Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

The change to 66 in this decade was not notified in the 1990s so please don’t lie to the forum. That was the Pensions Act 2011.

I don’t think anyone in work would consider the having to delay their retirement plans and work longer to afford retirement as a good opportunity. Indeed, they always had that option, even when claiming the state pension.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

By two whole years.


What plans did they have, and how does it have anything to do with possibly having looked after kids?

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

'Equality for Women' is being thrown about all over the place, they want this, that, and the other so they're equal with their male colleagues . .

well tough, now you've got it so shut up and keep on working like your equal men do :p




oh, and while I'm at it, where's the male 12 months maternity leave with pay?

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

I never brought kids into it. I’m not a WASPI woman, so I’m not going to speak on the financial planning they had or with their partners. However if I’d worked for 40 years and made plans to retire in my late 50s or early 60s I’d be more than slightly miffed if the Government at two or three years notice I wasn’t going to get a five figure sum I’d factored into my calculations.

At that point, having made adequate plans, I’d not qualify for any benefits. While those who don’t work continue to have their lifestyles bankrolled by the state up to the new retirement age. A figure that’s an entirely notional point for them in any case.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Perhaps the football players in the National League would like pay parity with Premiership? After all they do the same job. Then and only then, could women players seek pay parity with the men.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Entirely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. As always you deploy a distraction when your points begin floundering.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

The state pension age was already set to be 65. All that was changed was the changeover to 66/67 was brought forward a bit. If you wouldn't qualify for benefits at 65, you now have those extra couple of years to fill in any NI gaps.


I don't quite see how the cost of this sexist freebie costs almost twice as much as if the changes had never been made, £58bn vs £30bn.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

But not 66 as you concede.

Thousands of pounds.

People who make proper financial plans for their retirement generally don’t run around in the final year or two plugging gaps. An irrelevance too it really.

“A sexist freebie” ha ha ha. I’m sure the households who would benefit to the tune of thousands won’t care for the distinction. The Government pulled the rug from under them at short notice.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

Whan you produce a baby from your body, I’m sure you’ll get that... ;)

btw, Statutory Maternity Pay is for (up to) 39 weeks.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

I didn't specify 66, for a reason. I said "equalisation", which is correct.


Define "proper plans".

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

And equalisation was 65 by April 2020 in the 1995-2011 period.

If you need me to the various mechanisms that households can use to budget for retirement (savings, ISAs, private pensions, etc) or how the Government legislating to remove tens of thousands from your projected income changes those then the discussion is obviously beyond you.

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

ooooh sexist remark :D


edit: apologies for being 'slightly' off topic - equality etc

actually that got me thinking, if two (gay, homosexual, whatever) married men adopt a baby . . which one (if either) are eligible for the maternity leave?

curious yet can't be bothered to go digging ;)

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

There is adoption leave, for all couples (and any single people who adopt).

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

All bases covered then, thanks Hugh :)

Re: Election 2019 - Week 3
 

BJ July 24th - https://www.homecare.co.uk/news/arti...ce-and-for-all

Today I thought he had a "clear plan which he had prepared"?