Well here I am back from my holidays in the Dominican Republic and plunged from 30 degrees into the ice and snow of the English winter. Oh well never mind, maybe next time I take a winter break it will be in the Alps.
So what's got me going now you might ask. I've just been listening to Analysis about power, and how the balance has shifted from the unions since the late 70's.
This got me thinking about the way that there doesn't seem to be a big outcry about the way the government has messed about with womens pensions. This is particularly relevant to my wife, but also it seems to 500,000 other women,
This is how it seems to have gone, the details are all a bit hazy but the drift of this is that womens' pension age is being brought into line with mens pensions so that all workers will retire at the same age, Nothing wrong with that, it should be so, but how the government have gone about it should have caused a huge backlash, as it is we hear very little.
The pension age for men and women will be raised to 66 or 67 depending on when you were born.
If you were a woman and born in January of 1954 you would get you state pension in 2017, but if like Jackie you were born in September of 1954 you won't receive your pension until 2019. This means a delay of almost 2 years at a cost to her of almost 15,000 pounds.
http://www.mycompanypension.co.uk/Table-of-female-State-Pension-Age-Factsheets
Now from what I read there are as many as 33,000 women who find themselves in this situation. Another 500,000 are going to be penalised to the tune of about 10,000 pounds and an extra year of working, With Jackie it is going to be an extra two years.
I don't have any idea how you work this one out as a government, but I would have thought that this should have been phased in over a much longer period.
Before the Spending Review, State Pension Age was proposed to increase for men and women to age 66 from 2024, 67 by 2034 and 68 from 2044. Each rise would have been phased in over two years.
This would seem to be a more sensible way to bring these changes in, not in the sledge hammer way that they are proposing now.
But is there a big outcry? looking on the e-petions web site there are fewer than 100 signatures.
Why are not all women going on strike to support their fellow workers? Where are the unions? Where is the power of the people to fight this injustice, I see very little surfing the web for answers to this.
Maggie did a good job of ridding the people of their power and now stuff like this just cruises through the commons and the Lords and we don't seem to even raise a whisper
So Jackie and 33,000 other women, who have perhaps made plans for their retirement will have to wait another seven years until they are eligible for a pension.
This is just so wrong, we should make a big noise, we should be on the streets, but I suppose the fact that a load of soon to be pensioners are being denied their rights won't cut too much mustered with the young and will mean that this injustice will go un-noticed and a great wrong will be done to a lot of people.
So what's got me going now you might ask. I've just been listening to Analysis about power, and how the balance has shifted from the unions since the late 70's.
This got me thinking about the way that there doesn't seem to be a big outcry about the way the government has messed about with womens pensions. This is particularly relevant to my wife, but also it seems to 500,000 other women,
This is how it seems to have gone, the details are all a bit hazy but the drift of this is that womens' pension age is being brought into line with mens pensions so that all workers will retire at the same age, Nothing wrong with that, it should be so, but how the government have gone about it should have caused a huge backlash, as it is we hear very little.
The pension age for men and women will be raised to 66 or 67 depending on when you were born.
If you were a woman and born in January of 1954 you would get you state pension in 2017, but if like Jackie you were born in September of 1954 you won't receive your pension until 2019. This means a delay of almost 2 years at a cost to her of almost 15,000 pounds.
http://www.mycompanypension.co.uk/Table-of-female-State-Pension-Age-Factsheets
Now from what I read there are as many as 33,000 women who find themselves in this situation. Another 500,000 are going to be penalised to the tune of about 10,000 pounds and an extra year of working, With Jackie it is going to be an extra two years.
I don't have any idea how you work this one out as a government, but I would have thought that this should have been phased in over a much longer period.
Before the Spending Review, State Pension Age was proposed to increase for men and women to age 66 from 2024, 67 by 2034 and 68 from 2044. Each rise would have been phased in over two years.
This would seem to be a more sensible way to bring these changes in, not in the sledge hammer way that they are proposing now.
But is there a big outcry? looking on the e-petions web site there are fewer than 100 signatures.
Why are not all women going on strike to support their fellow workers? Where are the unions? Where is the power of the people to fight this injustice, I see very little surfing the web for answers to this.
Maggie did a good job of ridding the people of their power and now stuff like this just cruises through the commons and the Lords and we don't seem to even raise a whisper
So Jackie and 33,000 other women, who have perhaps made plans for their retirement will have to wait another seven years until they are eligible for a pension.
This is just so wrong, we should make a big noise, we should be on the streets, but I suppose the fact that a load of soon to be pensioners are being denied their rights won't cut too much mustered with the young and will mean that this injustice will go un-noticed and a great wrong will be done to a lot of people.
No comments:
Post a Comment