To be fed up with the WASPIs' renewed campaign?

Of course they knew. Most are just claiming they didn't to try to force compensation. They know they can't argue against the principle of equal retirement age for men and women, so all they can do is claim they didn't know they were going to be affected. But in reality, the changes were literally everywhere - on TV, in newspapers and magazines, leaflets in GP surgeries/hospitals/dentist waiting rooms, leaflets in yearly correspondence such as tax code letters and benefit letters etc. Yes, maybe "some" weren't specifically told of the detail as to how it affected them, i.e. personal letters, but the general information was really well out there, and not just one-offs either, it was publicised for years. If anyone genuinely didn't know things were changing, they were living under a rock (or maybe living abroad).

I am just a few months too young to be included in the WASPI campaign, although still affected nearly as badly.
I knew about the 1995 changes and that I wouldn’t get my pension until age 65. It was many years away.
I do believe that some people genuinely didn’t know of the change. I managed to miss an important part of the 2016 changes, which will affect the amount I receive.
It is what it is. I consider it my fault that I didn’t make reasonable enquiries, and I don’t think the WASPI women should receive a payment because they didn’t either.

The story of the WASPI women should be the example story for anyone, anywhere planning on relying on state money long term. All money coming from the state is at the whim of political (and economic) forces.

There are a few cases of WASPI women that need to be looked at more closely but it’s not something that affects them all.

👆👆 this.

5 years notice of a change is not much notice... even with access to (and contributing to...) private pensions, workplace pensions over the majority of working life- if would still be pause for thought and rejig of finances may be needed. I do have some sympathy....

But...

What it should show is that people need to plan for their own retirement- and take control of this. Not rely on the state to do this- as rules will change. And those who are in work and paying taxes and often are the ones making the decisions, can make these decisions to prioritise other people in society (eg young families). I wouldn't be surprised if those moving into power now, will flip things around so students and young families will be better off - to the detriment of the older generation. It won't happen in the next 5-10 years- but maybe in the next 20-30 years.

I say this as there was definitely more sympathy for older people before- suffered through wars etc etc the new people moving into this category are generally wealthier and have benefitted hugely from better economic times.

There will be a change. So, if you are 30ish, I'd be banking on that change and arrange long term finances accordingly.

@odddsoxs
Nobody “stole” anything from you.
There wasn’t a pot with your name on which a civil servant dutifully put your contribution into.
Your generation have had advantages that young people today will never have - free university, affordable housing, plentiful social housing, the ability to bring up a family on one salary, the best years of the NHS - to name a few.
The change in pension age was hugely advertised and surely as responsible women you (coll) should have been keeping an eye on your own future and retirement plans.
Pension is a benefit. It’s the biggest chunk of welfare payments by a country mile. UC payments -63 billion. Pensions -134 billion.
So young people are working harder for less to ensure that pensions are paid to a huge cohort of people who have a better life expectancy than the generations that come after them. Yes - you (coll) are the first generation who leave your children a shorter life expectancy .
And it’s still not enough!
Stop being so greedy! We can’t afford it!!
We need to invest in defence, not give billions of £££ to women who should have planned better.

You didn’t pay into your state pension, you paid the pension of existing pensioners at the time. there is no state pension pot. It doesn’t work like that. That’s why there is a demographic timebomb on the way that will dwarf your perceived injustice.

There was no contract though. If there was a contract, they would legally be entitled to compension. As this isn't the case, they aren't. The retirement age can change a number of times throughout someone's working life.

Stolen 😂

It’s embarrassing. Look at our poor kids - student loans expensive houses low wages few jobs and the older generation want even more from the pot?! Astonishing.

As the cohort of women who are considered to be Waspi women are women born between April 6, 1950, and April 5, 1960, they are all now in receipt of their State Pensions.

I am in this group and knew about the changes to the state pension age for years before my retirement age. This demographic is probably one of the luckiest generation of women who didn't go through the privations of war/rationing, many of whom benefitted from free higher education, house prices that people could afford on one income and, for some people, huge increases in the value of their houses.

Many Waspi women are very comfortably off and certainly don't need any compensation. A small payment to all women in this demographic would mean that it would be paid to those who don't need it and it wouldn't be enough to compensate the small sub-section of women who did really suffer financially due to not knowing about the changes.

Agree its idiotic. NI is a tax. It's not a savings scheme.

This. Think of someone age 90 - they’ve been drawing a state pension for 25 years!

