News on 1950s women’s Pension

[Immaculatemisconception]

Women's state pension: Compensation closer for Waspi campaigners www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57900320

[quote korawick12345]@Moooooooooooooooooo
Given that elderly prima gravida was coined in the late 50s to refer to first time mothers over 35, you are definitely speaking complete bollocks[/quote]
You have no fucking idea what was written on my medical records. You’re showing yourself up here. I was 20 turning 21. How else would I know that terminology. Fucking know all knows nothing

[quote tealappeal]@Cariieblue Most people born in the 1950s (who this pension change affects) don't fall into the over 65's category. The referendum was in 2016. So only those born in 1950 and part of 51 fell into this category.[/quote]
@carrieblue - did you see my last post?

@Viviennemary

Elderlh prima gravida at 21. Absolute nonsense.

Oh do FOTTOSOFTFOSM

@CarrieBlue

I left school at 15 with no qualifications but I defnitely was never in the brexit camp. I don't know anyone round my age who was in the brexit camp. The people I know who did support brexit were in their 40s/50s.

And yet the national data says otherwise.

You seriously think I don't know how I voted. I might be old but I'm not bloody senile.

@korawick12345

None of this is remotely relevant though!

Of course not because too many are contradicting you.

I was 21. I WAS CLASSED AS AN ELDERLY PRIMA GRAVIDA. Just because it dodsn’t suit your narrative doesn’t mean it’s not true.

@Moooooooooooooooooo nothing to do with my narrative. Just what you are saying is nonsensical! But knock yourself out. It’s still not relevant to the waspi case in any way shape or form.

No way was anyone an elderly prima gravitate at 21, spouting such nonsense just undermines your argument.

I was born in the 60s and initially expected to retire at 60. Then they equalised the pension ages and it became 65. Now I will get my state pension at 67. It sucks, but not as much as for my younger colleagues whose pension age is 70.

I don't know why some women think it is unfair they don't get their pension at 60 but seem perfectly happy that their daughters won't get it until they are 70. Solidarity works both ways.

@Nat6999

It wasn't until 1988 that married women were allowed their own tax records, until then their tax information was attached to their husband's record & he had to complete the tax returns.

You didn't have to accept the tax allowance when you married. My husband was high earning so it wasn't an advantage to us to have the married man's tax allowance as it pushed him into high tax rate. So I did have my own tax record not linked to his. You actually had to apply for the married man's tax allowance, no one hunted you down when you got married.

Obviously lots of people did apply as it was a financial advantage to them as a couple.

@IvorHughJarrs

I struggle to get on board with this one to be honest. I am one of the women whose pension age changed and have schoolfriends who are actively campaigning for this but I have never had a decent explanation from them how they claim we didn't know as we all did! It was widely publicised on tv and in newspapers for some time before it took place and was widely discussed among our friends I'm intrigued also to know why this is always referred to as being for women born in the 1950s. Half of my school year were born in 1959 and half in 1960 so it is not just 1950s affected. To those women claiming we had it so hard, yes, life was different and we did undoubtedly face difficulties but, on the whole, I think the young now have it far harder. Our generation is, on the whole, far more comfortably off than most of the younger generations can expect to be

Completely agree with this. I was born 1959 so can't get my state pension until 67. But I have had my own bank account since I started work at 17, have paid into workplace pensions since my early 20s and was completely aware of the pension changes.

I don't see how all these women can't have known it was literally common knowledge.

[quote korawick12345]@Moooooooooooooooooo nothing to do with my narrative. Just what you are saying is nonsensical! But knock yourself out. It’s still not relevant to the waspi case in any way shape or form.[/quote]
And yet you still insisted on commenting

@HeadNorth

No way was anyone an elderly prima gravitate at 21, spouting such nonsense just undermines your argument.

I was born in the 60s and initially expected to retire at 60. Then they equalised the pension ages and it became 65. Now I will get my state pension at 67. It sucks, but not as much as for my younger colleagues whose pension age is 70.

I don't know why some women think it is unfair they don't get their pension at 60 but seem perfectly happy that their daughters won't get it until they are 70. Solidarity works both ways.

What argument? I made a statement about a label I most certainly WAS given.

