Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I'm blaming Starmer for stringing these people along. The Tories were clear that that they were not going to give money to the WASPIs, Labour frequently said they would. It may not have been a manifesto commitment, but many prominent Labour politicians fully supported it. If you were a WASPI woman, who would you vote for? Labour got their votes by deceit.
Do you remember a certain Nick Clegg saying he would not increase tuition fees. He did, and was never forgiven for it. The same fate will befall Starmer on all his broken promises. It is not a question of affording it - as I said before, it is a case that Starmer has not prioritised it above other schemes.
If you're a single pensioner, Pension Credit gives you a minimum of £218 per week. But if you're single person of working age, Universal Credit gives you a minimum of £71 per week if you're under 25 and a minimum of £90 per week if you're over 25. So if your income is high enough that you don't qualify for Pension Credit then you're already getting almost three times more than the poorest working age people.
But somehow we're expected to believe that pensioners not in receipt of Pension Credit- more than 25% of whom are millionaires- are hard done to because they lost winter fuel allowance.
With respect, there's state pensioners and state pensioners.
Someone who has not paid enough National Insurance contributions to receive a full pension gets Pension Credit.
Like many other men, I paid NI from the age of 16 (part-time work only) to 65. Once you have paid 30 years (I think that's the figure) there's no increase in pensions. So c19 years of my NI payments had no benefit to me.
I retired on the old state pension scheme; my pension is actuality slightly less than the current Pension Credit. I do have a railway pension, of course.
The 1974 Equalities Act might have misled men into thinking that they would be treated equally with women as far as pensions go, rather than only in instances where women were disadvantaged vs men. It's not just the pension; from the age of 60 to 65 I paid NI, a woman of the same birth date as me would have ceased paying NI at 60. Both complaints would seem to have the same, and possibly more, grounds for complaint than the WASPI women but generally it's just accepted by men as how the world works.
To be clear I personally did not include the state pension in my retirement calculations during my working life and made sacrifices to ensure that I would have the means to survive without it. The above is intended as a statement of fact and I have no bitterness.
It was a Labour manifesto commitment in 2019. The electorate comprehensively rejected Labour in 2019. They, instead, chose the party that created the situation in the first place.
The "full support" seems to be a few photos in 2019 and a few more photos in summer 2021. That was over three years ago now.
In the meantime, Liz Truss drove the country's economy off of a cliff. Things change in three years, which is why the commitment didn't re-appear in the 2024 manifesto.
If anyone feels "betrayed" its because they weren't paying attention. I guess we already know that the WASPIs weren't paying attention because they didn't notice a law that changed in 1995.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
With respect, there's state pensioners and state pensioners.
Someone who has not paid enough National Insurance contributions to receive a full pension gets Pension Credit.
Like many other men, I paid NI from the age of 16 (part-time work only) to 65. Once you have paid 30 years (I think that's the figure) there's no increase in pensions. So c19 years of my NI payments had no benefit to me.
Pension Credit guarantees a pensioner a minimum income. If their income is less than that minimum income then Pension Credit tops it up, if their income is more than that minimum income then they're not eligible for Pension Credit. The minimum income will depend on someone's situation: pensioners who have disabilities or caring responsibilities (either for a disabled person or a child) may get more. Eligibility for Pension Credit also attracts other benefits, housing benefit and council tax benefit being the main ones.
People who get the full new State Pension are likely to earn too much to get Pension Credit, but not always, particularly if they're disabled.
People who get the old full State Pension may well not earn too much to get Pension Credit. It depends on whether they get the additional state pension, and that will depend on their working record. Women who stayed at home are much less likely to get that additional state pension.
I suppose my point is that a single pensioner with no disabilities or caring responsibilities is guaranteed an income of £218 per week plus housing costs. They'll also get the Winter Fuel Allowance. That same person, but of working age, would only get £91 per week, plus housing costs, but crucially no Winter Fuel Allowance. If they were under 25 they'd be expected to live on £71 per week.
