Pensioners fuming over government ‘theft’

[BigMouth]

@Admin - Thanks for clarifying the rules. I will be the first to admit that what I say here is mostly anecdotal. Our own experiences may not be the same as others, 'not in themselves constitute a broad trend', not be able to linked to a URL on the net for rigorous investigation and analysis, but still has value, even to those that disagree with us, although they might wish to deny our thoughts and experiences because they don't fit in with their own worldview.

 

I will try to keep on topic though, but this debate is many faceted however, I promise not to mention Brexit.

 

 

— Working Towards the Pension or No Pension at all —

 

@’ymofo

 

I note that you are not going to respond to me, but I will make the point that just because I am a man doesn't mean that I have no idea what being a mother is like. I got to study my own mother for the 16 years that I lived at home, through good times and bad. I saw the wide range of elements in her character in the same as she saw mine. When I compared my mother with my father I saw the differences in their personalities, their roles, their assumed responsibilities, their reactions to crisis and joy and everything between. I saw how our poor financial state was managed, By both of them, and how plans for larger future expenditure were made.

 

My dad always worked shifts in unskilled work in heavy industry, in poor conditions, including many years in a lead processing plant, where monthly blood tests were compulsory due to the risks involved with his role. It was always hard work. Despite being a strong and fit man he would come home from work exhausted, but satisfied that he had worked hard and done the best job he could have. I think that it would be fair to say the opportunities for the working class were fewer then than they are now. Born into the working class meant that you were likely to remain there.

 

He smoked, as the majority of adults did in this day. He was 58 when I got the call from his sister to say that he was terminally ill with lung cancer. Then living on his own, I travelled the 250 miles to his home, and set about looking after him as his sole carer. He contracted a secondary cancer in his brain, lost his balance, became incontinent, and just short of 6 months after I had arrived, he died at the age of 59. He had worked hard since he was 15, starting work assisting the coal man deliver hundredweight sacks of coal to the houses of this northern industrial city. He hadn’t managed to live long enough to claim his state pension, then still five+ years away.

 

My mum’s role in life was to look after us children. There were four of us. Larger families were de rigeur in those times. So was infant mortality, and I lost two siblings in infancy. Mum also kept the house clean and did the washing, in those days this was done by hand, then strung across the street to dry. She did the shopping, without a car, but using the bus. She made sure that we were up in time for school and dressed appropriately in the uniform, fed breakfast and sent us on our way. We were poor enough to get free school meals, so when we got home, tea, as it was called then, was soon on the table, usually jam. After school we would go out to play with the other kids in the street. We would all be called in around the same time, then it was off to bed. The highlight was on a Sunday when we had a pudding, which was always tinned fruit, peaches or pears.

 

I am not sure how much time my mum spent on the chores. They would have taken longer, without all the automation that modern households benefit from nowadays, but we wore our pants, socks and school shirts for a week between changes. My trousers were washed once a term, any mud being brushed off as necessary, repairs also as necessary. Wash day was once a week, and if the clothes couldn’t be dried outside they went on the clothes horse in front of the fire. I remember only one or two domestic disputes over the cleanliness of the house. Once it was that my parents bed had obviously not been swept under for months, and another was thick dust on the treasured sideboard.

 

In my teens my parents split up and my mum remarried. She would occasionally take on an office job, usually continue it for about three to six months, decide she didn’t like it, then return to being a housewife. We still didn’t have a dishwasher or a tumble dryer in those days, but the twin tub had gone and the washing machine was automatic. School dinners were no longer free so we were given 12p to buy one each day, and had something simple when we got in from school, often beans on toast or something similar. We had a television and life revolved around it, Mum found an interest in reading magazines, and I have distant memories of their always being one or more Woman’s Own, Woman’s Realm, and Woman’s Weekly magazine laying around the place. Mum was an occasional smoker. Now in her late 70s she is still with us. I think it would be fair to say that she worked hard in the home in her early years, but with automation over the years her life got easier. For the last 30 years she would have not had any childcare responsibilities as both surviving offspring moved away to different areas of the country. She retired on a state pension at 60 whilst her new husband worked on.

