Election 2019 - Week 3

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

They've had over 20 years notice of the equalization. How much more of a lead in period do they want? With the scrapping of retirement at 60/65, they have extra years to earn money for whatever they class as "responsible financial plans".

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.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

So under the 1995 Pensions Act a timetable was drawn up to equalise the age at which men and women could draw their state pension.

Under the 2011 Pensions Act the new qualifying age of 65 for women was bought forward to 2018 - affecting millions of women.

By two whole years.


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

[Carth]

'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?

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

By two whole years.

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

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.

[nomadking]

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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.

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

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

The state pension age was already set to be 65.

But not 66 as you concede.

All that was changed was the changeover to 66/67 was brought forward a bit.

Thousands of pounds.

If you wouldn't qualify for benefits at 65, you now have those extra couple of years to fill in any NI gaps.

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.

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.

“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.

Originally Posted by Carth

'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?

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.

Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) is paid for up to 39 weeks. You get:

90% of your average weekly earnings (before tax) for the first 6 weeks
£148.68 or 90% of your average weekly earnings (whichever is lower) for the next 33 weeks

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by jfman

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.

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


Define "proper plans".

[jfman]

Originally Posted by nomadking

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

Define "proper plans".

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.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

ooooh sexist remark


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

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

Statutory Adoption Leave is 52 weeks. It’s made up of:

26 weeks of Ordinary Adoption Leave
26 weeks of Additional Adoption Leave
Only 1 person in a couple can take adoption leave. The other partner could get paternity leave instead.

If you get adoption leave, you can also get paid time off work to attend 5 adoption appointments after you’ve been matched with a child.

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

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

All bases covered then, thanks Hugh

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

“My job is to protect you or your parents or grandparents from the fear of having to sell your home to pay for the costs of care.

“And so I am announcing now on the steps of Downing Street that we will fix the crisis in social care once and for all with a clear plan we have prepared. To give every older person the dignity and security they deserve.

“That is the work that begins immediately behind that black door.

Today

So we will build a cross-party consensus to bring forward an answer that solves the problem, commands the widest possible support, and stands the test of time. That consensus will consider a range of options but one condition we do make is that nobody needing care should be forced to sell their home to pay for it.
As a first step, and to stabilise the system, we announced in the autumn additional funding of £1 billion for the year beginning in April 2020. We are now confirming this additional funding in every year of the new Parliament.

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