WASPI Women - getting compensated

And a lot don’t. They get it offshore and into legal(but immoral) schemes. It was one of the drivers of Brexit as they’d lose some ways of doing that. The loopholes need closing.

I am pointing out that a lot of wealthy people pay a lot of tax.

But the top 100 taxpayers are the ones who are, in fact, paying tax. The problem is the ones who structure their affairs so as to stay off that list - high net worth individuals and corporations.

The vast majority of women and men were aware of the changes. Specifically, the vast majority of women in the WASPI age range were aware. There was a massive national campaign about the changes. Leaflets, adverts in national papers, letters, pension statements which pretty much had ‘THIS IS IMPORTANT. READ IT’ as a header.

No. Read my words. The top 100 tax payers.

I agree with you. Any half intelligent person knew the pension age was going up, way before it happened. They got to retire at 65. I am 59, so won’t retire until I am 67. But I have to accept it and get on with it. Should I start the campaign that it’s not fair that I have just missed retiring at 65? It’s getting ridiculous and like you I do not want to pay towards their compensation. The great thing for your generation is that companies have to offer pension schemes, which they didn’t have to when I was younger, so I hope you will be able to build bigger pots. I will always push for better conditions for the younger generation, you are having a tough time. Hang on in there and let’s hope things get better.

You mean like this?

https://taxjustice.uk/blog/the-prime-minister-pays-the-same-rate-of-tax-as-a-teacher/

Have you seen how much tax the top 100 tax payers paid last year?

Sure - this thread doesn’t affect me, so apologies for the derail.

Can you two stop it, please?

Calm down.

Really? Come on now…

“Bullshit comments" - rude, you just don't agree with me.

Kinship placements aside, no grandparent is raising their grandchildren for working parents. Helping out, yes. Raising? Don’t be so ridiculous. So yes, bullshit comments.

And so of course I have found myself the target of it.

You are the target of nothing beyond being called out for your comments about young families, and young women. As I said, your lack of awareness is abysmal.

Calm down. Your post is a mix of offensiveness and fabrication.

"Bullshit comments" - rude, you just don't agree with me.

"Judgemental" - I don't believe I have said anything judgemental, if I have you'll have to quote me. You on the other hand have described my attitude as "horrendous" completely missing the point that my children do not need help, they are doing fine.

You are perfectly entitled not to like me, but surely "sickening" is a bit strong.

As for your last made up allegation, I have explicitly said that I neither need not want compensation. I came on to this thread on to counter the spectacular rudeness which some posters were directing at older women. And so of course I have found myself the target of it.

Exactly.

Like I said, I was born and grew up in an era when women received the state pension at 60. The pension age was equalised (quite rightly) and then extended… I won’t received state pension until 67. And while obviously I’d prefer to get it sooner (wouldn’t we all?!) I understand the reasons behind the changes and the need for pensions to be affordable.

im afraid far too many women don’t give enough consideration to their financial future. Among friends, acquaintances, even family members of around my age there are women who:

*still think they ‘should’ be able to retire and get state pension at 60

• have worked part time for years (in some cases never returning to full time even after their kids are adults) and are then surprised that their work pension is a fraction of what it could be

*have no interest in discussing or even thinking about pensions

The statistics show that women as a group are far more likely to be poor in their older age than men. It’s very frustrating when it’s women themselves who aren’t taking that fact seriously.

it’s also worth noting that the men in this age group have also been affected - those expecting to retire at 65 who’ve had their pensionable age pushed back to 66, 67…. Yet we don’t hear anything from them - presumably because they heeded the campaigns about pensions.

Likewise - thank you!

As one of that cohort - thank you.

I was absolutely aware of the 1995 pensions act and the change to my pension age - no problem at all. But unfortunately I came into the cohort of women also affected by the 2011 pensions act. So under this 2011 act for example if you were born on 5 April 1953 you received your pension on 6 March 2016, but if you were born on 6 November 1953 then you received your pension on 6 November 2018 - so just seven months younger resulted in the timetable accelerating 2 years 8 months (on top of the 1995 increases obviously).

