quote:

Before you called this kind of rule sexist, please do some research on the reasons why this may be so.

But I do know why it's sexist, Brenda - the European Court of Human Rights tells me that it is, and they know a lot more about these things than I do.

Someone took the British Government to the court a few years back over this issue, and they ruled that it broke European sex discrimination laws, which is why the government are having to change it (by increasing the age at which women get pensions, by the way, not lowering it for men.)

Is that a good enough authority for you?

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Marriott:

quote:

Before you called this kind of rule sexist, please do some research on the reasons why this may be so.

But I do know why it's sexist, Brenda - the European Court of Human Rights tells me that it is, and they know a lot more about these things than I do.

Someone took the British Government to the court a few years back over this issue, and they ruled that it broke European sex discrimination laws, which is why the government are having to change it (by increasing the age at which women get pensions, by the way, not lowering it for men.)

Is that a good enough authority for you?

Well, not quite, Chris, because I don't know very much about the European Court of Human Rights, how it's constituted, what its rulings are, who brought the case to it, and with what evidence of sexism? There are some rulings of the UN human rights committee, e.g., that are laughable in fact but understandable when you know the member nations who constitue that committee and what their political biases are.

We don't make the distinction here between the sexes for OAP, but we do, after much lobbying, make an allowance for women who have left the work force for having children under the age of 16 and therefore have not been able to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan. But it takes political action to force those in authority to see the fairness of this.

Sorry, I'm wrong; it's the European Court of Justice, not the Human Rights court.

The ruling has been made under Article 7 of European Social Security Directive (79/7), which states that governments have to ensure that social security benefits do not discriminate on the grounds of sex. The government argued that that it has done everything that it needs to do under the European Directive and that the remaining inequality until 2020 is justified as necessary in order to smooth the introduction of equal pension ages without unduly disadvantaging women who had been relatively close to state pension age at the time of the decision to change it.

The age at which woman receive a state pension will be gradually increased, between 2010 and 2020, from 60 to 65, and everyone born on or after 6th April 1955 will receive a state pension at the age of 65.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Marriott:
Sorry, I'm wrong; it's the European Court of Justice, not the Human Rights court.

The ruling has been made under Article 7 of European Social Security Directive (79/7), which states that governments have to ensure that social security benefits do not discriminate on the grounds of sex. The government argued that that it has done everything that it needs to do under the European Directive and that the remaining inequality until 2020 is justified as necessary in order to smooth the introduction of equal pension ages without unduly disadvantaging women who had been relatively close to state pension age at the time of the decision to change it.

The age at which woman receive a state pension will be gradually increased, between 2010 and 2020, from 60 to 65, and everyone born on or after 6th April 1955 will receive a state pension at the age of 65.

Sounds like a fair and balanced decision to me. I'm assuming you don't find the "catch-up" time sexist?

A delay in changing so important a law certainly doesn't strike me as unreasonable. What does strike me as inequitable, though, is that the discrepency existed in the first place!

Your argument that women earn less slightly eludes me, I'm afraid. Why should earning less entitle someone to a pension at an earlier age? That seems back to front to me. If you've earned less, and hence paid less tax, shouldn't you get a pension at a later age, rather than an earlier one?

I'm obviously missing something in your argument; could you elaborate?

A 30 day, first class tour is likely to be mostly people who are in their 50s, 60s and 70s because they usually have the time and money to travel and will also be full of Australians (which is a good thing ) because they have more vacation time than people from North American and have so far to go that they tend to go for the longer tours. That doesn't mean there won't be some people your age but if that matters to you, you should be prepared for it.

And now, ai, I think your questions have mostly answered and you will see the thread meander off.

OK, Jeannie: I'm going to take your advice and stay out of the territory. Drats, it was just getting interesting . I was starting to enjoy the scenery on the detour as your signature recommends .

Sorry, Brenda, I went back and changed my post before you posted yours. I wasn't trying to stop you and I personally have no objection to the "meandering" but some people do.