 

My step-dad worked stacking bricks in the kilns at a brick yard; a job done by hand. There was a lot of brick dust flying around the place, from the fired bricks when he retrieved them, and no face masks were issued in those days. His work clothes were not allowed in the house, so he hung them in the shed. Covered in brick dust he would take a bath before sitting down to his dinner. Although offered promotion at work many times to foreman, he was happy enough, and had no interest in ordering others about. He worked there for 30 years in the end. He smoked roll-ups. In his early 60s he contracted emphysema, then died just before he got to 70. He left an occupational pension to my mum, which will be paid for her lifetime.

@’ymofo continued…

 

In further regard to not knowing what it is like to be a mother, I have also been married and saw my wife (the mother of my son) and her ways of dealing with life.

 

Probably like all first time mums and dads, we were very nervous about doing the right thing with this lovely young baby that we had been blessed with. At ten pounds and ten ounces he was a big lad, in the 97th percentile according to the nurses. He had been in some distress before the delivery, but was born healthy. My wife had continued to bleed after the delivery and the nurses had continued just to change her pads, to soak up the blood. I was very anxious about the situation. I could see that she was becoming weaker, but the response from the nurses, all female on the maternity ward, was to ask me if I had ever given birth before. Obviously I couldn’t, but the matriarchal nature of the maternity ward meant that a man couldn’t be right. I persisted in my protestations and when she was looked at by a consultant, he decided that she needed to go to the operating theatre. A pint of blood was drained from a haematoma, she was stitched up, given two units of blood and two units of saline made a rapid recovery.

 

When they came out of hospital, and after I returned to work, she felt isolated. She spoke to the Health Visitor, who introduced her to a mum’s group. She soon met up with other young mums with young babies, and perhaps other young children. None of the families had much money, they had probably just lost a second wage, so the group would take it in turns to invite the other mums around to their houses for coffee mornings. The wider family bonds were nowhere near as strong as they are in Shetland. We didn't live next door to our mums. In fact her mum lived over 100 miles away. The coffee mornings were an almost daily event on weekdays, whilst the husbands were out at work. Mostly a group of first time mums, they would pass on tips to each other, discussing the woes and joys of motherhood, and chat about whatever were the topics that interested them that day. They all got on to differing extents and supported each other due to their common bonds.

 

The meetings went from coffee mornings to one or two mums branching off with others from the group to enjoy lunch together. It was a cheap way to feed the mums, and the babies could be breastfed without embarrassment. It encouraged the mums to make more effort with their eating than they might if they were cooking for one, and the whole coffee mornings/lunchtimes proved an excellent way to socialise the kids. It was doing the mums a huge amount of good as they were learning from each other.

 

I still felt terrified as a new Dad, not having a clue of why, despite feeding, winding him and changing his nappy, my son continued to cry even though he had not long woke up. My support group was my wife, but if she wasn’t there I just had to get on with it. As I was thought to be a good dad there was the occasional baby brought to the house at the weekend by the mother so she and the wife could go out together for a break from the babies.

 

My wife would discuss what the other women talked about on occasion, how the other kids were getting on together, their development etc. I found it all fascinating. There were those that enjoyed the new family and coffee mornings so much that they were turned off the idea of work. They were just not career women. They wanted to raise a family and have more control over their own lives. Whilst they would enjoy that lifestyle for many years, middle age then retirement would be looming, and would mean that they would have to start thinking more about their financial security. Years later some were still with their husbands, some had moved onto other realtionships, and some were alone; happy or otherwise. Years of missed national insurance payments would be caught up with for years not involved in childcare, if the money was available, topping up the value of their state pensions.

