Mixed feelings about WASPI victory

[Fauxflowersnoflowers]

Early 40s here, so this doesn't as such directly affect me, but I've been intrigued by the story about the WASPI campaign and done a bit of reading around it and I'm still confused.

The changes apparently were in the public sphere since as early as 1995 and could have been known about. Many women were aware and did take financial steps to address the changes. The current case seems to centre around whether they should have been personally informed, not was the change fair.

WASPI just said on Women's Hour that they don't object to the equalisation of the pension age, but then callers were objecting to having to work longer and not getting a good retirement, so the two arguments seem to contradiction each other

Also, it seems misunderstood that a compensation payment would be a full reinbursement of the "lost" pension, from my reading it's more likely to be a fixed amount to recognise the fact they should have received a letter. Although again, it appears many did, just not everyone, so who gets the compensation? All of them or just some?

I suppose the other question is how do we pay this? Public services are already stretched badly, childcare costs are crippling and there is a bit of a worry for me that the funds to pay this are going to come out of other areas that will just make the loves of younger women harder and push their pension ages even further back, maybe into their 70s.

Feel really conflicted about it. On one hand kudos to the women for getting this far, but in the other it feels like a really clear example of the importance of properly understanding your own finances and educating yourself about your pension planning.

Why not @Flossflower ? Curious, if you are affected?

I’m not but do remember working with a bunch of women in 95 who were affected by the original rise

I'm a WASPI woman. And I don't think I'm entitled to anything. If I do get any compensation, I'll share it with my family. Pensions are paid out of contributions from the working population, just as my contributions paid for pensioners when I was working. Maybe some women weren't aware of the changes, but I was, and all my friends. Personally, I think everyone should pay NI, including pensioners. Then the state pension would be fully funded, without relying on having enough working people contributing to it. But I guess that's a policy that will never be implemented, because the grey vote is too important to all political parties.

Show me where this 'right' exists. Where is it set down - in law, in a constitution, in a contract? It's not. It's a benefit, like the others.

Because as I said earlier in the thread, you would have had to been living under a rock not to know the age had changed.

I dont really understand this because surely that remains the case whatever age you are. I could have arthritis and be desperate to retire in 2 years but im 37 so iv got another 30 to go but my job is physical?

I think it’s unfair - the DWP cocked up. Private Pensions accrue over a very long time… How much extra would someone have had to put by each month to make up the difference?

In my family of the women born in the 50s … one knew and one didn’t. The one that knew worked in financial services.

I understand your feelings, OP, but I can tell you that as a woman who spent many years organising my finances and planning to retire at 60, only to be told about a decade again that I'd have to work another six years instead of five (and possibly to 67, as a friend of mine has just discovered), the changes really threw a spanner in the works.

Remember that in the old days a lot of private sector workplaces didn't offer pension schemes. Now employers have to and everyone should be that bit better off come retirement. I had a private pension with the Equitable Life: it went bust and I lost a huge chunk of the money I'd paid and have never been fully compensated.

The large international company I worked for for many years moved its offices and most of the its UK jobs to Europe in the two years before Brexit. Then the company I found new work with foundered as a result of Covid. I've created a self-employed career for myself while I try and find an employer who wants me, but I'm earning about a third of what I would have expected to earn at this stage of my career and it's too late to do much in the way of retraining. It's been tough for me, and I'm relatively comfortably off and don't have debt to service. I can only begin to imagine how hard it is for single women in their 60s without a partner to cushion them.

Part time teachers were also excluded from paying into pension schemes..... So very unfair.....

So rude and dismissive. Not everybody has the means to access or the understanding to process such information. And the second increase was not properly communicated to those it would affect, as the ombudsman has pointed out.

I am one of the women affected and the real point is that there were TWO changes.
The first change occurred in 1995? And extended my personal (state) retirement age from 60 to 63 1/2. (Im not sure if there was a letter). This gave plenty of notice, and I kept myself informed with a couple of pension forecasts over the years.
However there was a SECOND change in 2011. I received the letter in Jan 2012. Retirement age moved back to 64 1/2.
This gave less than 5 years notice.
In my case, I considered myself fortunate that my state pension age was still under 65. However my SIL a few months younger than me, was extended by 2 years after mine to age 66.
I am surprised by the ruling as frankly the numbers of women are too small (not enough votes in ).
I DID get a personal letter for the second change (i still have it, dated Jan 2012) and was always aware of what was going on.
I reserve any anger for MPs who considered a change with less than 5 years to retirement was too short, in their own MPs pension.
Double standard.

The lack of intergenerational sisterhood arguably goes both ways though given older women are expecting compensation from younger women despite the fact they weren't involved in the decisions and won't be able to retire themselves until much later.