Pensioners, by and large, aren't hard done to at all.
As an aside, that difference between Pension Credit and Universal Credit relates to one particularly nasty little trick the Tories pulled, hidden from view. Previously if one person in a couple was over pension age and the other under pension age then they would get Pension Credit. The Tories changed it so that they only get Universal Credit. A campaign to right that wrong is one I'd fully get behind.
It's best to think of NI as just another income tax anyway. I'm 40 and only need to pay another 10 years NI to get a full pension. The other consequence of increasing the pension age is that, on top of losing three years' pension, I also have to pay NI for those additional three years too, for no benefit to me.
It's best to think of NI as just another income tax anyway. I'm 40 and only need to pay another 10 years NI to get a full pension. The other consequence of increasing the pension age is that, on top of losing three years' pension, I also have to pay NI for those additional three years too, for no benefit to me.
Absolutely; but it's just the odd way that years of NI contribution are used to calculate your pension, but if that doesn't give you a full pension it's topped up to that level anyway by Pension Credit.
And the other tenuous connection with the state pension is that once you receive one you stop paying NI, as if NI is some payment for your pension.
It seems that the advantage to a government is that the employer also pays NI - which many people may have been aware of until recently - whereas income tax is only paid by the employee. Therefore, to abandon NI and include it instead in Income Tax the extra % rate for the employee would have to increase considerably above the present employee NI % rate so as to recover the present employers' contribution as well.
NI could extend to pensioners for fairness (personally, I accept that) but I'm not sure where the 'employers' contribution' would come from.
Winter Fuel Allowance wouldn't even be necessary if we didn't have among the most expensive energy bills in Europe while a number of energy firms reported record profits. Perhaps instead of what Labour have done regarding WFA, they should have said they will scrap it as part of a move to reform energy levies so everyone, including pensioners, have cheaper bills.
It's best to think of NI as just another income tax anyway. I'm 40 and only need to pay another 10 years NI to get a full pension. The other consequence of increasing the pension age is that, on top of losing three years' pension, I also have to pay NI for those additional three years too, for no benefit to me.
If you're 40 and need another 10 years for full pension, presumably you have contributed for around 32 years. I contributed for 42 years and still did not get a full pension - it depends if you contracted out to SERPs or not, I think. (If not, I've been conned )
If you're 40 and need another 10 years for full pension, presumably you have contributed for around 32 years. I contributed for 42 years and still did not get a full pension - it depends if you contracted out to SERPs or not, I think. (If not, I've been conned )
Can we just put this in context. Truss wanted to reenergise the economy and wanted to lessen the tax demand on the economy. Her ideas were right, the execution was appalling. She should have spoken to the City and businesses, got their support and feedback etc before launching it. Reeves has been criticised for delaying her Budget too long; Truss had her Budget too soon.
She was scuppered by the Bank of England's actions over Liability-Driven Investments. These had been developed to offset the untraditionally low interest rates and their effect on pension investments. The BofE did not brief Truss nor the City on the ticking time-bomb that could explode once interest rates on gilts moved out of their expected range - in truth, they probably did not know what would happen. Truss's mini-budget sent gilt prices out of this expected range, and the rest is history. https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money...and-markets-decided-mini-Budget-disaster.html
In truth, if Truss had not unsettled the markets, the ticking timebomb would have continued ticking for the next unsuspecting Chancellor.
If you are of pensionable age you are entitled to be not working. Pensioners, especially your nominal millionaires, will generally have worked hard through their lives to get to the financial position that they are in, often giving the younger generations now a better standard of living through their young lives that they would have had.
Comparing their current financial position with those only starting out in life is ridiculous - if they work hard too (both educationally and in employment) they will have every chance of being in a similar position when they become pensioners.
Can we just put this in context. Truss wanted to reenergise the economy and wanted to lessen the tax demand on the economy. Her ideas were right, the execution was appalling.