 

Going back, finances were always tight for us and the wife wanted to get out of the house into an environment that was not full of kids. She wanted to work. We couldn't afford childcare, so we had to take it in turns to work. I would have to leave work bang on 5pm and race home in the car, handing it over to her at 5:15, whilst she handed our son over to me. Her employer was not at all understanding, and if she was a minute late she would be docked 15 minutes pay. Every penny counted then. Her job was on a checkout at a new large Tesco store that had opened. The company had struggled to recruit enough staff when paying about £3.50 an hour, so she started on a fiver an hour. Sunday opening was fairly new at the time and she used to get double pay for that. In all she used to work for 3 hours a night, 3 days a week. She enjoyed getting out, chatting to mums without kids around them, as well as childless women. I got quality time with my son, to feed him, play with him, bath him and put him to bed. The much needed money was a real bonus.

 

As I got promoted at work I earned a bit more money, and we were able to put my son in nursery for four mornings a week. She would spend that time with the other mums keeping the social life going. Swapping the kids clothes and toys around as they fell out of use. Eventually she got a part time position with a bank as a cashier, but she had a drive to do more. We both put the minimum amount away we could in works pensions. We couldn’t afford any more, despite the incentive of the government then giving tax relief on pension payments, something that had started relatively recently. Once our son was at school she worked more hours at the bank around his school hours, until he was in his teens when she went for more hours.

 

When we parted, she got together with another man. He was a builder. Within a couple of years he had an accident that precluded his continuing in that career. They had a child together and he became a house husband. She wanted a nice lifestyle and could earn considerably more than him. As the years passed she decided to stop enriching the bank, bringing in customers, the higher wealth individuals. She took the exams and started her own business, and as I have said before, lives a comfortable existence. I would be very surprised if she has not got a nice pension pot.

 

As the years passed from our first meeting there has been a real role reversal. I was keen and ambitious and was expected to get on, she was going to be there able to work or not work as she chose, in whatever field she chose. Any sort of 'high' achievement for her had never seemed to be part of her plan. I reached a point where time was more important than money, and over the years I have reduced the hours that I work until I have enough to live on plus a little bit. Despite our very different viewpoints we get on fabulously. Both of us would be there for the other if they were in crisis.

 

Life has moved on, and the voice for equality in the workplace has been with us for many years. Recently it has got much louder. Often comparisons were made about the gender pay gap. No thought was given to the number of hours that the opposite sexes were working, yet we constantly hear how women are mostly employed in part time jobs. Nor consideration to the type of work that was being done, or the qualification and capabilities of those doing the work. The true figures just didn’t fit the narrative that was being pushed. The government were going to see the disparity in pension provision eventually, and the calls for equality highlighted it faster. I was one of those that agreed early that there should be equality between the sexes, and was happy when I heard that women would eventually be drawing their pensions at the same time as men, although I wanted it to kick in sooner.

 

In periods of transition there are always losers. I thought that I would be retiring at 65. The government has told me that is no longer the case. I'm not moaning about it, there would be no point. I either try to save up enough to keep myself on for a couple of years, and still give up work at 65, or I get my head down and retire at the new later age. Our WASPI friends need to do the same. Having their protests outside Tesco highlights the fact that they don't want to 'suffer', but they are happy for other people to; the young of today. Life just isn't fair for the vast majority of us. There is no magic money tree according to the (caretaker) Prime Minister. The money has to come from somewhere, and the financial burden on the young, your friend’s kids and their grandkids is too high. We just need to suck it up to give them a life. The chances are that they will not be getting their state pensions until into their seventies, if there still is such a thing.

 

Government policy could of course change to stop funding wars for instance, but the politicians of this country enjoy willy-waving (Thatcher included). They could stop former Prime Ministers being able to claim £150,000 a year in expenses until they die. They could have stop the likes of a certain Alzheimer's suffering former prime ministers’ family moving her house into the ownership of an offshore trust before she died to avoid taxation. None of this will happen because it keeps the wealth in the hands of a few.

 

We could all have a fair state pension by retiring at the same age, because that’s equality, and having our pensions issued on the basis of need. Many pensioners are extremely wealthy. They really don’t need the handout that is a pension, but the fact that they take it means that there is less in the pot for those in greater need. I know that they have paid into it, some by working, some by child-rearing, some by a combination of both, but do we really want to see our neighbour struggle whilst your thick pension from work tops up your state pension? We put the money into our private pension, but it was topped up by the taxpayer, those very neighbours who are now struggling. The same is true of tax relief paid on certain types of mortgages, and until recently tax relief was paid even on furniture used to furnish a second home to rent out. It seems odd that those privately renting and those in social housing are paying for the tax relief of those assets of the already wealthier.

