23/02/2020
This post says it all. From Julie Gardiner
I just wanted to summarise the fundamental issues I personally find so totally unfair, immoral, and questionably un-lawful about the situation we find ourselves in. There WILL be others, so feel free to add to it! There WILL also be some aspects I considered issues which YOU might not agree with - just remember, we're all entitled to our thoughts and beliefs! :) Sorry it's a bit long …...
1. Some 50’s born women who might have in excess of 50 years NI contributions aren’t qualifying for the new State Pension, despite the fact that someone born later only needs 35 full years of contribution. I appreciate that she was only contributing to a reduced pension, but even so, how can this possibly be construed as fair?
2. Prior to the implementation of the SPA, individuals on JSA over a certain age, were – I believe – entitled to pension credit as an alternative. To remove this at the same time as implementing the SPA increases is simply unfair.
3. Evidence is showing that people are unable to determine their pension entitlement without recourse to contacting the DWP. Surely, this should be sufficiently simple for the general population to know and understand. Making it so complex is simply unfair on all of those to whom this applies.
4. As a 50’s born woman, I calculated that I was losing in excess of £50k due to the fact that my own SPA age was deferred from age 60 to age 66. That is a staggering 6 years, 10% of my life! To think that I only actually had 6 years notice that this was going to happen is unbelievable. To then compute that actually, if I were to work that additional 6 years, I would be additionally contributing a further appr £50k into the government coffers in terms of tax and NI, making the government better off financially by in excess of £100k from just one private individual just defies belief. That £100k along, properly invested, would have supplied a half-realistic pension for the remainder of my life – not counting the contributions made during the bulk of my working life. How can that possibly be reasonable?
5. For the sixth richest nation to pay it’s pensioners such a low proportion of average income is abysmal. Surely the welfare of it’s citizens should be considered of greater importance than it clearly is. How fair is it that the sixth richest nation should have the sixth poorest pensioners.
6. How is it right that pensioners living overseas should have their pensions frozen? They paid into the system, it has been established that they were entitled to receive their pension. How on earth can it be determined that they then don’t qualify for annual increases? Where is the logic? Where is the fairness?
7. With a Minimum wage of £8.21, and a Living Wage of £9.30, why is it that pensioners are only paid the equivalent of £4 - £5.00 and expected to ‘live’ on that? How can that be fair? Or reasonable? Or ethical?
8. Why is it that the phrases ‘equality’ and ‘equal opportunity’ are used to mean the same thing? Women never fought for ‘equality’ – we know it can never exist! We fought for ‘equal rights’ – something which in reality means something completely different! You can never ‘equalise’ on the fundamental differences between the sexes! There are scientifically proven differences between the sexes, both mentally and physically. Until they can be eliminated, there can never be true equality. So how fair is it to impose that equality? How can a male ever understand what it is to menstruate monthly, to carry a child for 9 months, to nurture a new born baby? So just how fair is it? The vast majority of civilised nations recognise that difference with an SPA differential. I can understand the desire to equalise that, but not that it should necessarily be done!
9. On the subject of sexual differences, I have NEVER understood just how it is that contraception is freely available on the National Health, but that menstrual products are not! Couples choose to indulge in sexual activity – a woman does not choose to menstruate monthly – or believe me – given the choice – she would NOT! I heartily applaud the provision in school of menstrual products – but cringe at the thought as to how they might be administered or controlled. Far far better would be to enable them to be freely available to all from a GP surgery or a pharmacist! And to actually charge VAT on them as an in-essential purchase, is completely criminal.
10. Some women REALLY suffer from menstruation. It can be uncomfortable, downright painful, embarrassing, and create exclusivity. This needs to be recognised. It doesn’t just happen once or twice in someone’s lifetime – this can happen EVERY MONTH for up to a week for upto 40 years! That’s over 12.5% of someone’s life!!!!! Compare THAT to the 7.5% additional time a woman now has to work! How fair can that be? How would you perform if you were loosing blood for 12.5% of your life?
11. Some women – and I am an exception to this – spend 9 months with another human being growing within their body. Their body needs to provide nourishment, support and care whilst carrying the unborn child. Some women go on to have additional children. I know at one stage the average was 2.2. So … if she spends 18 months in this state, just what sort of toll can this have on her physical well being? How fair is it not to take this into account when computing an SPA?