She should have spoken to the City and businesses, got their support and feedback etc before launching it. Reeves has been criticised for delaying her Budget too long; Truss had her Budget too soon.
It"s not what I said. Truss was not blameless, but it was certainly not all her fault. Some responsibity must lie with the BofE for not identifying the Liability Driven Investments issue, and advising her of such.
Think you are forgetting about those of us who endured the 1970s, we had mass unemployment, rampant inflation, three day week with the power going off. Getting bailed out by the IMF. Need I say anymore.
It"s not what I said. Truss was not blameless, but it was certainly not all her fault. Some responsibity must lie with the BofE for not identifying the Liability Driven Investments issue, and advising her of such.
Maybe if she'd consulted the OBR the issue might have been flagged up in time to do something about it.
As it was, she was borrowing to fund tax cuts for the rich. Not even something that would benefit the less wealthy, who would be much more likely to spend it and create some growth. All on top of the 5% or so hit to the size of the economy from Brexit.
And remind me who it was that said you can't buck the market.
Think you are forgetting about those of us who endured the 1970s, we had mass unemployment, rampant inflation, three day week with the power going off. Getting bailed out by the IMF. Need I say anymore.
Were the 70s really that bad? I honestly don't know. I was alive (as a child) for some of it but too young to understand anything. It sounds considerably better than the 2020s, on a number of levels.
Certainly a lot of people born from the mid-40s to the mid-60s often get nostalgic about it, so it can't have been that bad.
Were the 70s really that bad? I honestly don't know. I was alive (as a child) for some of it but it sounds considerably better than the 2020s, on a number of levels.
Certainly a lot of people born from the 40s to the mid-60s often get nostalgic about it, so it can't have been that bad. And the weather wasn't the only reason June 1975 was better than June 2016 <g,d &r>
I think it depends how you define good/bad. They were very different from now and it’s subjective to say if they were better or not. On one level yes much better (we had Deltics) and on others worse.
Were the 70s really that bad? I honestly don't know. I was alive (as a child) for some of it but too young to understand anything. It sounds considerably better than the 2020s, on a number of levels.
Certainly a lot of people born from the mid-40s to the mid-60s often get nostalgic about it, so it can't have been that bad.
It depends what you are looking at. Musically it was the start of the punk and new romantics, and I probably prefer that era than the current crop of songs. We had no Internet, Google, mobile phones - we had to use books and encyclopaedias to look things up, we did not get spammed, trolled or bullied on line. Economically, we had strikes, power cuts, a bail-out from the IMF. Cars rusted as soon as they left the showroom, and broke down a bit further down the road, belching out dirty exhaust. Socially, we are probably better off now - the 70s were only about 30 years after the War, and there were still areas waiting to be redeveloped and national debts to pay off.
Were the 70s really that bad? I honestly don't know. I was alive (as a child) for some of it but too young to understand anything. It sounds considerably better than the 2020s, on a number of levels.
Certainly a lot of people born from the mid-40s to the mid-60s often get nostalgic about it, so it can't have been that bad.
The seventies were not that bad. Whilst there was rampant inflation those of with upon representation got inflation linked pay rises on a monthly basis,
And the inflation effectively reduced our mortgage payments which remained constat whilst wages increased.
You are assuming that a pensioner remaining in their family home both retired early and now enjoy a lavish lifestyle. Perhaps such people, if they even exist, should be forced to move to a one bedroom flat, by increasing the Council Tax on 'rich' pensioner-occupied homes, or cutting their pension? I'll let my 94 year old Mum know.
Liz Truss drove the country's economy off of a cliff. Things change in three years, which is why the commitment didn't re-appear in the 2024 manifesto.
How does the state subsidise an early retirement? There’s no state pension until the age of eligibility.
If you get a private pension before you get a state pension, it’s fully taxable above the personal allowance so you become a nett contributor to the state in retirement, not ‘subsidised’.
