To be fed up with the WASPIs' renewed campaign?

...being made to work an extra seven years into the bargain...

What did you expect to happen when we campaigned for equality in all things? Especially when state pensions already form such a large part.of the benefits bill.

As it is, we will (on average) still get more pensioned years than men.

But there would have to be equal treatment of all affected women. Any money couldn’t go only to those saying they didn’t know about the changes, so there is no advantage to saying that, is there?

I believe so.

It’s only from 2027/2028 that pensioners on the basic or new State pension won’t have to pay tax if that’s their only income, so SERPS / S2P is additional to that.

Goodness knows how it will work in practice, though, as I don’t think the government have published details. I’ll be interested to know how it will work if someone has the new State pension plus tiny extra pension - so would have to pay tax - but the tax due is more than the extra pension.

I'm 1953 born. I had paid maternity leave with two of my children I had an equal work place pension when working in the 70s. Started a full-time job in 1979 and again had the same pension entitlement as male colleagues, I'm getting that pension now.

I did have unequal pay in the lhe late 60s early 70s but I worked till 2023 so a small part of my working life although annoying at the time.

Do you know what happens if your SERPS or S2P takes you over the personal allowance, is that taxed. I've never thought of it before.

This

Pensioners with some income on top of their SP, bringing their income above the threshold, pay tax the same as everyone else.

I know. My pension payslips tell me that. I was simply pointing out that the state pension is not currently subject to income tax.

Unless you think there should be no tax threshold for pensioners (why?) this simply tells you the State Pension is currently so small that it falls below the personal allowance - well into relative poverty level.

Pensioners with some income on top of their SP, bringing their income above the threshold, pay tax the same as everyone else. Many seem to think State Pension's tax exempt. It isn't.

As @Lollygaggle's just said and you already knew, fiscal drag will put a bigger tax burden on the least well-off, including pensioners.

That’s why I said yet.

But as tax thresholds have been frozen until 2031 in the next year or so they will come into basic tax bracket , particularly with the triple lock guarantees.

It isn’t subject to income tax (yet). It counts as income against your personal allowance. Nobody living on just the state pension pays income tax.

Of course it's a free money bandwagon. May as well pretend you're hard done by, you might get a payout on the back of it.

Correct. And the State Pension is subject to income tax.

So many 'experts' here with strong opinions on weak foundations.

You are looking at the life expectancy figures as at today not at the date the State pension was set up.

I knew about it and was a teenager in 1995! My mum (a WASPI) definitely knew but sadly died before she was near state retirement age.

How do you know what others knew or didn't know?

There is no bandwagon. In the unlikely event that there were a payout it would have to go to all affected women, not just to those saying they didn't know about the changes.

There will be sort of but it won’t be a pension it will just be universal credit. Everything will go into that and you will be assessed accordingly. Those who have private provision will have to cover themselves.

I'm not worrying. At all.

I expect there to be zero state pension in existence before I get anywhere near the age. Whatever I can scrimp and save into my private pension (not much with CoL) will never be enough anyway with the way things are going.

Retirement will be miserable and the majority of us will be fucked 🤷🏼‍♀️

That was kind if my point, allbeit tongue in cheek

Not worrying. No point. It is what it is.

I've worked with people I'd believe didn't know. A small number but yes I can believe some didn't know like the one who told me her dad fought in WWII to keep non white people out of Britain (I've never heard that speech of Churchills) or the one who was puzzled one December when some one mentioned the shortest day and said she'd always thought all days were 24 hours. They do exist

"I’m a couple of years older than you and I couldn’t disagree more. It’s absolutely right that pension ages were equalised between men and women and with greater life expectancy and pension affordability I don’t think the increase is unreasonable."

This is a good point. You could even argue that women's retirement age should be higher on the basis that because of their higher life expectancy, women will receive greater total pension payments than a man even if both pay the exact same ni contributions, for the same number of years etc.

And the ombudsman the Waspis so love to quote said that between 1995 and 2004 the changes were well publicised and there was no issue with the delivery of information.

The vast majority have nothing to complain about. Nor do they deserve "compensation". The idea is laughable.

They did know, they just want to pretend/claim they didn't know to try to get compensation, i.e. jumping on the band wagon. The 1995 changes were so well publicised, it was impossible not to know (unless they were abroad). The changes were everywhere, newspapers, magazines, TV news, TV current affairs shows, leaflets in NHS waiting rooms, leaflets in PAYE code and benefit letters, etc.

I think they mean if women didn't know about the first change until the second change. I'm surprised so many women didn't know I suppose there would always be a few but hard to understand so many

@milveycrohn

Also it should be noted that the State Pension is 'means tested' in that it is subject to income tax.

Being subject to tax isn't "means testing" at all.

@NoGarlic

Many affected women received only 18 months' notice of a six-year increase in their state pension age, unlike men who received six years' notice.

No they didn't. The second change (from pension age 65 to 67) was the one at short notice. The original change from 60 to 65 was enacted in 1995, so everyone had 10-15 years notice of it coming into force.