To think the back to 60 campaign is grabby

[Neaoll]

It's been known about for a long time that state pension ages would be equalised.

State pension is just unsustainable, it was never supposed to be something people claim for 20-30 years. Was for people that had a hard time so they didn't starve to death in their last few years. Now it's a top-up to the richest part of society. It should have been linked with life expectancy a long time ago.

I'm in my 40s and dont expect to ever get a state pension. I've been contributing to my private pension ever since I worked to support myself.

And you know what really makes me mad? My husband, who is just TWO months older than me, retires SEVEN months before I do. How is that fair?

‘Grabby’? YABVVU

Bizarre choice of terminology.

Op, we didn't have the option of personal pensions for a lot of my working career. We had 'non-contributory pensions' which, if you worked somewhere for less than 5 years, got you exactly zero pension. It was considered a perk at the time. What a con!

@dottiedodah - the “waspi women” were born at the earliest in 1950. Contraception available in the early 60s should therefore have been available to them.

I think the issue here is that we have a lot of claims of how they had it uniquely hard but in reality there were advantages to being part of that generation (better workplace pension, much lower house prices, much more abundant council housing) which the younger generation of women don’t have. there are also benefits younger women have which older women did not (such as more equal pay and better maternity benefits) but neither can say they are worse off and should have a lower pension age as a result.

The state pension is enormously expensive as is care for older people. We cannot expect the younger generation to pay for something for someone else that they won’t get themselves. The pension age was rightly equalised with decades of notice and I don’t see that the waspi women have any legitimate complaint.

@Jaxhog - a pension that you pay nothing towards would be a pretty sweet deal these days.

It's about the speed of the change and the jump. Seven years! Not graded or with any means testing. Just another disadvantage for woman.

a pension that you pay nothing towards would be a pretty sweet deal these days

A lot of your comments are coming from a place of ignorance

As above, you needed to be in for 5 years or nothing
Not available to part time workers
Scheme Benefit entitlements lower for women

Of course non contributory would be sweet these days but this thread is about what was available historically to women retiring shortly with little notice of the change in retirement age NOT YOU TODAY

There does seem to be a lot of confusion on this thread.

This is a really good webpage about the state pension and how it affects women, and might help to answer some of the questions that have come up: www.savvywoman.co.uk/2015/03/history-of-the-state-pension-10-things-you-need-to-know-about-how-it-affects-women/

@dottiedoodah Women who chose to pay the Married Woman's Stamp (reduced stamp) won't have built up any state pension during those years. I suspect many women were encouraged to pay the reduced stamp without really realising or understanding the consequences it would have.

It's easy to forget just how much the internet has changed things for us. If you were a woman in 1970, working out of the home as well as bringing up your children, without access to the internet, quite probably without access to a car, without today's mod-cons (automatic washing machines, dishwashers, freezers, etc), and likely without a university education (less than 10% of the population went to university), just how easy do you think it would have been to make a truly informed decision?

I totally agree with you OP. It’s not as if it’s a surprise. I was personally impacted however, it was hardly a surprise

@zsazsajuju. I completely agree with you and I am a waspi woman. Some post war women seemed to think someone (aka their husband or the state) would always be there to financially support them. Most of us knew that it was right to work and contribute to a pension.
I cannot see why these older women expect young people to stump up funding for something that they will never receive. So many sad posts from women that never thought about the future and making provision for themselves.So many 'sad' faces on news sites from women who complained that it never occurred to them to get a job, pay their NI contributions and pay into a pension.
Do you think men should be given back pay for having to wait until they were 65 when their wives got their pensions at 60?

Do you think men should be given back pay for having to wait until they were 65 when their wives got their pensions at 60

As an aside, this was introduced originally as wives were typically 5 years younger than their husbands and was designed to allow couples to retire around the same time

@joyceTempleSavage the thread is about the waspi women who want to get their state pension at an earlier age than younger women.

My point again is that both generation had their advantages. Having a pension that you don’t contribute to as an example of how difficult things were for this generation because you got nothing unless you had 5 years service is a bit silly. These sorts of schemes are not available at all to younger women and never were. If they contribute 5 years of nothing to a pension, they get nothing! So something which was actually quite beneficial in many circumstances is simply not available any more.

Women also still care for children (and get much less NI credit for doing so than they used to. No reason an older generation should get to claim at an earlier age because of that.

We cannot expect the younger generation to pay for something for someone else that they won’t get themselves

Can i have a rebate for all the tax I've paid for things I don't use?

For me it isn't that we assumed we would live off our husbands it's that society assumed that. I see threads on MN even now asking if women should be asked questions about childcare at job interviews. I stared work age 15 as soon as I was allowed to. I worked Saturday and school holidays until I finished school. When I went to college I worked every vacation and 2 days in term time. I've paid hods in NI and taxes. But I was led to believe that I would retire in a full state pension ( plus serps Or my oc pen) at age 60. I happen to have known about the change but spent a good deal of my working life explaining to women why, having paid only the married women's half stamp,they wouldn't get any pension in their own name. These women were supposed to have been told when they opted into the reduced stamp that it meant no pension but they didn't understand. That is what has happened now. Personally I think those outside the system at point of the change in rules should have been the ones with the higher retirement age. Those inside the system should have kept their existing retirement age of 60 and 65.

We still don't actually have equal pay for women despite legislation.

my mother who also never worked gets £240 per week
How has she a) managed to pay enough NI for a pension if she's never worked and b) managed to get about 70 a week more than everyone else?

Or are you talking bollocks?

MrsMuddle pies, It was another poster who said women were not entitled to pension ,not me!.

having paid only the married women's half stamp,they wouldn't get any pension in their own name.
But it shouldn’t be hard to understand, they didn’t pay a full stamp!

Sorry, @dottiedodah, my mistake.💐

I agree with everything you've said on this thread AudacityOfHope

Dontmakemeshushyou I remember my Mum deciding to pay a full stamp and she recieved a full pension.Those who chose the cheaper option of paying less got a reduced pension.I think that although we have access to the internet today pensions still seem quite complicated TBH!

This is why belonging to a union was useful.

hazelbite
As to Mortgages, it was impossible as a woman to get one.
not true - I got a mortgage in 1976 as a single parent
I would still reiterate that I and many others have lost out as reaching 60 before the number of qualifying NI years changed from 40 to 30 meant we may have worked over 35 years but DID NOT get a full pension (which was something like £125 per week) and the flat rate pension brought in later was not available to us. No-one has it all and wins every time.

Thanks @Trewser (are you Scottish?) I must be having a sensible day.

Zsazisajuju I take your point about Contraception being avaliable to these women (sorry I must have miscalculated their DOB somewhat!) I think every generation thinks another has it easier so to speak.I am not actually a Waspi woman anyway ,but I think they have been misled a little .Pensions are difficult to understand sometimes .I think they feel a little bit put out when friends maybe a few years older started to get their pension at the "right " date .I agree with you that both pensions and Care for elderly people is very expensive ,Unless we increase taxes(not popular!) we will see our pension dates get further and further away!

It's about the speed of the change and the jump. Seven years! Not graded or with any means testing. Just another disadvantage for woman.

Except it wasn't 7 years! Not for anyone. The pension age was initially changed by the Pensions Act 1995, when those effected would have been aged 40 to 45. it was staggered and women would have received a letter, even if they ignored it. The further change mainly effected women born after March 1953 when their pension age would have gone up by 1 to 2 years. I can understand women being annoyed at this further change, which was brought in at short notice, as people who are close in age have quite different state pension ages.