Once someone gets their state pension, that too is fully taxable. Anyone with a private pension approaching £50k will be paying more in tax than they receive in state pension, so still a nett contributor.
Oh - And for many who had ‘contracted out’ pensions in the past, they take a smaller state pension and their private pension tops it up.
You are assuming that a pensioner remaining in their family home both retired early and now enjoy a lavish lifestyle. Perhaps such people, if they even exist, should be forced to move to a one bedroom flat, by increasing the Council Tax on 'rich' pensioner-occupied homes, or cutting their pension? I'll let my 94 year old Mum know.
I expect those pensioners did not have a lavish lifestyle when they were saving up for their house, and during the period they were paying the mortgage off, at probably much higher interest rates than now. Some of the young, who will likely have had a more comfortable childhood than their parents, want the house and the lavish lifestyle now, and with a better 'work/life balance' (i.e. not work so much!) than their parents and certainly their grandparents. Envious, greedy eyes look at the current pensioners and try to work out how they can snaffle the money for their jam now. If the young plan their life, work smart and hard, they can have the same or better lifestyles in the future (depending on how this defined, of course)
My mother, age 92, would be happy to move from the 3 bed house to a one bed flat, but not to be ripped off by uncontrolled service and or leasehold charges, or have unpleasant neighbours, or be far away from her friends, and with an expectation that the one bed flat would be at a considerable discount to the price of her house. None of which conditions can generally be found at the moment.
Ah, the old "money is being siphoned off to Africa and Asia" argument, as if the biggest problem with the finances of Western countries is that their money is being diverted to the second and third world, while the rich executives and institutional shareholders that really play the biggest part in siphoning off cash from the general public get off scot free. Such memes are only of utility to the rich and powerful, as they will benefit from the public's anger being diverted elsewhere.
Anti-foreign-aid arguments are in the same kind of category of anti-immigration arguments or, indeed, anti-unemployed or anti-minority arguments. Stir up public anger towards the relatively weak to direct it away from the strong.
I expect those pensioners did not have a lavish lifestyle when they were saving up for their house, and during the period they were paying the mortgage off, at probably much higher interest rates than now. Some of the young, who will likely have had a more comfortable childhood than their parents, want the house and the lavish lifestyle now, and with a better 'work/life balance' (i.e. not work so much!) than their parents and certainly their grandparents. Envious, greedy eyes look at the current pensioners and try to work out how they can snaffle the money for their jam now
It does seem to me that, while the circumstances of individuals differ, the Baby Boomer generation, on average, had it better than either the generations before or the generations after, I do have to say. They didn't have to live through war like their elders did, but they were also fortunate enough to be able to take advantage of low house prices in the 80s and 90s and paid off their mortgages relatively early. I consider myself quite fortunate within my peer group, but even I had to wait until I was almost 40 to buy a flat - partly because of the high prices that have typified the 21st century, partly because of the amount of money required for a deposit. And I'll still be paying it off into the second half of my 60s.
And then due to demographics we will not have such a fortunate climate when we get to retirement age, as there will be less money to go round for an increased number of pensioners.
I'm Gen X but I suspect it'll be even more difficult for the millennials.
I don't think the middle or young generations are being "envious and greedy". We just want some more understanding that our retirement might be more austere than the preceding generation.
If the young plan their life, work smart and hard, they can have the same or better lifestyles in the future (depending on how this defined, of course)
I think this is baseless. It's not true that anyone can be assured of a bright future just because they work hard. That sort of argument, I thought, had been disproved 40 or more years ago. Plenty of hard-working people were thrown on the scrapheap during Thatcher's time, and again during the Cameron and Osborne years.
We are aware of an issue with emails from the Forum to Microsoft-based email accounts (hotmail/outlook/live.com email addresses). This is being looked into currently, thanks for your patience meanwhile.
)
