To be fed up with the WASPIs' renewed campaign?

I was born in late 1954, and it did seem unfair that what was basically our contract with the government, to pay into the system x years and retire at age 60 was suddenly changed to 66. If I’d known I had an extra 6 years to work, earlier, I’d have done things differently in my life. I’d have stayed away from my second husband for a start as he wanted me to cut back for what was going to be my last couple of years, so I thought it didn’t matter as I was going to be retired anyway. By the time I found out, it was too late to reverse. Shame I never kept up with the news and stuff. I don’t know how much notice people had but it seemed very sudden to me when I did find out.
I accept the government did need to up the ages, but only thought about it after it happened , that it wasn’t unreasonable and a 2 years more would have seemed fairer. Ease the transition, not whack on 6 yrs at once.

I have limited knowledge of what the campaign did. I thought they lost because the judges decided it wasn’t related to NI, which , in my opinion is not true. The pension , even when I did get it is directly dependent on how many full years of NI you paid. I don’t get the full pension because I worked for my first husband and while he put wages for me through the books, I didn’t get paid…it was just to reduce his tax liability, it turned out, and he didn’t pay my stamp. I found out many years later. The govt doesn’t seem to have counted my Child Benefit years either, though I didn’t claim that for the first few years, or Maternity allowances as they were because I didn’t like the idea of taking benefits I didn’t need. I only started to claim when my eldest was at school, the second was 3 and our trawler sank, cutting off our income. Funny how you need to draw benefits to claim other money later. You’d think they’d appreciate you trying to be independent of handouts. Anyway, I understand why they didn’t like the result if it was for the reason I heard. But I think they’re wasting their time if they are going again. Judges will back the govt

Yes plus often company policies dictated that women had to leave the workplace on marriage or pregnancy so their opportunities for earning in their lifetime (and paying into another pension scheme) were limited in that way too.

In the fifties and sixties many women did not work outside the home,it was assumed, things being what they were in those days, that their husbands pension contributions to a state pension would cover their needs as they got older.

Many of those that were working, did not see their work as a career, but as pin money or handy additional family income, even women working in professional jobs like teaching, and I met a few, didn’t see their jobs as separate from their husbands income. To this end most married working women paid what was called the married womens stamp, which was a reduced form of national insurance and didn’t give equal pension rights, which was at the time understood and accepted as a reasonable, not realising that it left women in a very vulnerable position if they were divorced or widowed.

Unfortunately until the late sixties and seventies women didn’t push for equal pay, didn’t push for maternity rights, didn’t push for equal pension contributions in their own right as standard. (Thank heavens we woke up!) Add to the mix the women who did work , did pay full NI and had access to a workplace pension, but also took time out of the workplace for maternity and child care often for several years, whose pension contributions were greatly reduced as although they received credit for missing NI contributions, missed out on other pension benefits, ie employers contribution, and reduced years of contribution, the result of which were far reaching and not always explained so that they could be rectified.

The whole WASPI situation is imo the culmination of years of women being sold down the river when it comes to financial independence and fairness in the job market . Low pay, unequal pay, no job security re maternity rights, maternity pay and the right to return to work after maternity leave, the huge hole in many womens employment record for time taken off for child rearing, poor access to private or workplace pensions etc etc etc. The changes in retirement age were really the last straw. I think it is interesting that many of the comments on this thread talk about how the changes in retirement age are making the situation “ fairer for men”, without acknowledging that a) they don’t actually make it fairer for men since their situation hasn’t changed much, and b) womens working situation has not only been institutionally and deliberately unfair for the last 70 + years, IT STILL BLOODY IS . Womens earning capacity continually falls below that of men, women in are still unrepresented in higher managerial and corporate roles, despite legislation women of child bearing age still face both overt and covert discrimination in job applications , assumptions are made about womens role in dealing with unexpected child care issues and are often seen as the default parent to take responsibility and all the other ways that we still face discrimination in the workplace.

That’s the issue, women want equality but only when it suits them! Women have campaigned for decades for equal pay for equal work! But when something is changed and it doesn’t suit them
suddenly their victims! When the challenge was made on the different retirement ages, everyone knew it would only go one way!

