Today In Parliament: I'm sure they mentioned WASPI but.....

Pregnancy and childbirth has nothing to do with retirement age. Just a ridiculous point whoever made it.

Maybe explain why the sex that has the longer life expectancy should be able to retire earlier? That's hard to justify isn't it.

The thing is women do want it both ways, pensions aren't the only thing. Have a look at advice to young women with high paying jobs, they are regularly told on forums not to marry as their assets are at risk. Lower paid women are told to marry their high paid partner so they get half his assets if they split up. It is pure hypocrisy.

theworriedwell

Pregnancy and childbirth has nothing to do with retirement age. Just a ridiculous point whoever made it.

Maybe explain why the sex that has the longer life expectancy should be able to retire earlier? That's hard to justify isn't it.

The thing is women do want it both ways, pensions aren't the only thing. Have a look at advice to young women with high paying jobs, they are regularly told on forums not to marry as their assets are at risk. Lower paid women are told to marry their high paid partner so they get half his assets if they split up. It is pure hypocrisy.

You forgot a point. That being that women are less able than equivalent men to do equity release on our houses.

Years back I wondered whether I might think of doing equity release on my house when I got to that agegroup. I was astonished to find that I'd be given noticeably less than an absolutely equivalent man (same house, same age, etc as me) and thought "But what about the Sex Discrimination Act? Surely that can't be legal to do that to women!".

Somehow these firms can get away with doing that - and they're still doing it to this day......

Hence I long ago made my decision never to even investigate equity release unless/until that is put right and both sexes are treated equally. So there are going to be women who've got such low income they've been forced to get some more by doing equity release - but they will be being underpaid - just because their bodies are women/rather than men.

There's another scheme out there now - don't know the name of it - and it's one where the sale price of some houses is quoted at two prices. The first price is one noticeably lower than the house is worth and the second price is the normal price/as expected. I strongly suspect sex discrimination is applying to that scheme as well and that men get a better deal than women on it if they buy it under the scheme, rather than the normal way. When I tried sending a query to one of these schemes about a house being sold that way and without quoting what sex my body is - they basically refused to answer (which I take as meaning = "We know you're trying to set us up to expose us on this - yep...we do do that...but you aren't going to get any evidence from us for a newspaper article").

Doodledog

theworriedwell

You brought child bearing into it not me. Why should women who have had no children get to retire early because women who had multiple pregnancies might have damaged their health.

The reality is for men and women if they are too ill to work and they aren't at retirement age there are illhealth benefits. My husband retired in his 40s, he had no choice due to disability

The reason I have always heard for the age difference was that when they set the state retirement age wives on average were five years younger than their husbands so it meant they could both retire at the same time. No idea if it is true.

The reality was that women on average got a far longer retirement than men due to retiring earlier and living longer. I can't see how that can be claimed to be fair. I was affected by the change, well both of them but I think equalising the ages was fair.

I didn't say that women should be treated differently if they had children - simply that at the time when women retired earlier than men the norm was to have multiple pregnancies and associated gynaecological issues, which meant that heavy work could be difficult for them in older age. I also said that this was just one of many reasons why women used to retire earlier than men, and that women are typically younger than their husbands, and who would look after the men if the women retired at the same time? but you seem determined to argue with anything I say, whether you agree with it or not .

It wasn't ever the reason why women retired at a younger age, although it might have been true. I once looked up the parliamentary discussions about pension ages when they were set during the beginning of the last century. theworriedwell is correct. The main reason given for women's earlier retirement age was that they were usually younger than their husbands and both could then retire at about the same age.

growstuff

Doodledog

theworriedwell

You brought child bearing into it not me. Why should women who have had no children get to retire early because women who had multiple pregnancies might have damaged their health.

The reality is for men and women if they are too ill to work and they aren't at retirement age there are illhealth benefits. My husband retired in his 40s, he had no choice due to disability

The reason I have always heard for the age difference was that when they set the state retirement age wives on average were five years younger than their husbands so it meant they could both retire at the same time. No idea if it is true.

The reality was that women on average got a far longer retirement than men due to retiring earlier and living longer. I can't see how that can be claimed to be fair. I was affected by the change, well both of them but I think equalising the ages was fair.

