have happened at all.
That is at least clear. Yellow has so far chosen not to be clear on the
subject.
Post by Keema's Nan
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?
Do you think it might have had something to do with the fact of
increasing longevity and its effects on pension expenditure as the years
go by? And also with the problem of how to increase Retirement Pension
(now achieved, though, alas, too late for me and possibly for you)
withouit simply increasing taxation by the same amount?
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Since the complaint has been couched in terms of plans having to be
changed, it would appear that only a lifetime's notice (meaning no
changes of plan, not never, not nohow) would have been acceptable.
Keema's Nan
2019-11-27 10:47:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by Andy Walker
[To Keema:]
Post by JNugent
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 can't answer for Keema or Yellow, but what SWMBO is miffed
about is that the goalposts moved rather a long way with rather little
notice. Changes to pension rights are usually made very cautiously and
over a long time-scale precisely because people close to retirement are
usually making long-term plans for a time when they will no longer be
able to change their finances significantly. I doubt whether there
would have been any complaint had the increase in pension age taken
place at a rate of, say, three months per year. Instead, it was all
rather "big bang", meaning that a relatively small group of people
were very badly affected. That's normally thought to be unfair, tho'
some political parties have a habit of describing changes that affect
few people as "ipso facto" fair, an inversion of the usual meaning.
I think you have summed up the situation extremely well.
What no-one has done so far is said what notice period would have been
acceptable.
There should never have been the need for a notice period for the second
readjustment, because it should never have happened at all.
That is at least clear. Yellow has so far chosen not to be clear on the
subject.
Post by Keema's Nan
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?
Do you think it might have had something to do with the fact of
increasing longevity and its effects on pension expenditure as the years
go by?
Yes, I’m sure that was the main driver - plus the obsession with austerity.
However, it looks as though they were looking for easy targets and they
thought that up to a million working people (mainly women) would probably
moan but not cause any loss of votes for the parties concerned (always a
dangerous assumption).
Post by JNugent
And also with the problem of how to increase Retirement Pension
(now achieved, though, alas, too late for me and possibly for you)
withouit simply increasing taxation by the same amount?
I was not affected. I had my pension paid from my 65th birthday, although I
don’t get the full state pension because I was contracted out of SERPS.

I’m all in favour of simplifying the pensions and benefits system. However,
it is the length of time that the staff take which upset people. For instance
(and going O/T which Lardy will insist is dodging the subject) I am claiming
attendance allowance for my father from August when he was deemed unfit to
look after himself (he is in his 90s) and yet I have had nothing so far after
3 months, despite filling in and posting the 30 page application form within
24 hours.

I have had a letter saying when the allowance is paid, it will be backdated 3
months - which is comforting. It doesn’t affect me too much because I can
afford to bridge the gap myself, but old folk with no savings would have had
no such backup.
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Since the complaint has been couched in terms of plans having to be
changed, it would appear that only a lifetime's notice (meaning no
changes of plan, not never, not nohow) would have been acceptable.
That would appear to be the left wing’s stupid view, but my wife was 40
when the announcement was publicised. I think 25 years was quite adequate,
and if she knew the rules were changing I cannot see how others can get away
with pretending they knew nothing about it. That must be their own fault.
abelard
2019-11-27 11:04:04 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:47:46 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by Andy Walker
[To Keema:]
Post by JNugent
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 can't answer for Keema or Yellow, but what SWMBO is miffed
about is that the goalposts moved rather a long way with rather little
notice. Changes to pension rights are usually made very cautiously and
over a long time-scale precisely because people close to retirement are
usually making long-term plans for a time when they will no longer be
able to change their finances significantly. I doubt whether there
would have been any complaint had the increase in pension age taken
place at a rate of, say, three months per year. Instead, it was all
rather "big bang", meaning that a relatively small group of people
were very badly affected. That's normally thought to be unfair, tho'
some political parties have a habit of describing changes that affect
few people as "ipso facto" fair, an inversion of the usual meaning.
I think you have summed up the situation extremely well.
What no-one has done so far is said what notice period would have been
acceptable.
There should never have been the need for a notice period for the second
readjustment, because it should never have happened at all.
That is at least clear. Yellow has so far chosen not to be clear on the
subject.
Post by Keema's Nan
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?
Do you think it might have had something to do with the fact of
increasing longevity and its effects on pension expenditure as the years
go by?
Yes, I’m sure that was the main driver - plus the obsession with austerity.
However, it looks as though they were looking for easy targets and they
thought that up to a million working people (mainly women) would probably
moan but not cause any loss of votes for the parties concerned (always a
dangerous assumption).
Post by JNugent
And also with the problem of how to increase Retirement Pension
(now achieved, though, alas, too late for me and possibly for you)
withouit simply increasing taxation by the same amount?
I was not affected. I had my pension paid from my 65th birthday, although I
don’t get the full state pension because I was contracted out of SERPS.
I’m all in favour of simplifying the pensions and benefits system. However,
it is the length of time that the staff take which upset people. For instance
(and going O/T which Lardy will insist is dodging the subject) I am claiming
attendance allowance for my father from August when he was deemed unfit to
look after himself (he is in his 90s) and yet I have had nothing so far after
3 months, despite filling in and posting the 30 page application form within
24 hours.
so what...you'll get it when the staff get around to it...