 

And finally, your male PA. He was worth more, you said it yourself, 'his male bosses liked the prestige/novelty factor of having a male PA'. So they paid him more. It’s the same reasons that, despite all cars being registered with a unique registration, people still go out and spend inordinate amounts of money on vanity plates.

[BigMouth]

Bigmouth.. despite your protestations I personally think you have genuine problem with women. Maybe you should re read your posts, Worryingly, dislike of women shouts out in each and every one. It is for this reason that I will not respond to your rambling posts.

I notice you won't be responding, but I would far rather spend my time in the company of women than men. The vast majority of women are great, and the vast majority that I meet will admit that I am a nice bloke. I am not a pushover though, and that does wind up the more vocal in society who have opposing opinions, and find it hard to listen to those of others, the females often known as misandrists.

Edited June 20, 2019 by BigMouth

[George.]

The vast majority of women are great, and the vast majority that I meet will admit that I am a nice bloke. 

 

Did you tell them to claim that?

 

Remember to tell them though, it's a win-win situation.

Edited June 20, 2019 by George.

[Pleepsie]

 

 

I notice you won't be responding, but I would far rather spend my time in the company of women than men. The vast majority of women are great, and the vast majority that I meet will admit that I am a nice bloke. I am not a pushover though, and that does wind up the more vocal in society who have opposing opinions, and find it hard to listen to those of others, the females often known as misandrists.

For one wild moment I thought you might actually have posted something without denigrating women, then I read your last sentence.. you just cant help yourself, can you! The old saying ‘ you are more to be pitied than scorned’ springs to mind. I agree with Sukibind, read your posts and ask yourself if you would like one of your own loved female relatives to read them and think that those remarks might be directed at them. It is easy to be vitriolic from the safety of a keyboard, perhaps you should ask yourself, would I post this to a loved female relative before you hit the post button.

[BigMouth]

My posts are full of comments like most women are great, I prefer the company of women, I want women to have equality. The misandrists don't like me though, as is to be expected. Some women just can't bear losing an argument to a man. They hate the awkward truths and don’t want to deal with them.

 

Any woman that knows me well will know my views. I treat decent women decently. Anyone who wants equality is fine by me. Those that seek superiority, be they male or female are not.

[Pleepsie]

Ahh...Decent Woman.. well, there is a biblical reference if ever there was one! You truly do not see that your view is outdated. If a woman does not agree with your point of view she is automatically

a ‘ misandrist’. I comment as someone who has many men and boys in her life and loves and respects everything about them. Luckily for me, non of them share your very narrow and unpleasant opinion of females. In keeping with the topic, they, well the adult males, all think that the current pension rules are unfair and that a more relaxed staging would be better for all concerned.

[BigMouth]

As an atheist I have no idea about the bible, so you have lost me there.

 

My view is modern; I want equality for women.  I want you to have the same terms and conditions in life.  I have a very wide and pleasant opinion of the vast majority of women, although the hard of thinking may fail to understand this, no matter how many times I say it.

 

A woman is not automatically a misandrist if she disagree with me.  I judge her to be a misandrist if she appears to me to have a hatred of men in her words and or deeds, especially when they do not agree with her point of view, and appears to want to see men disadvantaged to give some advantage to women.

 

The females that I know, that I have spoken to on the subject, all feel either that the move to women retiring at the same age as men is fair, or they feel that it is harsh but fair, and wish it wasn't that way, but they understand the meaning of equality, and that women can't just have the best bits of equality.

 

Anne Widdecombe, a woman that I would cross the road to avoid due to some of her views, and not because she is a woman, makes some interesting, if not popular statements here about pay and pensions.

 

[Pleepsie]

Firstly, anyone with a modicum of education would have a smattering of religious knowledge. Unless they had spent their formative years under a rock. Religious education is part of the curriculum.