Your inability to comprehend what was written is nonsense

I am one who has been affected by the change in the pension age for women born in the 1960’s.

I received a letter when the pensionable age was increased from 60 to 63. I did not receive any further notification when it jumped to 66. The whole process was carried out far too rapidly.

Having to work an additional 6 years when it is not anticipated is difficult both mentally and physically.

I has caused a great deal of hardship to many women.

Some of these women are barely getting by we should be supporting them, not blaming them.
The fact is the state

Gah,
State pension age is shit for those of us yet to retire & the state pension really should be based on a basic cost of living - to get this we need to pay in more & the money needs ring fencing rather than dipped into.
But this is a different argument.

As far as she’s concerned it’s outrageous that the government can just refuse to pay her the money she was always promised.

How HORRIFYING!

Retiring at 60 was never a ‘promise’. Benefits can be changed at any time.

Does your mother think that everyone who was ‘promised’ that they could retire at 60 (ie when they were born) should be able to do so, irrespective of longer lifespans and vast cost?

Where does she think the money should come from? Let me guess: “make Amazon pay more tax”. Anyone except her, eh?

I don't know why some women think it is unfair they don't get their pension at 60 but seem perfectly happy that their daughters won't get it until they are 70. Solidarity works both ways.

Absolutely right. This isn’t a feminist cause, because it doesn’t benefit most women and actually disadvantages the younger women who would have to meet the cost.

Luckily, the chances of the WASPI women being compensated are so slim as to be negligible.

Since this thread seems to be rife with generalisations, I’ll join in by imagining that the anti-WASPI campaigners on here are probably the same posters who think that it’s fine for over 60s to die of Covid (or anything else) because they’ve “had their lives”.

I’ll join in by imagining that the anti-WASPI campaigners on here are probably the same posters who think that it’s fine for over 60s to die of Covid (or anything else) because they’ve “had their lives”.
Definitely not, that is vile if anyone thinks that

the state pension really should be based on a basic cost of living - to get this we need to pay in more & the money needs ring fencing rather than dipped into.

Would you, personally, be happy to pay another £2k per year in tax and NI to ensure a better pension for everybody?

What do you mean by ‘ring fencing’? NI is already ring fenced. Who do you think is ‘dipping into’ it, and for what purpose?

@MrsFezziwig

Since this thread seems to be rife with generalisations, I’ll join in by imagining that the anti-WASPI campaigners on here are probably the same posters who think that it’s fine for over 60s to die of Covid (or anything else) because they’ve “had their lives”.

Oh dear. That was just an excuse to be spiteful about anyone who doesn’t agree with you, wasn’t it?

ancientgran I'm not talking about the married man's allowance, I mean you actual tax file held by HMRC, the husband held responsibility for his wife's tax record, if a married woman had anything that triggered a tax return the return was sent to her husband & he had to fill it in. A married woman's tax records were attached to her husband's just like if he had a second job. The Independent taxation rules came in 1988, before then a married man knew by law exactly how much his wife earned because all income tax communications came to him, women had no right to be dealt with separately.

What a complete bunch of bitches you all are to the boomer generation, who are probably your own mothers. Things are different for each generation and do you not think you'll benefit through inheritance from the property they were able to buy, albeit at massive interest rates.

She must have lived in the future then. The Sex Doscrimination Act in 1975 was a landmark. It allowed women to have their own bank accounts and to get a credit card

Pmsl at thinking after this act we were all paid exactly the same as men.

And we weren’t allowed a credit card till 1980.
I was still being paid less than the YTS boy in the mid 80s because as my male manager said “He will have a family to look after one day”

Iamthewombat

MrsFezziwig
Since this thread seems to be rife with generalisations, I’ll join in by imagining that the anti-WASPI campaigners on here are probably the same posters who think that it’s fine for over 60s to die of Covid (or anything else) because they’ve “had their lives”.
Oh dear. That was just an excuse to be spiteful about anyone who doesn’t agree with you, wasn’t it?

Well since you don’t actually know what my opinion is on the subject, I’m not sure how you’ve come to that conclusion.

And university might have been free but very few people went and a lot of people who could have gone couldn’t afford it.
Definitely in the minority if you were a working class girl. You were expected to get a job and start helping out with the family finances whilst you waved off your brother