the government cannot employ infinite numbers esp after
fascist 'new' labour bankrupted the public finances

they are in fact remarkably efficient and getting more so
by the month...
I have had a letter saying when the allowance is paid, it will be backdated 3
months - which is comforting. It doesn’t affect me too much because I can
afford to bridge the gap myself, but old folk with no savings would have had
no such backup.
your virtue signalling is noted
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Since the complaint has been couched in terms of plans having to be
changed, it would appear that only a lifetime's notice (meaning no
changes of plan, not never, not nohow) would have been acceptable.
That would appear to be the left wing’s stupid view, but my wife was 40
when the announcement was publicised. I think 25 years was quite adequate,
and if she knew the rules were changing I cannot see how others can get away
with pretending they knew nothing about it. That must be their own fault.
--
www.abelard.org
abelard
2019-11-27 10:04:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:47:53 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by 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
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2019-11-27 10:49:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:47:53 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by 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.
abelard
2019-11-27 10:55:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:49:54 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:47:53 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by 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

but that isn't going to happen...is it?
--
www.abelard.org
abelard
2019-11-27 10:59:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:49:54 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:47:53 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by 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
but that isn't going to happen...is it?
incorrect link....correct link is:-
https://www.abelard.org/economics/fannie_mae_freddie_mac.php
--
www.abelard.org
Farmer Giles
2019-11-27 11:15:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:49:54 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:47:53 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by 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
but that isn't going to happen...is it?
incorrect link....correct link is:-
https://www.abelard.org/economics/fannie_mae_freddie_mac.php
<Chuckle> Babbelard inadvertently shows where he copies his nonsense
from for his second-hand webshite.
Keema's Nan
2019-11-27 11:27:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:49:54 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:47:53 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by 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
2019-11-27 11:36:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:27:02 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:49:54 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:47:53 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by 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
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2019-11-27 11:55:58 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 11:27:02 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:49:54 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:47:53 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by 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
2019-11-27 12:09:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:49:54 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:47:53 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by 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
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2019-11-27 12:39:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:49:54 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:47:53 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by 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
2019-11-27 16:50:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 10:49:54 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:47:53 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by 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
--
www.abelard.org
p***@gmail.com
2019-11-27 13:53:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:47:53 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by 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
--
www.abelard.org
You are not being objective.

Public sector net debt as a % of GDP when 'bankrupt' in 2010 under Labour - 65.5%. Credit rating AAA (stable)
Public sector net debt as a % of GDP in 2018 under Conservatives - 84.6%. Credit rating AA (negative)

Neither has bankrupted the public finances.

Patrick
abelard
2019-11-27 16:41:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by p***@gmail.com
Post by abelard
On Wed, 27 Nov 2019 09:47:53 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by 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
--
www.abelard.org
You are not being objective.
Public sector net debt as a % of GDP when 'bankrupt' in 2010 under Labour - 65.5%. Credit rating AAA (stable)
Public sector net debt as a % of GDP in 2018 under Conservatives - 84.6%. Credit rating AA (negative)
Neither has bankrupted the public finances.
the rise were the steps to clear up the mess

you cannot happily with one mighty leap, bankrupt all the doleys...
the middle classes start to trip over them when shopping

the squeeze is applied cautiously and naturally includes the
growing requirements of the old and the lame...all of
which had not been costed as the attempts to buy votes
and to increase dependency expanded...

the rush to get five more years to set the 'new society' in
stone ran out of road and the tory party got a serious
leader all at the same time

meanwhile vast social capital was destroyed...

the world is dynamic...every socialist regime deteriorates
in a similar vortex...it is a lot harder to fix than to develop

watch the desperation as agent cob strives and struggles
to get at the credit cards before the recovery becomes
obvious
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2019-11-26 14:07:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by Joe
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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.
Post by JNugent
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
2019-11-26 14:11:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by Joe
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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.
Post by JNugent
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
2019-11-26 14:23:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by Joe
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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.
Post by JNugent
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
2019-11-26 14:43:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by Joe
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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.
Post by JNugent
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
2019-11-26 15:20:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by Joe
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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.
Post by JNugent
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.
Grikkbassturde
2019-11-26 14:38:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:07:28 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by Joe
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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.
Post by JNugent
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
2019-11-26 15:02:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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!
--
Pedophilic dreckserb Razovic arguing in favour of pedophilia, again:
"A lowering of the age of consent to reflect the rate at which today's
youngsters 'mature'."
MID: <gKNUE.1374684$***@usenetxs.com>
Andy Walker
2019-11-26 12:41:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[... 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.

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.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
abelard
2019-11-26 13:56:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
[... 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.
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.
life is hard...and then you die...

most people don't save and mot people are innumerate...

more people voted for the mad socialist cult...

there are consequences in the real world

Matthew 25:1-13 King James Version (KJV)
25 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which
took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.

3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:

4 But the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.

5 While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.

6 And at midnight there was a cry made, Behold, the bridegroom cometh;
go ye out to meet him.

7 Then all those virgins arose, and trimmed their lamps.

8 And the foolish said unto the wise, Give us of your oil; for our
lamps are gone out.

9 But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for
us and you: but go ye rather to them that sell, and buy for
yourselves.

10 And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were
ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.

11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to
us.

12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.

