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.

I can understand the OP's "mixed feelings" but it's not WASPI women to blame, its the government. I understand the fear of late retirement ages - I'm 45 and no doubt be working until 71 (that's 50 years of working - bloody hell, what a thought!) . I doubt I can still teach at that age (especially with my disability) but can't claim my Teacher's pension either as that is now linked to state pension age. I just hope that there will be another avenue for those of who can't work but can't claim pensions.

Agreed.
It's not even a question of 'fault'. Each generation pays , not for themselves, but the ones above them. A smaller, working age cohort currently is paying for the generation above them. This is happening across many countries.

People don't understand this. 'They' paid for their own parents, not themselves.

Why are you so down on the concept of state benefits? Are you prejudiced against people who get them, for some reason - do you think that benefits are given to people who 'don't deserve' them whereas pensions are only given to those who do?

It's a simple system whereby people pay taxes (including NI) according to their income and then those who are adjudged to need them receive payments back from the system in the form of benefits.

Unemployed people, low earners, disabled people, new mothers, parents, people over a certain age - there are various groups of people who, at some point in their lives, qualify for benefits, which is entirely unrelated to the amount of tax that they have/haven't paid or do/will pay.

Yes, there may be some people who deliberately structure their lives in order to maximise the benefits that they receive, and there may be some who manage to cheat the system and gain benefits through deception - and granted, it's pretty much impossible to do this when it comes to the state pension benefit, as you are either provably old enough to receive it or you aren't.

On the other hand, there are a lot of very wealthy older people who qualify for their state pension benefit - whether they keep it, donate it to charity or just don't claim it in the first place. Of course, they are fully entitled to it if they have reached the requisite age and so it isn't fraud or dishonesty in any way, but surely you would see the parallel of widespread moral distaste at both the idea of a labourer working cash in hand and claiming unemployment benefit and Paul McCartney getting his state pension benefit and winter fuel allowance (I have no idea whether he personally DOES claim/keep these)?

This ^

I'm slightly older and had been working, paying NI for 11 years when they changed the goal posts in 1995, so at that point thought I would work until I was 65 instead of 60m then they changed the goal posts again and it was 66 then a third change and now don't get state pension until Im 67. What though would be stopping this happening again with another change?

Adding 7 years onto anyone working life time when they already had been working 23 years is a piss take (2007 the gov changed retirement age to 67)

Mum was knackered after teaching children with additional and challenging needs all day, as a HOD with management responsibilities and teaching all of the secondary subjects to 11 to 18 year olds. Evenings were spent marking and prepping lessons for individuals with high levels of individual need, or studying to ensure she could properly support those children. The last thing she wanted to do was to watch the news or pore over a newspaper in what little spare time she had.

My mum is amazed yours didnt hear because she says teachers pension scheme sent things about it and NUT and other teaching unions did too.

OP do you also object to having to pay women in local government compensation for all the years of being underpaid compared to men?

If equal pay had been in place sooner the government and LA's wouldnt be in this position.

Not if they were one of the many women on here who stayed part time due to husband's big job and were able to 'focus on their hobbies' etc while he worked long weeks. I can find you plenty of examples from previous discussions.

People forget that some women were/are unable to access and understand information. I'm thinking of those with learning difficulties/disabilities and also those with chaotic and stressful lives who don't have the energy to financially plan. That was me when I was a FT carer for a very sick son; financial planning was the least of my concerns.

I am in the WASPI generation and I definitely knew both about the first change from 60 to 65 and then later when it increased again. I am actually quite surprised that the Ombudsman found in their favour as I thought they were on a hiding to nothing. If compensation is paid does that mean that all women of my generation will get it? I don't feel that I deserve it really as it hasn't made much difference to my life, but if some women have been struggling financially and this helps then I am pleased for them.

Oh it is a token amount, an insulting £1000 - £3000 or thereabouts.

I'm not OP, but FWIW, I certainly don't object to those women being adequately compensated; but out of interest, would you object if a class action of men took the government to court and demanded compensation (and backdated interest) from the time that state pensions began for being underpaid 5 years of their pensions compared with women, as well as having to pay tax for those extra 5 years?

They would probably also have a case for the fact that men usually don't live as long as women, and so even at the same pension age, they would receive significantly less on average, owing to their sex. Can you imagine how many billions - probably hundreds of billions or more - that would then cost?

