WASPI Women - getting compensated

Hardly. I’m on the cusp of boomer as it is. I retire at 67 in 2031.
I just don’t see a financial problem with it. No, I wouldn’t have liked it (the sudden change wasn’t 6 years though - it was the change from 65-67) but there wasn’t a financial issue, no planning was needed. Plus it isn’t just that small group they are campaigning about. The review said there might be grounds for a small payment. It’s not changing anyone’s life.

Edit to add: I do have sympathy for the small group who had a more sudden change. I don’t think financial compensation is warranted though.

@Katypp well if they're happy to keep working then why does the lack of notice (were still talking about years not weeks) matter?

That is exactly the opposite of what I was saying.
I don't think many (any?) Posters affected are moaning they have to work longer. They are complaining about the notice they were given of the change.
I find it quite bizarre that some pps are so blinded by spite and indignation they cannot accept that they would be pretty pissed off in the same scenario.
I am not a Waspi. I will retire at 67 and I don't think there should be any compensation. I have no skin in the game at all but I am amazed at the lack of empathy for women who were put in this situation and can't help wondering if they would be so laid back about it if they were given short notice of such a significant change. Of course, they will say they woukd be absolutely fine about it but I doubt it somehow.

I’m middle aged but I notice that the ageism to younger women often gets ignored. Young women are often dismissed as snowflakes or stupid without any challenge from others.

"And the ageism on here is a sure signal of it being chucked in our faces"

People are against waspi women because of their age: it's because the campaign comes across as grabby and entitled and to paraphrase a previous poster " bleating about the unfairness", Despite years of information campaigns from the government press etc and constant complaint that it is a "political choice.". The government have made a political choice and decided it would be generationally unfair for taxpayers to pay compensation and the waspi campaigners have decided to continue to pursue compensation regardless .

they don't though.
And the ageism on here is a sure signal of it being chucked in our faces. All the shitty comments about boomers, parents not giving free childcare etc etc.

I am finding it more and more difficult to empathise with younger women and their problems given the ageism. (and yet i do because i'm not a wanker and i have been there)

Also some of this is just clearly bollocks. I am a geriatric millennial born in 1983 and I had a free nursery place from 1 year of age. My mum didn’t even work then, she was a Sahm but wanted a “break” during the week. She also got family allowance with no restrictions unlike today with child benefit.

This “funded childcare” rubbish always comes up on these threads because this and child benefit are the only benefits left for children and families after everything else has been abolished. There is no more fat left to cut! If you get rid of taxpayer subsidies on childcare millions of working women will simply go “fuck it, I am not slogging my guts out away from my kid to barely break even after childcare, I will just quit until they are in school”. Then you lose millions of taxpayers which will make the country’s finances even more dire and have even fewer people supporting the burgeoning numbers of retirees!

Excuse me, it was the suffragettes that’s won the fight for equality with the right to vote. Everything after that builds on that victory. And those women literally died for that. (I cannot stand this hideous attempt by the boomers to try and appropriate the experiences, hardships and efforts of previous generations, especially given Millenial and younger generations have much more in common with the silent generation than the boomers ever have). Trying to make out that your generation “got us our rights” is errant nonsense. You fought for a further extension of equality for your own benefit. Dont you dare try and claim it was for us. Your generation has consistently shafted younger women time and time again and our rights are being rolled back - look at the restrictions on abortion in the USA and in Europe.

It’s astounding how ignorant a lot of older women are of the reality for younger women. We are still being sacked for being pregnant. Still having our careers derailed by having kids, but now with the expectation that we pay 50/50 for everything including during mat leave, pay through the nose for childcare and yes still being raped in marriage. We now have the added bonus of a culture awash with horrific porn and face being strangled during sex, being coerced into painful anal sex and having nude photos of us spread all over the Internet without our consent. Oh and we have to work the longest hours in Europe for years longer to pay the pensions of a generation of women bleating about the fact their retirement age got pushed back and they claim they didn’t get enough notice. Plus having to deal with an existential climate emergency that your generation has done bugger all to fix.

Wait while I crack out the world’s smallest violin.

"TBH i sometimes wonder how much bleating about how unfair everything is"

Ironic, given the bleating from waspi campaigners....

Young women understand entirely that women were discriminated against in the past.

The WASPI claims aren’t compensation for this discrimination though - that’s not why they’re asking for additional money.

It’s specifically related to the changes in pension age - not as compensation for being fired if you got pregnant, low maternity pay, or being excluded from company pension schemes. Those are separate issues.