13 Watch therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour wherein
the Son of man cometh.


'they' are being taught to trust and rely on government...
...very foolish virgins

there is far worserer to come if the seas rise as expected and if
the population is encouraged to grow beyond holding
capacity

socialism is a very foolish and dangerous cult...
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2019-11-26 14:14:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
[... 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.
Post by Andy Walker
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
2019-11-26 14:27:26 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:14:17 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Andy Walker
[... 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!
--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
2019-11-26 14:45:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:14:17 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Andy Walker
[... 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
2019-11-26 15:27:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:14:17 +0000, Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Andy Walker
[... 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
2019-11-26 16:52:53 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
Post by Andy Walker
[... 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
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2019-11-26 17:04:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
Post by Andy Walker
[... 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
2019-11-26 17:07:32 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
Post by Andy Walker
[... 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...
--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
2019-11-26 14:33:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Andy Walker
[... 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
2019-11-26 14:45:30 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Andy Walker
[... 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
2019-11-26 15:17:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Andy Walker
[... 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
2019-11-26 20:28:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2019-11-27 00:13:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2019-11-27 03:12:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2019-11-27 09:04:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2019-11-26 20:17:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:14:17 +0000 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Andy Walker
[... 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
2019-11-26 21:06:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:14:17 +0000 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Andy Walker
[... 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'
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2019-11-26 21:59:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Yellow
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 14:14:17 +0000 Keema's Nan
Post by Keema's Nan
Post by Andy Walker
[... 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
2019-11-26 22:28:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
Post by Andy Walker
[... 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
--
www.abelard.org
Yellow
2019-11-27 03:09:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2019-11-27 09:02:49 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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.
Incubus
2019-11-27 12:21:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
pamela
2019-11-27 10:34:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
Post by Andy Walker
[... 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
2019-11-27 03:01:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2019-11-27 07:08:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2019-11-27 08:16:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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!
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2019-11-27 09:05:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2019-11-27 10:06:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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!
--
www.abelard.org
Keema's Nan
2019-11-27 08:52:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2019-11-27 09:02:18 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2019-11-27 09:11:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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.
JNugent
2019-11-27 09:15:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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
2019-11-27 08:58:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
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.
--
kat
Post by Yellow
^..^<
JNugent
2019-11-26 14:27:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
[... 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.
Was she just on the "wrong" side of a newly-changed line?

And were all the others on the "right" side of it?
    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.
It's odd how pension rights only really become important when retirement
time is racing towards us. And of course, I include myself in that; when
I was young, it was hard to belive that I would ever be old. I was
presumably working on the basis that old people had always been old.
Andy Walker
2019-11-26 19:00:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
[...] To say that SWMBO was slightly
miffed would be one of the understatements of the century. [...]
Was she just on the "wrong" side of a newly-changed line?
And were all the others on the "right" side of it?
Yes; and, as noted elsewhere, the "new change" was much more
sudden and extreme than the already-planned changes for those who were
caught by it. Luckily, our family finances were robust enough for it
to be miffing rather than disastrous. But I suspect that some of
those with the same birthday would have had their lives drastically
upset.

[...]
Post by JNugent
It's odd how pension rights only really become important when
retirement time is racing towards us. And of course, I include myself
in that; when I was young, it was hard to belive that I would ever be
old. I was presumably working on the basis that old people had always
been old.
Indeed. I never gave any serious thought to retirement or what
my finances would look like until roughly a year beforehand. All the
stuff about "contracted in" or "DC schemes" was in one ear and out the
other. Luckily, a couple of decades earlier I had, in almost complete
ignorance, taken the most important financial decision of my life and
guessed the right way, against all official advice. Only six people
in the university did the same, three from the maths dept, which ought
to mean something!
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Keema's Nan
2019-11-26 20:12:07 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by JNugent
[...] To say that SWMBO was slightly
miffed would be one of the understatements of the century. [...]
Was she just on the "wrong" side of a newly-changed line?
And were all the others on the "right" side of it?
Yes; and, as noted elsewhere, the "new change" was much more
sudden and extreme than the already-planned changes for those who were
caught by it. Luckily, our family finances were robust enough for it
to be miffing rather than disastrous. But I suspect that some of
those with the same birthday would have had their lives drastically
upset.
[...]
Post by JNugent
It's odd how pension rights only really become important when
retirement time is racing towards us. And of course, I include myself
in that; when I was young, it was hard to belive that I would ever be
old. I was presumably working on the basis that old people had always
been old.
Indeed. I never gave any serious thought to retirement or what
my finances would look like until roughly a year beforehand. All the
stuff about "contracted in" or "DC schemes" was in one ear and out the
other. Luckily, a couple of decades earlier I had, in almost complete
ignorance, taken the most important financial decision of my life and
guessed the right way, against all official advice. Only six people
in the university did the same, three from the maths dept, which ought
to mean something!
I think that, unfortunately, the socialist paramilitary wing have taken over
this subject and done their usual mixture of over-hyped exaggeration for the
chance to get themselves oodles of attention seeking publicity time.

The sad thing is that in their desperation to portray the government as
stealing from the poor, they have decided to jump on a bandwagon for those
who had ample time to realise the retirement age for women was going to rise
before they retired.