I do think the women concerned should get compensation but the reality is that with any benefit there is always someone on one side of the line who feels penalised. This isn't different but for some people it's a hugely life affecting issue.

Another one

my mother is a terrible person who emotionally and financially abused me. My father wasn’t much better, he just didn’t look at us with disgust on his face, which was ever so kind of him. He’s dead. I wouldn’t let my mother anywhere near my child.

there, you cancel each other out.

It was the speeding up of the equalisation of pension age. Plus the fact that there was a lack of communication to women's regarding both the age increasing from 60 and the increase in the number of qualifying years to get the full New State Pension.
I was born in the early 60s and was completely aware of all of this because I keep abreast of current affairs but a lot of people don't.
I won't be receiving my state pension until I'm 67.
This makes quite a difference between female 'Baby Boomers' born in the 40s/early 50s and those in the early 60s. In fact it's 7 years of pension which would be £80514 at the 2024 annual state pension rate.
I never understood why women got retire earlier than men especially as they need more time to build their pension pot.

I am a 50's lady and yes I did know because I joined my companies pension scheme in 1998 and the paperwork showed I could get it March 2020 when I was 65 (obviously It went up a year after that) I queried it with the pension administrator to be told yes that's your pension age now, OK I had plenty of time to get used to the idea, however a work colleague also joined at the same time as me, even today she will swear blind she had no clue, all she had to do was the read the same information as I did but she obviously didn't.

BUT saying that although we could get some information its easier now, for instance if anyone wants to know their state pension age all they have to do is to go onto Google, type in state pension age timetable and you can find out immediately (up to the date when it changes to 68 years), we didn't have that information at our finger tips in the 90s

not to mention the avocado on toast and lattes crap that gets banded about so often

I think its a shame that the very legitimate issues with the 2011 changes, get muddied by grumbling from lots of people affected in 1995 who fundamentally just weren't happy about waiting longer to receive the pension, quite a few of whom didnt actually work much at all either.

As a younger woman likely to work & pay in for 50+ years who'll probably have it means tested away entirely.... its a bit galling that people want blanket compensation the government can't afford. My generation already pay so much to fund the pensions, social care & health care those before us receive, that we likely won't get ourselves.

The government needs to make sure everyone is going onto the Government Gateway website so they can see their state pension progression and to check that their contribution record is correct. Then they can pay to fill in any recent gaps if they want to.

I do feel sorry for women caught in the 2011 change which was definitely introduced with insufficient notice. I hope these women get some compensation and that it never happens again.
moving forward I hope this debate highlights the importance of women looking at their pension forecast regularly and being financially aware.

*I never understood why women got retire earlier than men especially as they need more time to build their pension pot.

There was a notion that women must retire when their husbands do and women typically had husbands about 5 years older.

It never made sense - women live longer than men and usually hadn't contributed as much either.

The waspi women mounted a v good and steadfast campaign.
I do think NI should be paid by all though at a slightly higher starting rate if over pensionable age to ensure that the wealthy retired if economically active are contributing, just as I think we should all think of houses as shelters that adequately meet our needs/can be sold to pay for care rather than a pot of gold to be handed over to kids.
The main thing is that as you approach retirement you are realistic that there is going to be no leap forward in earnings expectations whereas when younger you may still reasonably hope you will move up the earnings scale.
There are always taunts of avocado and lattes, ie booze and fags or cruises or whatever censorious section of society wants to beat another cohort with.
Striving for intergenerational fairness helps make a cohesive society, which as one PP said is the opposite of what the current government wants.

60 is too young to get a pension. 60 isn't that at old and many people still want to work at that age.
I think it's right they changed that.

I think part of the issue is people think of NI as being a pension contribution. Especially women of an era who did not work but paid "stamps" to get a pension.

In reality, NI is not ringfenced. Its just another chunk of tax in the pot.

Getting your pension later doesn't mean "not getting out what you paid in". Trust me, if you were born in the 50s, you've had your money worth. It has paid for your NHS, your children's schools, public investment in infrastructure, your emergency services, the years of child benefit/family allowance you got with no means testing, the OAP bus passes, the nhs dentistry younger people now can't access. In the 50s -90s not enough was actually charged via tax for a lot of the benefits older people now receive, and younger people are making up the shortfall.

Im 69 and thought I was going to retire at 60. When I was 60 I found out by complete surprise that I couldnt retire until I was 66. I wasnt told retirement age was going to be 66 not until I looked up my retirement age on the gov.uk site.
I dont think they will pay any money out though, they are dragging there feet about the post office fiasco and why should the goverment be bothered about a load of old women. They never have been before.

In France social charges are paid until you reach state pension age. I think that’s fair, if you’re wealthy enough to retire early then you should still pay NI.