To be fed up with the WASPIs' renewed campaign?

That's good, so the poster worrying about last minute changes can relax.

If only the same rationale was applied to the uplift on the two child benefit cap.

The state pension isn't a reward for working- it is a state benefit to ensure all older people have a basic level of income. Want more or to retire earlier than the state thinks is affordable - make your own arrangements.

Ten years notice is statuary now precisely so nobody working now can be screwed over like 1953/54 women were.

Hopefully they have learned something and will give you reasonable notice, surely they can plan ahead so maybe ten years notice?

As a Waspi woman who is NOT part of any campaign, as I know there are too few women for it to make a difference re votes, I thought I would add a few comments.
There have been several changes to the state pension age.
The first in 1995, when the state pension age for women was made equal to that of men, so gradually over a number of years the state pension age for women was moved from 60 to 65.
Then in 2007, a change was made to move the state pension age (for both men and women), first to 66 and then to 67, but the change was very gradual.
Then in 2011, the October budget speeded up this change.
In my case, this change in 2011 gave me just 5 years notice of my state pension age being put back another year, and my S-i-Law, only 6 months younger than me, was put back 2 years.
It is this latest change that only gave some women 5 years notice, or in the case of my S-i-Law, 5 and half years notice, that is the problem (if it can be described as a problem).
When it came to MPs changes, it was decided that 5 years was not enough notice.
Also it should be noted that the State Pension is 'means tested' in that it is subject to income tax. Currently, the state pension is less than the personal allowance and there is no facility of deducting tax from it, so if you have a private pension from other employers, the tax code is adjusted to take the state pension into account.
Here it should be noted that as the personal allowance has been frozen, the state pension is going to rise above the personal allowance, but my understanding is that if you ONLY have the state pension, it will not be taxed (thus creating an anomoly), but presumably because it would be too difficult (not enough time) to start deducting tax on the state pension itself.
Personal pensions were introduced in 1988, I believe, and before that there was no such thing, and instead, the pension was just a company pension.
Since then there have been other changes to auto enrolment for example.
I have not campaigned because I know it won't make a difference. The country is more or less bankrupt, and they cannot afford to make up any 'losses', for too few votes.

The rules can be changed - its how it is done to not disadvantage those that are older.

I'm not in the same boat as although I have to now work another 7 years, as I was due to retire at 60 when I started work and it was changed 3 times - I have at least had the time to change, the equality laws on my side and other factors that have helped me plan for when I reach 60

The governments could have increased less for this older and born in the 1950s and allowed them to retire early as they didn't have the chance to make further plans - especially considering the wasp woman would cost at most £10 bn ( that would be if they all were compensated)and there is a £74bn surplus. They could have spent £3bn extra and made life a lot fairer for many of the 3 million woman affected.

Its not an all or nothing situation, its a situation that could have been more gradual

That's disgusting. Yet anyone who has worked for the majority of their lives have to pay to top up their allowance.

Oh give over. The rest of us are having to work an extra seven years too, and we have also all paid in our entire working lives. I’ve no interest in paying even more tax to give a small minority of people compensation for having to do something that everyone else also has to do.

It's a moot point really, because people who have never worked (and who don't therefore qualify for the State Pension), do receive Pension Credit which is only £3 a week less than the SP. I hate to use the phrase again, but, PISS TAKE.

I still think 67 is too old. My Mum died at 73, DH's Mum died at 61. I know loads of people who died in their early 70's. Working 50+ years, to only receive a pension for 6 years does feel like a piss take.

How did she get a full state pension if she never worked? She would only have some NI contributions if she received Child Benefit but even if she did have some NI contributions due to receiving child benefit, she still wouldn't have enough contributions to receive a full state pension.

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. I have known for many years that I wouldn’t get my pension at 60 and have planned on that basis. Since 1995 we have known that it wouldn’t be 60, not since 2010. The change from 60 was announced in 1995.

A small number of women were very disadvantaged by the more recent changes, but most of us have had adequate time to plan.

Exactly! Changes take place constantly in society for economic reasons. Subsidised childcare came in after I’d had years of paying full nursery fees (equivalent to my take home pay.) It would be ridiculous for me to expect a refund or ‘compensation.’ And I’d been one of the women campaigning for childcare to be at least tax deductible or ideally to get a few hours a week subsidy.

In a forward looking society people don’t always expect to personally benefit from change - they support change for the benefit of future generations. It’s the self-serving attitude of the WASPI women which many of us find so unpleasant.

nothing to do with hating women or being suckered in by the patriarchy - I’ve noticed these accusations always seem to be used in place of an intelligent argument. I worked for years during the time when my pensionable age was 60. It’s now 67. Of course on a selfish level it would be nice if it was 60 - but on a societal level I’ve got the common sense to see that it be economically disastrous.

