State Pension Qualifying Years

That is a known factor in the deal - you were previously arguing that getting what you knew you would get made things fair. But the fact that this could also be considered and reformed is a separate issue, and doesn't mean that we can't make the present reforms fairer.

I would not spend time on it, since it is not an issue I'm discussing. My topic is the current pension plans . It is not difficult to make transitions fair and equitable. The fact that many people, after 11 years full-time education cannot understand simple things is also another issue.

It has been obvious for a long time the birth-rates were falling and it was perfectly predictable there would be a large number retiring at the moment. Reform to meet the present retirement bulge could certainly have started at least ten years ago and been carefully planned for fair transition in the rules.

As I say the present birth rate and life expectancy trends have been emerging consistently for many years, decades even, without too many, if any, blips. Trends are used to make predictions.

No, the disparities are much more complex and long-lasting particularly for those retiring shortly and who have made other modest provision which also excludes them from the same means-tested benefits. Anyway, I've made the points I intended and will leave you to continue moving the goalposts and creating new ones to your heart's content. You are running round in circles which gives you a tendency towards scoring own goals ;-)

Toom

secure

substantially

people

Yes, and you could have been expecting a pension for 20+ years, only to be diagnosed with terminal cancer. Not fair, is it?

introduce

discussing.

You obviously don't understand the above, then, since it's really not hard. Eduction wasted?

amongst

And it was obvious that the birth rate would fall linerarly was is? Which they didn't. Show me how people in the 1950's could have predicted the 1990's birth rate. Come on, if it was obvious.

Come on then, lets see some analysis you could have done in the 1950's to predict 1990's birth rates. This sounds like your "9-12% inflation" bullshit claim which you failed to get anywhere near justifying.

pension

understand.

heart's

Yeah, right, we'll see what's done about it, shall we? I predict the current pension rules aren't changed, because arguments like yours are simply childish whinging. "It's not fair boo hoo".

...well, if this what you for work...

"iardo" wrote

Is that meant to make any sense?

No, it was meant to be "...well, if this is what you do for work..."

Is that better?

"iardo" wrote

Well, at least it now makes sense! ... (1) No, it isn't what I do for work (who would pay me for doing this?); (2) *If* it had been what I do for work, *then* what?

So when, at 4.49pm, you said:

"Before 5pm is hardly late! Anyway, I'll probably be working for another few hours yet today..."

...it was, in fact, still playtime, despite intimating that you were actually working and would continue to do so for some hours?

"iardo" wrote

You're very slow on the uptake, aren't you? The few odd minutes it takes to make the odd newgroup post, "playtime" as you call it, is intermingled between mostly work.

On the contrary sunshine. I've got you sussed.

Great stuff, especially as you're being paid to work.

"iardo" wrote

I somehow suspect not!

Not during "playtime", I'm not. Shame, eh?!