WASPI women can do one.

Transitarmy said:
It's not a benefit and it's not a given right either
Click to expand...
Of course it’s a benefit, albeit a contribution based non-means tested one. A bit like Statutory Sick Pay or contribution-based Employment and Support Allowance. I’m pretty sure you’d class those as benefits.

The State Pension is a welfare benefit, paid to those above the qualifying age who have paid or been credited sufficient National Insurance contributions. In fact, not only is it a benefit, it is by far the largest and most expensive welfare benefit payment that the Government makes.

And before anyone comes back with “but they’ve paid for it”, firstly the NI contributions paid by the current pensioner generation went to pay for the welfare state (pensions, sick pay, maternity pay, unemployment benefit, etc.) at the time they paid them, not into any form of personal pension pot for the future.

And secondly, the total amount of NI contributions paid by any current pensioner in the whole of their working life is completely dwarfed by the amount that, on average, they will receive in state pension payments during their retirement. Those state pension payments are currently being funded by today’s working age population, the youngest of whom probably have very little prospect of ever receiving any state pension themselves in return.
 
Communications have sbeen shocking but women do live longer than men on average and there is no reason why they shouldn’t have equal pension qualification ages.
 
For me the issue isn't so much about communication or notice period, it's about the principle of a state pension. Basically the government and its citizens had a contract/agreement at what date they would receive their pension for the contributions they have made and one of the parties unilaterally changed that contract and some women in particular have lost up to 8 years of pension payments, that is not right.

If the government wanted to make a change it should have been all people who start work after x date and x date, will receive their pension aged .... and be very clear with people that this may change again in the future and any changes you will be notified about.

No one who started contributing on one basis and understanding should have been affected.
 
Last edited:
Norman_Conquest said:
Have a watch of the link in @sherlock post and it explains why it is an own goal and how it gives the opposition a stick to beat them with.
Click to expand...
I have said its a comms **** up and they dont come out smelling here but the current UK Government seem to be being blamed by some for the policy when of course the opposition brought this in some years ago and was a key cost saving policy not withstanding the massive black hole you find yourselves in. I have no doubt the "own goal" looks terrible given what was said but I actually agree with the policy not the way they have gone about handling it.

UK at the moment is in the . "Blame the current Government for all that is wrong now" phase - good job the opposition are really shyte.
 
Corco65 said:
For me the issue isn't so much about communication or notice period, it's about the principle of a stste pension. Basically the government and its citizens had a contract/agreement at what date they would receive thier pension and one of the parties unilaterally changed that contract and some women in particular have lost up.to 8 years of pension payments, that is not right.

If the government wanted to make a change it should have been all people who start work after x date and x date, will receive their pension aged .... and be very clear with people that this may change again in the future and any changes you will be notified about.

No one who had started contributing on one basis and understanding of the agreement should have been affected.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I can't agree with that theory - it isn't a"State" pension ( a misnomer) it is paid for out of our taxes. That is very important because no tax payer should be burdened with something that can't be changed. There is no "contract"whatsoever.
 
Zoophonic said:
Sorry but I can't agree with that theory - it isn't a"State" pension ( a misnomer) it is paid for out of our taxes. That is very important because no tax payer should be burdened with something that can't be changed. There is no "contract"whatsoever.
Click to expand...
I disagree, Z, the social security system I was part of through my tax and NI payments when I started working was based on a pension when I was 65, that was an implied contract between me and the state for paying my tax and N.I at the time. I couldn't change it and say to the government I demand mine at 63. Any change, should not have been universally imposed in my opinion.
 
asredastheycome said:
Really pee'd of by the Labour Party over this. I remember John McDonald saying before the 2019 election that it would be repayed. Corbyn is on Newsnight tonight say the government is wrong.

Corbyn speaking really sensibly on a number of subjects.
Click to expand...
It was an unfunded £58bn afterthought. Let's not dress it up as party policy at the time. It wasn't even in the 2019 manifesto.
 
TheLodger said:
I have every sympathy for the WASPI women, but I do wonder if every tax payer in the country- including the ones complaining on here, would be prepared to pay 2p in the £ tax increase that would be needed to pay for the £10b compensation?
Click to expand...
That’s not how finances in government work, you don’t have to tax more every time a new expenditures comes. They could borrow it for example as we did for Covid. The could look for savings elsewhere

The tone seems to have changed substantially now Labour are denying the payments
 
ForssAwakens said:
That’s not how finances in government work, you don’t have to tax more every time a new expenditures comes. They could borrow it for example as we did for Covid. The could look for savings elsewhere

The tone seems to have changed substantially now Labour are denying the payments
Click to expand...
If we're going to borrow another 10bn (minimum) is giving it to people who couldn't be bothered to check their benefit entitlements the best use of it?

Also, would lenders be happy to stump up for this since there is no return on this investment?
 
Whether you agree with whether the women should get it or not, I don’t think they should, but the optics from a Labour point of view don’t look great.

And if you voted for Labour as a waspi person you have the right to feel pretty used, and you’ve lost a bunch of voters

10bn could be a small price to pay to ensure that you have a 2nd term to continue improving things for the country
 
ForssAwakens said:
That’s not how finances in government work, you don’t have to tax more every time a new expenditures comes. They could borrow it for example as we did for Covid. The could look for savings elsewhere

The tone seems to have changed substantially now Labour are denying the payments
Click to expand...
it could be financed over years labour leadership are being duplictious
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top