@likelysuspect You are not “paying in”! It’s NOT a personal fund. Your tax has paid for other people every year you paid your taxes. NI is a TAX, it’s not your pension pot. Therefore there’s no contract with you. You have paid tax for longer, that’s all.

Agree.

My MIL is Waspi age. She says she ‘worked all her life and paid her stamp’. What this looked like was working until she was 25, then taking 10 years off to have children, then returning part time (3 days) until 60 when she stopped working.

So she’s worked about 1/3 of a full working life. All the women I know of her age have done roughy similar, aside from single mums who couldn’t rely on a husbands salary.

They’re taking the absolute piss

Same. I remember as a child being aware my aunty would have to work 5 years longer than her older sister, my mum. No excuse not to be aware. No sympathy.

I just wish people would stop saying I paid into my pot, as there isn’t such a thing. My NI at the moments pays for the pensioners at this present time. It doesn’t go into a magical pot with my name on.

It’s a future entitlement (hopefully) but not guaranteed. I’m fully expecting the age of retirement to have gone up, life expectancy to have come down and be in a worse position.

Looking at my mum and her friends, many of them spent a lot of their working life as sahm, they received child benefit to pay their "stamp". They brought up children at a time when one income could sustain a family.
Add this context to the fact that they were just definitely informed and I can't see his v they think they are owed anything. A state pension isn't a savings pot, no one has stolen from them.

State pension age for women was 60 when I started work. Then raised to 65 (quite rightly, to equalise with men.) Since then it’s been raised for everyone - I won’t be eligible until 67, seven years later than the eligible age when I joined the workplace.

But I keep myself informed (and let’s face it, it was impossible to ignore the wide publicising and the notifications about it) and have kept working.

the WASPI women are ridiculous. What an embarrassment to use your own alleged ignorance to try to claim you should be compensated. They are pretty much saying ‘I ignored all the notifications on tv, radio, in the newspapers, i didn’t bother opening/reading the letters personally addressed to me, I basically stuck my fingers in my ears la la la - and now I want to be compensated for doing that!’

You paid it. You will get it, a year sooner than I will and probably a lot sooner than young people today will.

With life expectancy now so extended, it just isn't fair or reasonable to expect a government pension from 60.

I'm a WASPI and I was well aware of the changes to the state pension age many years in advance so I was able to plan for the later retirement date.

I have friends a few years older who retired at 60 but they receive the old state pension whereas I receive the new one. My pension is significantly more than theirs and we calculated that after approx 15 years of retirement that additional pension will have made up for the later retirement age.

What?

I do genuinely see why they're upset & in theory, I believe they're right. But I just can't muster up any motivation to actively support them. I don't want to work till I'm 67 either & I never thought I'd have to. But here we are, fair enough, no prospect of the age being reduced now so we're all swallowing this bitter pill together. It's dismal.

i agree with this.

there is absolutely no excuse for ‘not knowing’ - the changes were widely advertised, those affected were specifically informed too. If these women didn’t bother opening or reading letters addressed to them about the state pension, if they ignored all the announcements and mortifications about it then that’s on them. It was virtually impossible to ignore the fact that the pension age was rising.

When I started work, the state pension age for women was 60. It was later changed (quite rightly, to be equitable with men) to 65. Further legislation (absolutely necessary for affordability) means that I now won’t get a state pension until I’m 67. So guess what? I’ve continued working full time, I manage my finances and don’t moan about it because I understand the reasons behind the reforms and I’ve kept myself informed.

The WASPI women are an embarrassment. The claim to ‘not know’ information that was widely announced is ludicrous. I suspect the reality is that they just didn’t want to carry on working, or had spent years working part time so hadn’t made decent provision themselves.

State pension reforms have affected everyone …. men who would have always expected to retire at 65 (unfair in the first place that they were expected to wait five years longer than women!) are now having to wait until 66,67,68…..

These women need to shut up now, they aren’t going to get anywhere with this latest outcry anyway and it’s now very transparently just an excuse for not having bothered to keep themselves informed and take personal responsibility

That depends when you started work doesnt it?

I started work and started paying stamp prior to the changes. So my expectation was that I would retire at 60, my contract changed with the government at that point

If you started working and paying your stamp after the changes, fine, you're not working an 'extra' 7 years because your contract was that you would retire at 67 (or whatever).

The changes shouldnt have been retrospective to those of us who were already paying in

Yep. They can sod off.