What you get reflects the payments you’ve made. Those payments funded pensions at the time you paid. It’s important that people understand that they’ve not built up some fund that they’re entitled to, as though it were a private pension fund.

apart from the fact these woman weren’t on equal wages or equal pension rights, so earns less, then should have to pay more for a private pension than their counterparts males / when they didn’t know the goal posts were going to change

yes of course eventually they’d have known - but putting money into a pension during your 20s is very different from putting money into a pension in your 50s

I think the grievance is that some women were given short notice and were unable to make up the loss of pension in the timescales.
Personally I think it would have been great from men to have retired at 60 as well. Not make women retire later. But obviously that sort of dream is too nice for people so never even an attempt for that to be possible would have been made.
The state pension is something you do work towards despite people saying you pay for your parents etc. You can ask for a quote to see how much you are likely to get. You are encouraged to pay to buy more years. It was always sold to people as something they pay into. For their pension.
You cannot change that message now much as some may try.
The state pension is a thing that has not always existed. Before it did begin people starved. Literally. It would be an indecent society that got rid of it.

Agreed. Most of these people profited hugely from soaring house prices.

The reality was when there was a challenge on the different retirement ages for men and women, it may not have meant the retirement age for men going down. The reality was it went the wrong way. However, women have been fighting for equal rights for years until it wasn’t in their favour! We cant have it both ways, we either want equality or we don’t, we can’t cherry pick the bits we want!

I'm in that age group and I knew, accepted it and got on with my life.

If your mum was born in 1948 she got her pension at 60 so she didn’t need to change anything. The changes didn’t affect her.

Indeed. My older SIL aligns with this. She is 14 years older than me.
My take is that she actually stopped working before 60, paid the extra years of NI and then took a post 2016 pension based on the new state pension rate.
I can't figure how she has missed out. I will get state pension at 67 if I live long enough and thank God I'm in a Lucky position to likely to be able to retire at 63 ish. I think the campaign is on a hiding to nothing to be honest

It actually blows my mind that 1 average wage could buy a fairly nice 3 bedroom house in an average area, and sustain a 2 child family without being utterly skint 24/7

I don’t have a particular case. It’s factually true that many women were paid less than men for similar work before the Equal Pay Act which logically wouldn’t have been needed if that were not the case.

Please show me where I’ve stamped my feet or expected compensation for anything. I’ll wait.

They are so so selfish. I would like to see them protest on behalf of young people who have been saddled with the debt created by their generation, saddled with crazy student debts and who have no hope of getting a mortgage, due to no fault of their own.

How is this meant to garner sympathy for your cause?

I'm actually in the age group that expected to retire at 60 (just)

I do not agree with WASPI aims at all. It was always unfair that women retired 5 years younger than men. Its obvious that as life expectancy goes up so should the state retirement age.

The country simply cannot afford for people to get a state pension pension at 65, and its not fair to expect the young people of today, many of whom cannot afford to buy their own house and are putting off having children, to pay for the early retirement of their parents generation.

My state retirement age is now 67, I'm a bit miffed, but I can see that this is fairer.

I can also see that I was in a privileged position of growing up in a time when plenty of good council housing existed, it was possible to live on one wage when my children were small, and when I went back to work I was able to contribute to a decent works pension.

I only wish these things were possible for all of my children's generation, not just a lucky few.

You should be more concerned about young people being skint. It is your fight because they are paying your pension. It isn’t a separate pot of money, set aside that you paid in to, it is the longest running, biggest Ponzi scheme which is starting to fail.

And when those young people do fight, they are accused of being lazy and entitled so they can’t win.

Maybe you don’t have children or grandchildren so think you have no skin in the game, but when the economy fails, and young people are out of work or underpaid, it is as much your problem as it is theirs.

Quite agree. Often women were working part time and now expect to have a full pension.

Of course they knew, there's absolutely no way it got past anyone. It was everywhere and people were informed personally.

have you read my post?

Nobody stole anything from you and having to work til 65 sounds pretty fucking good to me and those younger than me (which is most of the working population).

I remember those. It was at the very time I was buying a house, and started my pension. The 1995 act was all about more regulation. If people felt it was better to trust a government they didn’t know in 20 years time, than a regulated financial company, that’s a wild take.

This.

Well, my generation had this with the introduction of student loans, taking education from free to us leaving with thousands of pounds of debt at the start of our working lives. Money that previous generations could have put into a house deposit or similar.

I await my compensation.