 

Your view is not modern.

 

How lovely that your women ‘understand’ the meaning of equality. You must be so proud of them.

[BigMouth]

I have a modicum of education, but religion has never influenced me. Religious education was not part of the compulsory curriculum in senior school beyond reciting the Lord’s Prayer in assembly at my school. The compulsory curriculum consisted of: Maths, English, History, Geography and French. It feels hard for me to support a religious ethos when one looks at the troubles in the Catholic Church, for instance. My smattering of religious knowledge does not include whatever the decent woman was. Much like you, I lived under a roof.

 

I am surprised that you find my view that women should have equality, and equal terms and conditions in life not to be modern. What would you prefer my view to be? The opposite view would be that of the Saudis, not something you could support surely?

 

I consider myself to be blessed with the company of women who have received an education, and are well-rounded in their personalities. They are open minded enough to see the opposite side of an argument, even if they don’t agree with it.

 

It's odd that you didn’t comment on the thoughts of Ms Widdecombe. It must grind a little when a woman with the brains and influence of her says that women should retire at the same age as men, and that women are advantaged compared to men.

[Windwalker]

To get back to the subject !

 

Whilst equal pension ages make sense for fair equality, which we all should be striving for, the issue here is not so much about equality, but more about the fairness and methods of reaching equality on pensions.

 

I would think that most would agree that men and women should have the same pension age, but also agree that the process that the government has used to introduce this has been far from fair and will leave a lot of women in a difficult financial position in their latter years.

There was little advance notice giving women time to prepare and the changes have been introduced far to quickly. Had the government introduced this in several stages over a much longer period so that the effects were less damaging to one generation, it might have been more palatable.

 

Secondly, It is important that any new regulations regarding equal pension age must be accompanied by stronger laws ensuring there is no difference in pay rates between men and women who are doing the same job. Why in this day and age do we still have firms getting away with paying women less.

 

In my opinion the government has made a backside of this and need to go back to the drawing board and revise the process. They need to come up with a fairer system which will bring this in over a much longer period, so that the effect is not so damaging on one generation. I believe most sensible thinking men would agree that equality on this issue will take time to introduce and therefore will not see it as unequal.

[BigMouth]

Do you agree then that when women are being paid less hourly than a man for doing the same job, that equality on this issue will take time to introduce and therefore any sensible thinking woman will not see it as unequal?

[George.]

^Personally, I don't. Then again, it's a win-win situation - or so I've been told.

[Windwalker]

Do you agree then that when women are being paid less hourly than a man for doing the same job, that equality on this issue will take time to introduce and therefore any sensible thinking woman will not see it as unequal?

No because this can be done without putting considerable hardship on elderly individuals

[George.]

Do you agree then that when women are being paid less hourly than a man for doing the same job, that equality on this issue will take time to introduce and therefore any sensible thinking woman will not see it as unequal?

 

ps I used to have a job in which I was paid one rate, while my workmate was paid approximately 15 - 20% more per hour than I was, for doing the same thing. Same age. Same skills. Same experience. Same length of time in the job. Same length of time with the same employer. Yet more proof that I'm a woman - yawn.

 

One of these days, I'll need to grow a pair of my own.

Edited June 22, 2019 by George.

[BigMouth]

No because this can be done without putting considerable hardship on elderly individuals

I am not sure that many 60 year olds will thank you for suggesting that they are elderly!

 

With regard to your earlier comments, It is human nature, that when one is in a position of advantage, one campaigns against any Government that tries to reduce that advantage. We want the process to take an extended period of time, the change to happen to others, not us, and if the change is inevitable, the change should happen well into the future, in fact pushing change into the future is a common tool of Government to reduce opposition. Today we are less worried about planned changes in 2050 than we are worried about planned changes in December 2019. When one is in a position of disadvantage, and change by the Government would advantage us, change can't come quickly enough for us.

 

I still fail to see how women are in a more difficult financial position. They just do what men do, carry on working. No-one is expecting them to live without an income from 60-65.

Edited June 23, 2019 by BigMouth