12. The ‘family value’ has been eroded completely by successive governments. How is it ‘fair’ that both adults in a family unit should NEED to work to provide a basic living for their family. How fair is it that the ‘minimum wage’ isn’t sufficient to keep 2 adults and 2 children, providing parents with at least a CHOICE as to whether to work or provide full time home care!
13. Despite all the improvements which have been incorporated to improve equal opportunities across the sexes, it is – unsurprisingly - largely still the woman who conducts the bulk of the household chores and family nurturing. How ‘fair’ is it that this should still be unrecognised?
14. For 50’s born women, most of their working lives were spent without benefit of these improved equal opportunities, resulting in a far lower pension capacity than their male counterparts. So just how ‘fair’ is it that she should be expected to survive her retirement on that difference? Why is it that she should be made to pay the FULL cost of SPA equalisation?
15. I personally would have been more than happy to have worked one, two, or even three years longer, if it helped my country improve it’s footing, and helped ‘equality’. But I believe it does neither, and to expect one relatively small group of women to stand the full brunt of these changes with little notice to make preparation simply cannot be ‘fair’.
16. A woman’s physical age is impacted by hormonal changes within her body. My own gynaecologist advised me that menopausing at 40 as I did would age my body by a staggering 10 years. Having scornfully shrugged that off at the time, I can confirm, it has certainly impacted it! So how ‘fair’ is it not to take that into account?
17. Any person’s physical age can be impacted by the type of work they have undertaken during their lifespan. Physically hard labour, in extremes of weather, can severely elevate a physical age. How fair is it not to take that into consideration when determining an individual’s SPA?
18. A person’s geographical upbringing can impact upon the body’s physical age. How fair is it not to take that factor into consideration when determining an individual’s SPA?
19. A person’s family history can impact upon the expected lifespan of an individual. How fair is it not to take that factor into consideration when determining an individual’s SPA?
20. An individual’s end of life choices can impact on the duration of their expected retired life. Whilst recognising the controversial aspects of this statement, as an individual, I am strongly in favour of assisted dying, and voluntary euthanasia. I neither expect nor want a long retirement. But what I do want is to be able to enjoy what retirement I will have. I spent my working life secure in the knowledge that I could work 60 hours a week (over 40 being unpaid!) since my time after 60 would become ‘my own’. Wishful thinking – how fair is that?
21. Many women over 60 but under SPA are already receiving benefits. My point here is to question just how beneficial to the country’s coffers is denying us all our pension really being? Surely enabling us to retire peacefully would be much more beneficial in opening up job opportunities for the younger (and more expensive) individuals? So, again, just how fair is it?
22. And just how fair is it to subject over 60’s job hunters to the highly devastating moral and mental well being of being continually rejected! And to say this government is focussed on mental wellness?!? I think not! And I really don’t think it is fair, do you?
23. Dependency of some benefits on others. As an example, pension credit. If you don’t qualify for pension credit, possibly because you were frugal and saved for your retirement, then you don’t qualify for any of the associated benefits. Yet someone who hasn’t paid for a full pension, and weren’t frugal, is given total access to additional benefits, which could actually leave them in a stronger financial position. How can that possibly be fair?
24. A contract is a legally binding thing – whether it is in writing or expressed otherwise. I have constantly failed to understand how it is that the government can be permitted to renege on what I always considered to be a legally binding contract. I paid in for x years, and in return, I could expect x amount of pension at the age of 60. If they change the contract so far through, then the least option which should be available to me is that I get paid at age 60 at least that which I had earned up until the point at which the contract was changed. It would be insufficient on which to live, and I recognise that fact, but it would at least be compliant with the contract. How fair is it to change those expectations?
25. The contributions paid in by working women born in the 50’s was all used to support the older generations’ pensions. Nobody – to my knowledge – ever objected to this, although I do have some vague historic recollection of hearing that this was considered unsatisfactory, and wondered if the treasury payments originally made into the fund was to re-dress this, and make it so that you were eventually paid out from your own contributions. So to suggest that to place this burden on today’s younger generation is simply not fair!
