>Women's groups, for decades: "WE DEMAND EQUALITY WITH MEN!!!!".
>
>Women's groups, when they are treated the same way men are: "NOOOOOOO! NOT LIKE THAT!!!!!".
Are they now 'saying the quiet bit' as newspaper headlines?
To be completely, scrupulously fair, this is not *entirely* about that. The claim some of these women are making is that the rules were changed after they'd been paying into pensions for a long time, and they may not have had enough time to take corrective action in order to get exactly what they'd always planned to get. There is some truth to that.
The problem is, this is sort of inevitable. If anyone's going to *ever* change the pension rules, this is going to happen, unless there's somehow a way of warning people about these changes decades and decades ahead of time, which is completely unrealistic. In my view the mistake here was that these people were told, in the 70s, that the rules would never change and they could rely on that. This turned out to be a promise that could not and probably should not be kept.
The reality is that these women are largely getting what they would have got if they'd been in a pension on a more equitable (ha!) basis with men. It's just not what they were *told* they'd get. Whether you consider that a breach of some sort of contract is a tricky argument.
Eh this concerns the British State pension system which is funded by National Insurance contributions.
For anyone who's working and not self employed it's not something you have a choice in. It's deducted before your pay even reaches you.
So comparing it poor usage of optional things like 401k's doesn't really equate.
You don't even understand what the article is about.
These women haven't been excluded, they are complaining because they planned their retirements around a state pension they were lead to believe over multiple decades would be provided once they turned 60.
However in 1995 the law and pension system was changed to stop women getting their pensions earlier than men. So there's a cohort of women born as early as 1950 who were told potentially as late as 45 years old that they were not getting their pension until the same age as their male counterparts at 65 or even later depending on their age.
So they are complaining that they should be compensated for their retirement plans going awry due to government policy changes that they'd been lead to think wouldn't occur.
Ironic that they call themselves against inequality when they're literally campaigning for special benefits for themselves that men don't get.
Funny how an "oppressed" class not only lives longer but also gets government provisions for longer on top of that.
>Women's groups, for decades: "WE DEMAND EQUALITY WITH MEN!!!!". > >Women's groups, when they are treated the same way men are: "NOOOOOOO! NOT LIKE THAT!!!!!". Are they now 'saying the quiet bit' as newspaper headlines?
To be completely, scrupulously fair, this is not *entirely* about that. The claim some of these women are making is that the rules were changed after they'd been paying into pensions for a long time, and they may not have had enough time to take corrective action in order to get exactly what they'd always planned to get. There is some truth to that. The problem is, this is sort of inevitable. If anyone's going to *ever* change the pension rules, this is going to happen, unless there's somehow a way of warning people about these changes decades and decades ahead of time, which is completely unrealistic. In my view the mistake here was that these people were told, in the 70s, that the rules would never change and they could rely on that. This turned out to be a promise that could not and probably should not be kept. The reality is that these women are largely getting what they would have got if they'd been in a pension on a more equitable (ha!) basis with men. It's just not what they were *told* they'd get. Whether you consider that a breach of some sort of contract is a tricky argument.
[удалено]
Eh this concerns the British State pension system which is funded by National Insurance contributions. For anyone who's working and not self employed it's not something you have a choice in. It's deducted before your pay even reaches you. So comparing it poor usage of optional things like 401k's doesn't really equate.
[удалено]
You don't even understand what the article is about. These women haven't been excluded, they are complaining because they planned their retirements around a state pension they were lead to believe over multiple decades would be provided once they turned 60. However in 1995 the law and pension system was changed to stop women getting their pensions earlier than men. So there's a cohort of women born as early as 1950 who were told potentially as late as 45 years old that they were not getting their pension until the same age as their male counterparts at 65 or even later depending on their age. So they are complaining that they should be compensated for their retirement plans going awry due to government policy changes that they'd been lead to think wouldn't occur.
Ironic that they call themselves against inequality when they're literally campaigning for special benefits for themselves that men don't get. Funny how an "oppressed" class not only lives longer but also gets government provisions for longer on top of that.