So now everyone (including agent Cob) on the left is demanding compensation
to every woman who did not get a state pension at 60, hence the £68bn or
whatever the figure was. They just want to squeeze the rich until the pips
squeak, which is not going to win them an election - or if it is they have
spent a lot of working peoples’ money just to give out vast quantities to
the wives of us old wrinklies.
Incubus
2019-11-25 11:58:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by Joe
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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.
Surely it's misandry that men are expected to work longer than women. What is
misogynistic about women being treated equally? I thought that's what Feminism
was originally about.
abelard
2019-11-25 12:04:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:58:24 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Joe
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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.
Surely it's misandry that men are expected to work longer than women. What is
misogynistic about women being treated equally? I thought that's what Feminism
was originally about.
i just couldn't make sense of her comment...so i decided
not to struggle with it :-)
--
www.abelard.org
Yellow
2019-11-25 22:57:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:58:24 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Joe
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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.
Surely it's misandry that men are expected to work longer than women. What is
misogynistic about women being treated equally? I thought that's what Feminism
was originally about.
i just couldn't make sense of her comment...so i decided
not to struggle with it :-)
You do not understand that men in households where they expected their
wife to receive her pension at 60 are not affected by the financial lose
when this did not in fact happen?
abelard
2019-11-26 08:22:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:58:24 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Joe
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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.
Surely it's misandry that men are expected to work longer than women. What is
misogynistic about women being treated equally? I thought that's what Feminism
was originally about.
i just couldn't make sense of her comment...so i decided
not to struggle with it :-)
You do not understand that men in households where they expected their
wife to receive her pension at 60 are not affected by the financial lose
when this did not in fact happen?
fyi, i can't make sense of that word concoction either!
--
www.abelard.org
Andy Walker
2019-11-26 12:09:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 26/11/2019 08:22, abelard wrote:
[Yellow:]
Post by abelard
Post by Yellow
You do not understand that men in households where they expected their
wife to receive her pension at 60 are not affected by the financial lose
when this did not in fact happen?
fyi, i can't make sense of that word concoction either!
That's because there are too many "not"s in it! Try deleting
the first two. It would also help slightly if "You do ..." is replaced
by "Do you ..." and if "lose" is replaced by "loss". But I expect you
knew that.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
abelard
2019-11-26 14:07:36 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
[Yellow:]
Post by abelard
Post by Yellow
You do not understand that men in households where they expected their
wife to receive her pension at 60 are not affected by the financial lose
when this did not in fact happen?
fyi, i can't make sense of that word concoction either!
That's because there are too many "not"s in it! Try deleting
the first two. It would also help slightly if "You do ..." is replaced
by "Do you ..." and if "lose" is replaced by "loss". But I expect you
knew that.
i expect you are correct :-)
but i am a very literal aspergers type...

nots are very slippery fellows!

https://www.abelard.org/metalogic/metalogicA3.htm#asymmetry-not
The asymmetry of ‘not’
Any statement properly pointing at reasonably clearly defined elements
of the real world can be imagined to be factual or not.

A ‘lie’ is a statement regarded as factually not so in the real world.
Negative statements are not symmetrical with positive statements.
Negative statements do not all have the ‘same’ type of meaning.

Types of negative sentence
Type 1
No unicorns is not isometric with no horses, because there are [13] no
unicorns to not exist.

Type 2
There are no horses in this room is not isometric with there ‘is’ no
thing (at all) in this room.

Type 3
‘There are no horses in this room’ is not isometric with ‘there are no
horses’
‘Liar’ means, ‘what you say is not so’ or it is ‘untrue’. (See here
for discussion of psychological ‘lie’states.)
The relative interpretation of not not
Where is the horse
Consider the statement, “there is not not a horse in this room”. This
can be interpreted relative to the horse or relative to the room.
Mathematicians habitually interpret ‘not not a horse’ to mean that
there is a horse: this is an unsafe and potentially ill-defined
practice.

Consider ‘not (not a horse)’. Given that from Type 3 above, when ‘not
a horse’ means there are ‘no horses at all’, then not not a horse
cannot mean there is a horse; for there was no horse to be notted in
the first place (as with the unicorn in Type 1). So in the case of no
horse or three unicorns, not not would tend to mean not at all at all.
[14]

As Brouwer might have said, “An absurdity of an absurdity is still an
absurdity.” [15]

Unfortunately, many a mathematician seems to think that absurdity of
an absurdity is a ‘proof’.

It will be seen that when deciding just what is not, it is sensible to
first decide where the item is; or where it might have been or where
it is now, if anywhere!

If the horse was not in the room and was last seen in the paddock, it
may turn out to be reasonable to interpret ‘the horse is not not in
the room’ as ‘the horse is now in the room’. This is not a reasonable
interpretation if you never had a horse, or if a unicorn were the
subject of discussion.

However, if the room was the focus of discussion, then concluding that
there were no horse in the room would perhaps suggest the room was a
suitable place to work. Interest in the absent horse could well then
become an issue to be ignored unless, of course, there were now an
elephant in the room.

In the absence of any zoo in the room, attention would very likely be
upon whether there was a table, some pencils, paper and a bottle of
whisky in the room.

Where is the room?
Consider the empty room—think about what it is empty of, is it empty
of horses or empty of cockroaches or empty of air?

Consider, ‘not an empty room’—do we have a full room? If so, how full?
Or does ‘not an empty room’ mean no room at all at all to be ‘empty’?

In set terms; does ‘the’ set ‘exist’? What is supposedly ‘in’ the set?
Or even ‘not in the set’? Where ‘is’ that which is currently ‘not in
the set’? Is it ‘anywhere’?

Or have you been lured into discussing unicorns?

Nots can tie you in knots if your attention wanders from reality. One
must always know just what it is that one intends to get notted.