Thanks Jeannie All the advice has been most welcome.
A

quote:

Originally posted by Jeannie118:
Sorry, Brenda, I went back and changed my post before you posted yours. I wasn't trying to stop you and I personally have no objection to the "meandering" but some people do.

I noticed you had, Jeannie, and I don't at all mind the reminder, no need to apologize--this isn't the place and I tend to forget and get on a roll when flags are waved in front of me . Good to have friends looking out for you .

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Marriott:

In the UK, one becomes an "old age pensioner" (OAP) at 65. That's what it's officially called, honest, not my definition . It's the age that you get a pension from the government. Nothing to do with the age that you retire at.

No need to "defend" anyone - nobody's being "attacked". It was just a question as to what a word meant.

I am off down the detour.....Bren you are welcome to join me.

Chris does everone in the U.K. qualify for a pension? The reason I ask is that in Australia it is means tested & as I won't qualify the term OAP will not apply to me, for which I am eternally gratefully, as I dislike the label.

quote:

Originally posted by Dimpz:

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Marriott:

In the UK, one becomes an "old age pensioner" (OAP) at 65. That's what it's officially called, honest, not my definition . It's the age that you get a pension from the government. Nothing to do with the age that you retire at.

No need to "defend" anyone - nobody's being "attacked". It was just a question as to what a word meant.

I am off down the detour.....Bren you are welcome to join me.

Chris does everone in the U.K. qualify for a pension? The reason I ask is that in Australia it is means tested & as I won't qualify the term OAP will not apply to me, for which I am eternally gratefully, as I dislike the label.

That's interesting, Dimpz (see Jeannie, I can't help it and I was invited after all ) the business of having to qualify. Canada should be doing that but it's so stuck in the ideology of universality in all things (not so terrible I suppose when you think of it) that we give multimillionaires an OAP....BUT.....it is clawed back according to their income. So, give with one hand and take with the other and anything one gets is of course taxable.

I rather like getting into movies on half-price Tuesdays because I'm a senior, and discounts on a range of other services. It's not too bad at all, come to think of it.

quote:

Originally posted by Chris Marriott:
A delay in changing so important a law certainly doesn't strike me as unreasonable. What does strike me as inequitable, though, is that the discrepency existed in the first place!

Your argument that women earn less slightly eludes me, I'm afraid. Why should earning less entitle someone to a pension at an earlier age? That seems back to front to me. If you've earned less, and hence paid less tax, shouldn't you get a pension at a later age, rather than an earlier one?

I'm obviously missing something in your argument; could you elaborate?

A teensy bit. Women tend to be in service jobs mainly and even if they're professional women, earn less than their male counterparts. Moreover, if a woman's job is cleaning offices, she's likely not able to do that when she reaches that age. Therefore while what you say about getting a pension later in order, if I'm following your logic correctly, to continue working and earning, it is alas a fact of life that they still won't have the savings that men will have at the end of their working life. They may also have gone into the work force at a later date than men and therefore will not have the kind of pensions that men have accumulated. Another reason is that often women are called into the caregiver category with aging parents and can't work outside the home. These may be some of the reasons they were allowed their OAP at sixty. I don't know what the UK reasoning was on this--believe it or not, they didn't tell me--but to call it unfair or sexist is to suggest that women have the exact same life scripts, if you will, as men, and they simply do not and historiclly never have.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think we can collect Canada Pension here earlier than 65 but you get a reduced rate, isn't that right?

Some stores here consider senior to be 55 and give a discount at that age.

quote:

Originally posted by Jeannie118:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I think we can collect Canada Pension here earlier than 65 but you get a reduced rate, isn't that right?

Some stores here consider senior to be 55 and give a discount at that age.

Yes, we can collect CPP earlier than 65 but you're right, Jeannie, it's at a reduced rate.

As to the 55, I know this is common in the States but I thought most considered it to be 65 here. Possibly wrong about that.