Birth dates between 6 April 1953 and 5 December 1953 were the most punitive - four months extra added for each month increase in your date of birth. That was what I thought was so unfair - it deliberately disadvantaged that cohort of women.

Surprise, surprise for equalisation in pensions age for men and women from 66 to 67 still under 2011 act the timetable reverts to only one month extra for each month increase in your date of birth. So those WASPI women in the April to December 53 cohort had four times the acceleration that the men had and much less notice.

But having raised my blood pressure writing all this - and it's been something I've always thought so unfair, I guess because for WASPI it's actually about not being notified under the 1995 act rather the 2011 act, I have to let it go. But that doesn't alter the fact the Ombudsman found in their favour and the government has reneged on this.

Younger women do appear to be living rent free in your head.

Absolutely. They are the only ones with any sort of case.

I have a lot of sympathy for the cohort who were given relatively short notice of the additional increase to their pension age.

I don’t have any sympathy for the rest of the WASPI campaign, some of whom seem to think they had a divine right to retire at 60. And must have been living under a rock if they hadn’t heard of the 1995 changes,

If the campaign had just concentrated on the small cohort who really were treated unfairly I think they’d have been a lot more successful.

I only posted on this thread because of your bullshit comments about grandparents raising grandchildren. Helping your children out isn’t raising their kids for them.

Since then, you’ve only shown just how judgemental of young families (women, particularly) you are, and the distain you hold for them.

I'm afraid I think that people who rely on unpaid childcare are centred around money, obviously they would have less if they paid for childcare.

I brought up two families (2 husbands), gave up work to look after them myself and would not have dreamt of asking old age pensioners to help me.

Your lack of awareness is abysmal.

People who rely on unpaid childcare do so because their options are limited. Kudos to them for trying to avoid becoming trapped on benefits.

It is a luxury to be able to give up work to raise your children. It is now unaffordable to be able to raise a family on one income. Thus, there is no choice but for both parents to work.

You don’t seem to be able to fathom why they would need help. Not everyone is you and had the same circumstances in life that you did. You can’t really see beyond your own situation. As I said, your lack of awareness is abysmal.

I think it’s horrendous that you wouldn’t have helped out your own children, and it speaks volumes about you.

You do expect these same young families (particularly younger women), however, who you judge for relying on “free childcare” to work, to continue relying on that free childcare so they can pay even more tax to compensate women like you. Despite you not even needing it.

Sickening.

The equalisation to pension age was made decades ago. Yes there was a shorter notice change later but this was massively publicised through public information leaflets, national advertising campaigns, pension statements etc. The investigation into the WASPI women concluded that something like 82% of affected women had bothered to take notice of this. Some of the minority who didn’t even admitted they hadn’t opened or read letters posted to them individually about their pension.

Of course no one likes having to work longer. When I was born and growing up the pension age for women was 60. I won’t receive a state pension until I’m 67. But I understand why. I’ve taken responsibility for my finances. I certainly don’t think people should be financially compensated for ignoring what was widely publicised.

The sexism in society was terrible I agree. It wasn’t much better when I was a young adult, though by the time I needed a mortgage I could get it in my name. I was a teacher so the pension was compulsory but most other workplaces didn’t really bother.
It’s a different issue from the state pension though.

But at 15 we did have mini skirts and Mary Quant and Vidal Sassoon, and I think we had a lot more fun than young women seem to now!

People weren’t told two years before retirement they had to work another 6 were they? There was a change to 65 which had a long notice period that everyone should have been aware of and then a short notice change of 2 more years (which I was also aware of, though I’m younger than those affected). As I say, I have sympathy, nobody wants to work longer, but it was a short extension.

You are missing quite a major point. The woman born in 1953 would in all probability have started work at 15. That was school leaving age, and only around 10% of people went to university (and fewer than half of that 10% were women). So their working life would be 50 years to get their state pension at 65.
Now that a majority of people go to university they don't start full time working till at least 21 so their working life to get their pension at 67 is actually only 46 years. But why let facts get in the way of a good story?