But surely everyone is in the same boat? We all now are practically working to 67. That is what I don’t understand. Yes the rules changed and you have to work longer but basically you are saying that the rules can never changed because someone will be the person affected the most. how can you avoid changing a rule and someone being born the day after the change?

NI rates have fluctuated over time which means some people ended up pay thousands of pounds more than they would have done.

tax thresholds haven’t moved with inflation so lots of people are now paying 40% tax when years before their inflation adjusted salary wouldn’t have been caught.

students now have to take on £30k of debt when a generation before got it all for free.

frustrating, annoying, unfair. All this things. But I don’t know how a government can change a rule without someone being affected negatively.

There's something unsightly in seeing a woman bring down other women. Bless you OP for feeling fed up. I'd say Waspis are "fed up" with women like you doing men's thinking for them.

I don't think this is just about them being aware or unaware though. It's more about getting the rug pulled out from under you, when you had been working and paying your NI in good faith.

In April 2010 is when the transition began. Before this date, women could still retire at 60.

I was born in 1969. I started work in 1986. So for the first 24 years of my working life, I was paying NI, assuming I would get my pension at 60. Turns out I'll only get it at 67. So I have to work 7 years longer, and I'll receive £84k less. That feels like a piss take. And I'm not even old enough to be a Waspi woman!!

Funny how no one was ever given the option to not pay the element of NI that goes towards pensions. It's just been a case of the Government saying "Yes, we changed to goal posts, but we did tell you, so that makes it all ok". No, it's not okay! No where else in life would this be acceptable. "Yeah, I spat in your dinner, but I told you, so it's fine!"

As of 31 March 2025, the Great Britain National Insurance Fund (NIF) held a
balance of £79.3 billion. While this fund is legally separate from the government's general tax revenue, it is not ring-fenced, as the Treasury can use any surplus to cover general government expenditure, and surpluses are often used to reduce national debt. 1, 2, 3]
Key Details About the National Insurance Fund (NIF):
Fund Status (2025/26): The balance of £79.3 billion in March 2025 was above the required minimum, and the NIF is projected to increase further in the 2025-26 financial year.
Purpose: The NIF is primarily used to pay for contributory benefits, with the state pension being the largest expenditure, accounting for roughly 95% of payments in recent years.
Not a "Pension Pot": National Insurance (NI) works on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, meaning current contributions pay for today's pensioners, rather than being saved in a personal pot for the individual contributor.

Is it Ring-fenced? While legally separate, the NIF is not ring-fenced for pensions alone. It is technically a separate account from the main Consolidated Fund, but in practice, the government uses the fund to manage social security payments.

The consolidation fund does run at zero

taken from AI hopefully answers your question about NI and how they calculate a surplus.

And your comments totally miss the point that I was responding to a question about the EA and saying that it was not the case that the day after it came in there could be a reset that put women on the same footing as men.

Years of inequality between the sexes had already taken from them financially, and making differential pay illegal couldn't reverse that. It is a double whammy for women who were held back from acquiring better pensions to be told by other women that 'you wanted equality, so stop moaning now you've got it'. It is future generations who have had the full benefited from equal pay.

Many 50s born women fought for equality that their daughters take for granted, and many are fully aware of the hardships for Millennials and GenZ woman, as they see it first hand in their families.

And please don't misrepresent my words. I didn't mention happy or unhappy marriage - I said that the EA didn't change the infrastructure or domestic culture, and that women who have low pensions because they paid a lower 'stamp' were told they would benefit by paying the extra into their husband's SERPs, but lost out if they were no longer married in retirement.

Your thought process has certainly been shaped by the patriarchy, whilst you're entitled you your opinion others are also entitled to theirs and if they want to call ut unfairness then they can.

They’re not guidelines, it’s a legal obligation. Which is a tacit admission that the 2011 changes fucked women over.

I thought NI paid ‘notionally’ towards the NHS though (I know ot all just goes into a big pot). No one ever said that NI contributions only go to pensions so can’t work out how there would ever be a surplus.

I wish they would focus on the cohort from 1953 and 1954, that would be the most realistic chance of getting any compensation at all I think. Because these women genuinely have cause to complain.

Complaining about the 1995 changes is just ridiculous and makes them look very unsympathetic to the younger generation.

The guidelines are that you should get at least ten years of notice of your pension age changing, @BiteSizedLife (forgot to quote)

This is quite good background reading

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06546/

Maybe, but you were saying that 15 years should be used to decide what the state pension age should be.

I would also be very surprised if actuaries were using a long term fixed figure rather than basing it on mortality rate statistics.