First catch your room, then find your horse; if your communications
are to maintain contact with reality and, thus, with sanity.


there are apparent assumptions behind yellow's posts which others are
pointing out...and i also don't share...

like...'life will be fair' or 'you can trust government' :-)
--
www.abelard.org
Andy Walker
2019-11-26 23:44:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
A ‘lie’ is a statement regarded as factually not so in the real world.
Sadly, the word is being abused to mean that, and perhaps the
new [ie, your] meaning will become standard. For me, a "lie" is a
statement that the utterer *believes* *at the time* to be untrue.
Whether the statement is in fact true or false is thus irrelevant,
except insofar as there may be evidence that the utterer knew the
truth but told the lie anyway. Thus, the word is being misused when
applied to many of the statements made during the referendum; you
may think that many such statements were unwise, or that perpetrators
really should have known better, or that the lapse of time has shown
them to be false, but that does not make them lies.
Mathematicians habitually interpret ‘not not a horse’ to mean that
there is a horse: this is an unsafe and potentially ill-defined
practice.
That's because you are misrepresenting mathematicians and
mathematics. "A horse" is not a formula of logic; in maths, it is
neither to be "interpreted" nor to be given a "meaning". If you
want to consider formulas of physics, philosophy or zoology, amongst
others, feel free, but don't blame mathematicians for the result.
To forestall other arguments, note that mathematicians are quite
happy to consider multi-valued or fuzzy logics when appropriate,
but there are conventions about the default mathematical environ.
In that default environ, "not not (x > 2)" is indeed equivalent to
"x > 2" for suitable "x" [such as "x is a real number such that ..."
but not "x is a horse"].

Perhaps worth noting that not giving meanings has its own
advantages. It leads, eg, to duality principles in geometry, and
to rapid progress in new fields where [eg] number-like objects can
be found and number theory therefore applied in unexpected ways.

[...]
Unfortunately, many a mathematician seems to think that absurdity of
an absurdity is a ‘proof’.
Unfortunately, many non-mathematicians don't understand maths.
Fortunately, I bear absolutely no responsibility, AFAIK, for the state
of your mathematical education, or indeed that of other contributors
to this group. But I do my best to help when I can.

[...]
there are apparent assumptions behind yellow's posts which others are
pointing out...and i also don't share...
like...'life will be fair' or 'you can trust government' :-)
It is foolish to expect life to be fair or to trust govts.
However, govts that are seen to be unfair are liable to be punished
at the ballot box. But, as I have said elsewhere, "fair" is another
of those words that is being re-defined. It seems to be "fair" to
tax a small number of people more heavily; yet it is "unfair" to
discriminate against other small groups of people; in both cases
*because* the groups are small. Phooey.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
abelard
2019-11-27 00:38:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
A ‘lie’ is a statement regarded as factually not so in the real world.
Sadly, the word is being abused to mean that, and perhaps the
new [ie, your] meaning will become standard. For me, a "lie" is a
statement that the utterer *believes* *at the time* to be untrue.
you have no useful way of determining whether a person
believes...or does not believe anything they may say
Post by Andy Walker
Whether the statement is in fact true or false is thus irrelevant,
except insofar as there may be evidence that the utterer knew the
truth but told the lie anyway. Thus, the word is being misused when
applied to many of the statements made during the referendum; you
may think that many such statements were unwise, or that perpetrators
really should have known better, or that the lapse of time has shown
them to be false, but that does not make them lies.
Post by abelard
Mathematicians habitually interpret ‘not not a horse’ to mean that
there is a horse: this is an unsafe and potentially ill-defined
practice.
That's because you are misrepresenting mathematicians and
mathematics. "A horse" is not a formula of logic; in maths, it is
neither to be "interpreted" nor to be given a "meaning". If you
want to consider formulas of physics, philosophy or zoology, amongst
others, feel free, but don't blame mathematicians for the result.
To forestall other arguments, note that mathematicians are quite
happy to consider multi-valued or fuzzy logics when appropriate,
but there are conventions about the default mathematical environ.
In that default environ, "not not (x > 2)" is indeed equivalent to
"x > 2" for suitable "x" [such as "x is a real number such that ..."
but not "x is a horse"].
Perhaps worth noting that not giving meanings has its own
advantages. It leads, eg, to duality principles in geometry, and
to rapid progress in new fields where [eg] number-like objects can
be found and number theory therefore applied in unexpected ways.
if it i given no meaning...it has no meaning

a horse is real...even a letter 'x' on a page is real....