How is fighting for equality being chucked in your faces?

"Are you seriously telling me I don’t know my own circumstances"

As a pp said, you have misunderstood the legislation

Pension ages were not changed in 1993 but by the pensions act 1995. They were subsequently changed again in the 2011 act with the first changed introduced by the latter starting in 2016

The attached link shows the changes made to state retirement age by both pieces of legislation

"https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7f02e640f0b62305b84929/spa-timetable.pdf"

"Not knowing their circumstances" is the crux of the waspi campaign after all..

it is astounding how few young women get this.

We did well fighting for equality, and now we are getting it chucked in our faces. TBH i sometimes wonder how much bleating about how unfair everything is if we rolled their rights back?

If you really think I’m misinterpreting please do show the official data that any individual was impacted by the 2011 act earlier than 2016 or by more than 18 months.

Here’s the best graph I can find. From the pension policy institute which incidentally is pro compensation. If you look at the top graph you can clearly see the impact of the 2011 act compared to the 1995 act. The impact of the 2011 act (the dotted line) doesn’t start until 2016, and the impact (the gap between the solid 1995 line and the dotted 2011 line) is never more than 18 months. https://www.pensionspolicyinstitute.org.uk/media/oqijsfwe/201607-bn83-effect-of-rises-in-spa-mitigation.pdf

I haven’t made a mistake. You’re misinterpreting what you’re reading.

I’m saying you have misunderstood. The data is very, very clear that the maximum impact of the 2011 act was 18 months. I’m sorry, but I’m going to believe the official data over your recollection.

Edited to add I’m also not sure why you keep referring to 1993? That was the white paper date but no changes were made until 1995. So if you’ve been relying on 1993 data that might explain your mistake.

It is true. My state pension age rose to 61 in 1993, it increased to 64 in 2011. The 18 months refers to the notice. Are you seriously telling me I don’t know my own circumstances?

I’m sorry, but that’s simply not true. It may have been pushed back from where you expected, but if so that would have been because you hadn’t taken into account the 1995 changes.

I’ve been looking for a graph but can’t find one, but here’s another quote from the parliamentary briefing that confirms the 18 month maximum delay. The 2011 changes didn’t start until 2016, hence the five year notice.

The Pensions Act 1995 provided for the State Pension age (SPA) for women to increase from 60 to 65 over the period April 2010 to 2020. The Coalition Government legislated in the Pensions Act 2011 to accelerate the latter part of this timetable, starting in April 2016 when women’s SPA was 63 so that it reached 65 in November 2018, at which point it started to rise to 66 by October 2020. The Government’s initial intention was that the equalised SPA would then rise to 66 by April 2020 (Cm 7956, Nov 2010, Foreword). However, because of concerns expressed at the short notice of significant increases for some women (as much as two years compared to the timetable in existing legislation) it made a concession when the legislation was in its final stages. This limited the maximum increase under the Act at 18 months, at a cost to the Exchequer of £1.1 bn – see Library Briefing Paper, SN 06082 Pensions Bill 2011 – final stages (Nov 2011).

If you were in your early sixties in 2033 it wouldn't be such a big tragedy though would it? Sure no one wants to work to 65 but it's a straightforward remedy and one that the vast majority of us are now having to take (and then some).

Preaching that it was terrible for some women to have to work to 65 is never going to play well to an audience of women that have to work to 67/68 or possibly longer.

Why would anyone have thought the age would have stayed the same despite the increases in life expectancy? That doesn't make sense. I remember the 1995 change from when I was a child because it was such big news, but even if you somehow missed it, wouldn't the reality of having an ageing population make you consider checking?

But it wasn’t. Mine was pushed back by three years further than the 1993 increase, my friend who is four years younger than me had hers increased by five years.

How could anyone have got five years’ notice in 2011 when they were expecting to claim in 2013?

"The worst affected women were given five years notice of an 18 month delay to their pensions"

"The worst affected women got 18 months notice, it’s right there in your quote"

The quote said 5 years notice.....on top of the years of media campaigns before that

No. The quote is about the increase in pension age. The impact of the 2011 act was to increase the pension age by a maximum of 18 months for any individual.

The worst affected women got 18 months notice, it’s right there in your quote.

"with side helping of 'greedy boomers' thrown in for good measure"

To be fair, the government's main reason for the rejection of any compensation is "fairness to all taxpayers".....