To re-iterate, it was utterly shameful those women being paid less just for being women, and of course they should be compensated; but I can't help but see on here a strong undercurrent of wanting equality when it suits, but also wanting to take the status quo for granted in areas when it doesn't.

I heard this on Radio 4 and it definitely seems a government blaming exercise and not a WASPI one.

I hope they get all the relevant monies owed to them and the ones who are deceased, that the relevant payments go to their dependants.

People who were unable to access and understand information were probably not working anyway. They would have received benefits. If you were a FT carer I presume that you weren't working either and on benefits.

I've read quite a few posts on here from women saying that they don't just want equality, they want reparations/a taste of the privilege men have had for so many decades.

Imagine if we applied that logic here and women had to work five years longer than men for the next decade or two as a reparation. There'd be an absolute shitstorm! 🤣

This is exactly what I was saying to DM - who I popped around to have lunch with. I said to her "I bet if it was men this happened to they'd be furious and demanding compensation and a lot of it straight away" and she agreed with me.

Excellently worded @havetobelieve. I hate this 'our generation is more hard done by than the older generation' stuff. Many many older people struggled to survive in the same way todays younger people are struggling. Different sets of circumstances, granted, but just as difficult to live through. We should all be pulling in the same direction IMO

Well they must all live in my neck of the woods, because myself and my friends born in the 50s were not made aware of it until much later. We received no notification from anyone!

What makes it just your generation? I'm in my 50s and paying all the things you do. By the time I get my state pension I'll have 50 years of NI contributions.

I don't grudge a penny of what I pay towards those who have earned their pensions and towards care of the elderly. It's a judgement on society how well you treat your older people. I do however have an issue with paying over and beyond my 35 years to pay for those who haven't bothered working and contributing (not those who cannot).

I saw that, I mean how mean can the government get, probably doesn't take into account interest if any of this pensions money had been saved.

But government are running scared because of a huge bill which they definitely don't want to pay out for.

No I don't, because that was a case of discrimination. The discrimination aspect of WASPI was tested in an earlier case and found legally not to exist. So they are two different things. In the first case those women should always have been paid more and are now being recompensed. The local government should never have had that money in the first place.

With WASPI, it was found the decision to adjust the pension age was legal (and therefore not discriminatory) but should have been better communicated.

What I feel uncomfortable about here, I think is where personal responsibility comes into play. For example, if someone who is allergic to nuts, eats something and has a reaction, is it their fault or the manufacturers, if that person didn't check the label?

It's not the same thing as women were compensated in equal pay cases for being treated unfavourably compared with men. This isn't a case of women not being treated less favourably to men .If anything it's the other way around and they were treated more favourably. Let's hope men don't start asking for compensation..

"Womens rights and our standing in society would improve at a much greater rate if we all rowed in the same direction"

I totally agree which is why it is unfair and most definitely not rowing in the same direction that the generation of women currently in work and paying taxes will be footing the compensation bill for a generation of women who have already retired and at an age those working today can only dream of.

I think what some younger posters aren't getting is that communication-wise things were very different in 1995. A PP has said that the internet was widely used in the 90s. It wasn't. In 1993 there were only 600 websites (Livescience). It became more widely used from about 1997, but even then it was dial-up, PC only, nowhere near as many sites as today, no smart phones so not the constant news diet you get today, and mainly - not many people had it. it was expensive.

Also the question has been asked what contract was there to pay the state pension. National insurance contributions were for a long time ring fenced, the money to be used to pay benefits as a protection against hard times, from 1948 the payments included funding the NHS, and to pay the state pension. So yes, when you paid your NICs as a deduction from your wage, that was your contract with the government that when the time came they would pay you a pension.

So it really isn't as surprising as it might seem that some women didn't know that the SP age was changing. I'm in the WASPI group and although I did know about the first increase (I was listening to The World at One that day) I've never had a letter regarding either increase.

I'm not commenting on the rights and wrongs of the WASPI claims because I'm ambivalent. Some women have been badly affected, others not so much. I was in a non-physical job that I enjoyed, working later isn't a hardship. But that doesn't mean it's true for all women in my age group. A quick calculation says that the govt. have saved around £50,000 on my pension alone. If I get £1,000 compensation (IF), the public coffers are still quids in.

I also have mixed feelings. I'll receive my state pension in the month that I turn 68, if I live that long.