i can not be responsible for those that claim that an 'x'
has no meaning...and then expect me not to laugh!
maths means no-thing until it is interpreted in the real world...
even prior to a particular interpretation...the 'x' on the
page still has reality...and can be examined as such
Post by Andy Walker
[...]
Post by abelard
Unfortunately, many a mathematician seems to think that absurdity of
an absurdity is a ‘proof’.
Unfortunately, many non-mathematicians don't understand maths.
Fortunately, I bear absolutely no responsibility, AFAIK, for the state
of your mathematical education, or indeed that of other contributors
to this group. But I do my best to help when I can.
[...]
Post by abelard
there are apparent assumptions behind yellow's posts which others are
pointing out...and i also don't share...
like...'life will be fair' or 'you can trust government' :-)
It is foolish to expect life to be fair or to trust govts.
However, govts that are seen to be unfair are liable to be punished
at the ballot box. But, as I have said elsewhere, "fair" is another
of those words that is being re-defined. It seems to be "fair" to
tax a small number of people more heavily; yet it is "unfair" to
discriminate against other small groups of people; in both cases
*because* the groups are small. Phooey.
--
www.abelard.org
Andy Walker
2019-11-27 12:06:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
A ‘lie’ is a statement regarded as factually not so in the real world.
Sadly, the word is being abused to mean that, and perhaps the
new [ie, your] meaning will become standard. For me, a "lie" is a
statement that the utterer *believes* *at the time* to be untrue.
you have no useful way of determining whether a person
believes...or does not believe anything they may say
But I do. People don't say just one thing in their lives;
they make many statements and perpetrate many actions. In very broad
terms, people who don't lie build up a coherent and consistent set of
statements and actions, often witnessed by other people or documented;
those who do lie build an inconsistent set. You may not be certain
which inconsistencies are lies and which are mere forgetfulness or
mistakes or genuine changes of mind, but you can attach informal
likelihoods to these things; and this is "useful". Lawyers talk
about "beyond reasonable doubt".
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
Mathematicians habitually interpret ‘not not a horse’ to mean that
there is a horse: this is an unsafe and potentially ill-defined
practice.
That's because you are misrepresenting mathematicians and
mathematics. "A horse" is not a formula of logic; in maths, it is
neither to be "interpreted" nor to be given a "meaning". [...]
if it i given no meaning...it has no meaning
"Given no meaning" *within mathematics*. It may [well] have
a meaning in everyday discourse, which may or may not coincide with
the meaning given by zoologists.
Post by abelard
a horse is real...even a letter 'x' on a page is real....
No doubt. But that is not, in itself, a matter for mathematics
or mathematicians. If on the other hand there is [eg] a differential
equation describing how horses grow, *that* is of mathematical interest
and the result of solving that equation may have interesting meaning
to zoologists and others. Where maths can help is if other entities
can be described by the same equation; then we can say "Look, horses
grow like this, and so do starfish and computer memories and the UK's
GDP", which may perhaps be of interest. But the mathematics doesn't
care what horses, starfish, memories and GDPs are -- which is why the
analogies are potentially fruitful.
Post by abelard
i can not be responsible for those that claim that an 'x'
has no meaning...and then expect me not to laugh!
Luckily, no-one [sensible] is claiming that. Context is all.
Post by abelard
maths means no-thing until it is interpreted in the real world...
It means nothing *in the real world* until .... And? It is
still the case that abstraction is a very useful tool. It is one of
the major [early] advances of intelligence to realise that two horses,
two trees, two balls, two glasses-half-full, ... have "twoness" in
common, and that "twoness" is therefore an interesting phenomenon
that can be investigated independently of horses and trees.
Post by abelard
even prior to a particular interpretation...the 'x' on the
page still has reality...and can be examined as such
Fine, but the examination is, IMHO, unlikely to yield anything
of great interest. BICBW.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
abelard
2019-11-27 12:33:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
A ‘lie’ is a statement regarded as factually not so in the real world.
Sadly, the word is being abused to mean that, and perhaps the
new [ie, your] meaning will become standard. For me, a "lie" is a
statement that the utterer *believes* *at the time* to be untrue.
you have no useful way of determining whether a person
believes...or does not believe anything they may say
But I do. People don't say just one thing in their lives;
they make many statements and perpetrate many actions. In very broad
terms, people who don't lie build up a coherent and consistent set of
statements and actions, often witnessed by other people or documented;
those who do lie build an inconsistent set. You may not be certain
which inconsistencies are lies and which are mere forgetfulness or
mistakes or genuine changes of mind, but you can attach informal
likelihoods to these things; and this is "useful". Lawyers talk
about "beyond reasonable doubt".
because they also have nothing better

i hear the likes of agent cob continually telling the world of
their honour...he actually seems to believe it as do millions
of his acolytes...
and then there are the likes of abbot who can't even count...