I didn't say that women should be treated differently if they had children - simply that at the time when women retired earlier than men the norm was to have multiple pregnancies and associated gynaecological issues, which meant that heavy work could be difficult for them in older age. I also said that this was just one of many reasons why women used to retire earlier than men, and that women are typically younger than their husbands, and who would look after the men if the women retired at the same time? but you seem determined to argue with anything I say, whether you agree with it or not .

It wasn't ever the reason why women retired at a younger age, although it might have been true. I once looked up the parliamentary discussions about pension ages when they were set during the beginning of the last century. theworriedwell is correct. The main reason given for women's earlier retirement age was that they were usually younger than their husbands and both could then retire at about the same age.

Thank you for that, I now feel ashamed I didn't google it myself.

I Googled it years ago because I was puzzled about women's earlier retirement age. The idea was that men wouldn't be able to look after themselves, so they'd need a woman to look after the house and it wouldn't be right for a woman to have a job outside the home and look after her husband and home. ( I had the impression the policymakers at the time didn't care much about women being burnt out, but did care that there might not be a little woman at home to run after her retired husband.)

growstuff

I Googled it years ago because I was puzzled about women's earlier retirement age. The idea was that men wouldn't be able to look after themselves, so they'd need a woman to look after the house and it wouldn't be right for a woman to have a job outside the home and look after her husband and home. ( I had the impression the policymakers at the time didn't care much about women being burnt out, but did care that there might not be a little woman at home to run after her retired husband.)

Which is what I'd already said, but theworriedwell chose to ignore .

It doesn't matter really - the financial differentials between men and women meant that even with five years extra pension (often at a much lower rate than a man's pension) wouldn't come close to making up the difference.

Doodledog

growstuff

I Googled it years ago because I was puzzled about women's earlier retirement age. The idea was that men wouldn't be able to look after themselves, so they'd need a woman to look after the house and it wouldn't be right for a woman to have a job outside the home and look after her husband and home. ( I had the impression the policymakers at the time didn't care much about women being burnt out, but did care that there might not be a little woman at home to run after her retired husband.)

Which is what I'd already said, but theworriedwell chose to ignore .

It doesn't matter really - the financial differentials between men and women meant that even with five years extra pension (often at a much lower rate than a man's pension) wouldn't come close to making up the difference.

It certainly doesn't matter with the current case. The only compensation anybody is ever likely to receive is for maladministration, not whether the system was/is unfair or because women are discriminated against. If you read what the ombudsman said, the compensation is because the DWP didn't take prompt action when it was discovered that a minority of women weren't aware of the changes.

I know. I have read it.

My recent posts were responding to the suggestion that women want equality on our own terms, and only when it suits us.

Doodledog

growstuff

I Googled it years ago because I was puzzled about women's earlier retirement age. The idea was that men wouldn't be able to look after themselves, so they'd need a woman to look after the house and it wouldn't be right for a woman to have a job outside the home and look after her husband and home. ( I had the impression the policymakers at the time didn't care much about women being burnt out, but did care that there might not be a little woman at home to run after her retired husband.)

Which is what I'd already said, but theworriedwell chose to ignore .

It doesn't matter really - the financial differentials between men and women meant that even with five years extra pension (often at a much lower rate than a man's pension) wouldn't come close to making up the difference.

You were offering other ideas why it happened like childbirth or women earning less than men. You were wrong, it has been checked and it was due to age difference between husbands and wives so made up ideas to justify it were not relevant.

Mamardoit

Yes those that missed out on six years pension should really get more. I'm one of those and so is my sister but we both know it is very unlikely. I will be fine but she is single and in a rental property. There is a real chance her rent could rise to a level she can't afford. Not a nice thought that an older woman who has worked since she was 16 could end up on the street. Lots like her have very small private pensions.

She won't of course because family will make sure that doesn't happen.

It’s not just the missed pension, but 6 more years of NI paid.

I was born in 1958 and I calculated that if you add in “overpaid” NI (if one carried on working after 60, having reached the old pension age, no further NI would be paid), I missed out on approx £50,000

Doodledog

I know. I have read it.

My recent posts were responding to the suggestion that women want equality on our own terms, and only when it suits us.

I do agree that if we, women, desire complete equality then men and women pension age should be the same. As should pay and promotional opportunities.

What I objected to was the enormous 6 year leap in one go without enough notice, or in some cases no official notification.

sassenach512

Is that really how some people are viewing blood donations from vaccinated people cariad? they think it's 'dirty' blood and would prefer not to be given it? I find that insulting and outrageous

Not to mention completely ridiculous!