i will count the spoons

in long and detailed study of humans i know that a person who
has been apparently trustworthy for decades can find reasons
to renege on reciprocity...
and even convince themselves they have legitimate reasons...
and better still, that it is your fault...
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
Mathematicians habitually interpret ‘not not a horse’ to mean that
there is a horse: this is an unsafe and potentially ill-defined
practice.
That's because you are misrepresenting mathematicians and
mathematics. "A horse" is not a formula of logic; in maths, it is
neither to be "interpreted" nor to be given a "meaning". [...]
if it i given no meaning...it has no meaning
"Given no meaning" *within mathematics*. It may [well] have
a meaning in everyday discourse, which may or may not coincide with
the meaning given by zoologists.
the symbols are real however much you may protest their innocence
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
a horse is real...even a letter 'x' on a page is real....
No doubt. But that is not, in itself, a matter for mathematics
or mathematicians. If on the other hand there is [eg] a differential
equation describing how horses grow, *that* is of mathematical interest
and the result of solving that equation may have interesting meaning
to zoologists and others. Where maths can help is if other entities
can be described by the same equation; then we can say "Look, horses
grow like this, and so do starfish and computer memories and the UK's
GDP", which may perhaps be of interest. But the mathematics doesn't
care what horses, starfish, memories and GDPs are -- which is why the
analogies are potentially fruitful.
ah, ''the same'....though of course it never is....it is always
approximately the 'same'
or sufficiently 'the same for the use of humans' in some limited
and approximate context
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
i can not be responsible for those that claim that an 'x'
has no meaning...and then expect me not to laugh!
Luckily, no-one [sensible] is claiming that. Context is all.
Post by abelard
maths means no-thing until it is interpreted in the real world...
It means nothing *in the real world* until .... And? It is
still the case that abstraction is a very useful tool.
as is religion
Post by Andy Walker
It is one of
the major [early] advances of intelligence to realise that two horses,
two trees, two balls, two glasses-half-full, ... have "twoness" in
common, and that "twoness" is therefore an interesting phenomenon
that can be investigated independently of horses and trees.
i'm certain sure that cave man could trade horses easily
enough without perfessors or unis
even chimps have notions of fairness...which must include
judgements of reciprocal values
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
even prior to a particular interpretation...the 'x' on the
page still has reality...and can be examined as such
Fine, but the examination is, IMHO, unlikely to yield anything
of great interest. BICBW.
imv they can be examined with considerable advantage and
even advance
--
www.abelard.org
Farmer Giles
2019-11-27 15:25:23 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
A ‘lie’ is a statement regarded as factually not so in the real world.
Sadly, the word is being abused to mean that, and perhaps the
new [ie, your] meaning will become standard. For me, a "lie" is a
statement that the utterer *believes* *at the time* to be untrue.
you have no useful way of determining whether a person
believes...or does not believe anything they may say
But I do. People don't say just one thing in their lives;
they make many statements and perpetrate many actions. In very broad
terms, people who don't lie build up a coherent and consistent set of
statements and actions, often witnessed by other people or documented;
those who do lie build an inconsistent set. You may not be certain
which inconsistencies are lies and which are mere forgetfulness or
mistakes or genuine changes of mind, but you can attach informal
likelihoods to these things; and this is "useful". Lawyers talk
about "beyond reasonable doubt".
because they also have nothing better
i hear the likes of agent cob continually telling the world of
their honour...he actually seems to believe it as do millions
of his acolytes...
and then there are the likes of abbot who can't even count...
i will count the spoons
in long and detailed study of humans i know that a person who
has been apparently trustworthy for decades can find reasons
to renege on reciprocity...
and even convince themselves they have legitimate reasons...
and better still, that it is your fault...
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
Mathematicians habitually interpret ‘not not a horse’ to mean that
there is a horse: this is an unsafe and potentially ill-defined
practice.
That's because you are misrepresenting mathematicians and
mathematics. "A horse" is not a formula of logic; in maths, it is
neither to be "interpreted" nor to be given a "meaning". [...]
if it i given no meaning...it has no meaning
"Given no meaning" *within mathematics*. It may [well] have
a meaning in everyday discourse, which may or may not coincide with
the meaning given by zoologists.
the symbols are real however much you may protest their innocence
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
a horse is real...even a letter 'x' on a page is real....
No doubt. But that is not, in itself, a matter for mathematics
or mathematicians. If on the other hand there is [eg] a differential
equation describing how horses grow, *that* is of mathematical interest
and the result of solving that equation may have interesting meaning
to zoologists and others. Where maths can help is if other entities
can be described by the same equation; then we can say "Look, horses
grow like this, and so do starfish and computer memories and the UK's
GDP", which may perhaps be of interest. But the mathematics doesn't
care what horses, starfish, memories and GDPs are -- which is why the
analogies are potentially fruitful.
ah, ''the same'....though of course it never is....it is always
approximately the 'same'
or sufficiently 'the same for the use of humans' in some limited
and approximate context
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
i can not be responsible for those that claim that an 'x'
has no meaning...and then expect me not to laugh!
Luckily, no-one [sensible] is claiming that. Context is all.
Post by abelard
maths means no-thing until it is interpreted in the real world...
It means nothing *in the real world* until .... And? It is
still the case that abstraction is a very useful tool.
as is religion
Post by Andy Walker
It is one of
the major [early] advances of intelligence to realise that two horses,
two trees, two balls, two glasses-half-full, ... have "twoness" in
common, and that "twoness" is therefore an interesting phenomenon
that can be investigated independently of horses and trees.
i'm certain sure that cave man could trade horses easily
enough without perfessors or unis
even chimps have notions of fairness...which must include
judgements of reciprocal values
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
even prior to a particular interpretation...the 'x' on the
page still has reality...and can be examined as such
Fine, but the examination is, IMHO, unlikely to yield anything
of great interest. BICBW.
imv they can be examined with considerable advantage and
even advance
The fact that Babbelard clearly thinks that lot of babble is some kind
of intelligent response is proof in itself that he needs help.
Keema's Nan
2019-11-27 16:27:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Farmer Giles
Post by abelard
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
A ‘lie’ is a statement regarded as factually not so in the real
world.
Sadly, the word is being abused to mean that, and perhaps the
new [ie, your] meaning will become standard. For me, a "lie" is a
statement that the utterer *believes* *at the time* to be untrue.
you have no useful way of determining whether a person
believes...or does not believe anything they may say
But I do. People don't say just one thing in their lives;
they make many statements and perpetrate many actions. In very broad
terms, people who don't lie build up a coherent and consistent set of
statements and actions, often witnessed by other people or documented;
those who do lie build an inconsistent set. You may not be certain
which inconsistencies are lies and which are mere forgetfulness or
mistakes or genuine changes of mind, but you can attach informal
likelihoods to these things; and this is "useful". Lawyers talk
about "beyond reasonable doubt".
because they also have nothing better
i hear the likes of agent cob continually telling the world of
their honour...he actually seems to believe it as do millions
of his acolytes...
and then there are the likes of abbot who can't even count...
i will count the spoons
in long and detailed study of humans i know that a person who
has been apparently trustworthy for decades can find reasons
to renege on reciprocity...
and even convince themselves they have legitimate reasons...
and better still, that it is your fault...
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
Mathematicians habitually interpret ‘not not a horse’ to mean that
there is a horse: this is an unsafe and potentially ill-defined
practice.
That's because you are misrepresenting mathematicians and
mathematics. "A horse" is not a formula of logic; in maths, it is
neither to be "interpreted" nor to be given a "meaning". [...]
if it i given no meaning...it has no meaning
"Given no meaning" *within mathematics*. It may [well] have
a meaning in everyday discourse, which may or may not coincide with
the meaning given by zoologists.
the symbols are real however much you may protest their innocence
Post by abelard
a horse is real...even a letter 'x' on a page is real....
No doubt. But that is not, in itself, a matter for mathematics
or mathematicians. If on the other hand there is [eg] a differential
equation describing how horses grow, *that* is of mathematical interest
and the result of solving that equation may have interesting meaning
to zoologists and others. Where maths can help is if other entities
can be described by the same equation; then we can say "Look, horses
grow like this, and so do starfish and computer memories and the UK's
GDP", which may perhaps be of interest. But the mathematics doesn't
care what horses, starfish, memories and GDPs are -- which is why the
analogies are potentially fruitful.
ah, ''the same'....though of course it never is....it is always
approximately the 'same'
or sufficiently 'the same for the use of humans' in some limited
and approximate context
Post by abelard
i can not be responsible for those that claim that an 'x'
has no meaning...and then expect me not to laugh!
Luckily, no-one [sensible] is claiming that. Context is all.
Post by abelard
maths means no-thing until it is interpreted in the real world...
It means nothing *in the real world* until .... And? It is
still the case that abstraction is a very useful tool.
as is religion
It is one of
the major [early] advances of intelligence to realise that two horses,
two trees, two balls, two glasses-half-full, ... have "twoness" in
common, and that "twoness" is therefore an interesting phenomenon
that can be investigated independently of horses and trees.
i'm certain sure that cave man could trade horses easily
enough without perfessors or unis
even chimps have notions of fairness...which must include
judgements of reciprocal values
Post by abelard
even prior to a particular interpretation...the 'x' on the
page still has reality...and can be examined as such
Fine, but the examination is, IMHO, unlikely to yield anything
of great interest. BICBW.
imv they can be examined with considerable advantage and
even advance
The fact that Babbelard clearly thinks that lot of babble is some kind
of intelligent response is proof in itself that he needs help.
Or maybe he just needs to be replaced (again).

This one is not a patch on the original.
Andy Walker
2019-11-27 15:34:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On 27/11/2019 12:33, abelard wrote:
[of horses:]
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
if it i given no meaning...it has no meaning
"Given no meaning" *within mathematics*. It may [well] have
a meaning in everyday discourse, which may or may not coincide with
the meaning given by zoologists.
the symbols are real however much you may protest their innocence
My protest is not about any symbols but about what you seem to
expect mathematics to do with them. The concept "horse" has [AFAIK] no
meaning *within mathematics*, unlike concepts such as "field", "ring",
"complex", "rational", .... If you want to talk about fields, then I
first need to know whether you are talking in relation to farms or to
study or to groups. If you want to talk about horses, then I expect
not to be interested, except perhaps insofar as they are being counted,
or measured, or expected to win races. Horses, per se, are of no
mathematical interest; their speed may be.

[...]
Post by abelard
ah, ''the same'....though of course it never is....it is always
approximately the 'same'
or sufficiently 'the same for the use of humans' in some limited
and approximate context
Or sufficiently the same for all mathematical purposes. That
is the point of the abstraction. [Eg, of "two" from "two horses".]
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
[...] It is
still the case that abstraction is a very useful tool.
as is religion
Some things are more useful than others.

[...]
Post by abelard
i'm certain sure that cave man could trade horses easily
enough without perfessors or unis
even chimps have notions of fairness...which must include
judgements of reciprocal values
Many mammals and birds are capable of counting, and of making
deductions. That doesn't imply that "horse" has mathematical meaning.
Even less that it is a logical formula such that "not not horse" is a
valid mathematical construct.
Post by abelard
Post by Andy Walker
Post by abelard
even prior to a particular interpretation...the 'x' on the
page still has reality...and can be examined as such
Fine, but the examination is, IMHO, unlikely to yield anything
of great interest. BICBW.
imv they can be examined with considerable advantage and
even advance
Then I await your book on the topic. I would even welcome a
complimentary copy. But there are limits to the amount I would be
prepared to pay, even for a copy signed by the author.
--
Andy Walker,
Nottingham.
Yellow
2019-11-25 22:55:35 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:58:24 -0000 (UTC) Incubus <incubus9536612
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Joe
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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.
Surely it's misandry that men are expected to work longer than women.
You are perhaps out of date as men and women are now both entitled to
receive their state pension at the same age.
Post by Incubus
What is misogynistic about women being treated equally?
Absolutely nothing and it will be fantastic when we get there.
Post by Incubus
I thought that's what Feminism was originally about.
Originally?
JNugent
2019-11-26 02:10:21 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
On Mon, 25 Nov 2019 11:58:24 -0000 (UTC) Incubus <incubus9536612
Post by Incubus
Post by Yellow
Post by Joe
On Sun, 24 Nov 2019 16:17:39 -0000
Post by Yellow
Post by abelard
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.
Surely it's misandry that men are expected to work longer than women.
You are perhaps out of date as men and women are now both entitled to
receive their state pension at the same age.
But that is *exactly* what your complaint is about (unless you haven't
explained it clearly).
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
What is misogynistic about women being treated equally?
Absolutely nothing and it will be fantastic when we get there.
In the question of qualifying age for Retirement Pension, women have
"been there" for some time.
Post by Yellow
Post by Incubus
I thought that's what Feminism was originally about.
Originally?
It's just that your complaint seems to be *about* equal treatment.
The Marquis Saint Evremonde
2019-11-26 07:57:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Post by Yellow
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.
Is this also true in all-female households?
--
Evremonde
Yellow
2019-11-27 03:18:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
On Tue, 26 Nov 2019 07:57:45 +0000 The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by The Marquis Saint Evremonde
Post by Yellow
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.
Is this also true in all-female households?
Depends on their age, but in the worst of circumstances, I guess it
could affect them more.
Loading...