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.

Not necessarily - it’s complicated and depends on a lot of different factors. My mother, for instance, gets more pension under the old system than she would under the new.

And it was 39 (for women) / 45 (for men) before that.

I never understood why they put it down to 30 tbh. Although as you say, most people will have well over that by the time they retire.

“Back”? when did you ever pay to retire early in the first place?

There is no fund - the government has to borrow every year to meet its obligations. Why is retiring at a younger age than younger people and at the same age as men, being treated “unfairly”? Why should young people pay even more so you can get benefits they aren’t eligible for?

@DigitalDust she is unusual. I will get more when I retire than my mother did.
There were some years where people could make additional NI contributions and get more state pension. This is before I was working, but I know my father benefitted. Maybe your mum was one of those who paid extra NI to increase their state pension? They got rid of the scheme though before I started work at 16.

Agreed and I for one am pleased that they've won. Just because I won't benefit doesn't mean I don't begrudge their success as I think its important that women continue to fight back. If there is criticism, it should be levied against the government for messing up again but instead we've ended up with a very unpleasant intergenerational row, a convenient distraction from the issue of incompetent people running our government.

It's an enormous amount of money to find when the economy is already struggling.

@DigitalDust They put it down to 30 because so many middle class people now do a degree, masters and PhD. Then do internships. They will not work for more than 30 years. I had worked 30 years by the time I was 46 years old.

Why is retiring at a younger age than younger people and at the same age as men, being treated “unfairly”?

It’s not. It was the amount of notice and the frankly bonkers implementation that was unfair. It’s been explained in detail on this thread by several posters.

@Babyroobs they can always find money for tax cuts that benefit the rich most.

Women are paid less than men now. Yes things are better now in some respects but much worse in others (eg huge cost of housing and university). It’s not a justification for some people to retire early imo.

There was plenty of notice why do people keeping saying there wasn't?

In the unlikely event that we do receive compensation mine will be immediately handed on to the next generation anyway. I suspect I’m very far from alone.

In her case it’s because she could inherit from her husband, which younger women can’t.

Some people do get more than people retiring now as they built up a lot of additional state pension. It’s the basic state pension that’s gone up, and there were quite a few people who got additional pension.

There wasn’t. There was virtually no notice with the 2011 act.

@Lifeomars I went into school and started in a factory too. All the boys and girls were in my school year. All the boys were automatically given higher paid jobs than any of the girls. The discrimination was blatant.

It's an enormous amount of money to find when the economy is already struggling

You could apply that to everything - but this has been ruled by the Ombudsman as an injustice that needs to be rectified. These woman should shoulder the responsibility of our government inability to manage our finances!
They seem to find money for all sorts of unessential schemes when it suits them e.g. HS2 but there are many more.

it was several years but I was referring to the notice in the 90's being plenty. The 2011 change didn't add very long too retirement age.

As I said, I never understood the logic behind it! Middle class people are likely to be in jobs with better pensions anyway, so could make up a deficit in state pension entitlement.

And actually (and I am really dredging my memory here) I think you used to get your number of qualifying years reduced for some types of education. That was when fewer people went to university, of course,

Exactly!!!!! Also many of us Waspi women are taxpayers too, so are still contributing to the State coffers, despite all these comments to the contrary.

@DigitalDust Yes as I sad my father got additional state pension because he paid extra NI while the scheme existed.

@DigitalDust I agree it makes no sense.

Theoretically you are correct, the government can choose to means test the state pension at any time. However, the 'benefit' requires such a long time of active contribution, to receive in full. None of those others require anything other than British citizenship (and the requisite period of residence).

Which is why people differentiate between the 'right' to receive it, in their minds, having worked and paid in. Vs. others who haven't.

As @BlueBadgeHolder pointed out so many benefits these days didn't even exist, disability benefits for example. And with the number of claimants rising , this is probably also going to become unaffordable.

"BIossomtoes · Today 18:53

Why is retiring at a younger age than younger people and at the same age as men, being treated “unfairly”?

It’s not. It was the amount of notice and the frankly bonkers implementation that was unfair. It’s been explained in detail on this thread by several posters"

Also plenty of posters winging about how their retirement age was raised from 60 to 66. Which is actually bollocks. Because the rise from 60 to 65 was announced in the 90s. It was literally a few months that was brought in quickly. Now Im not saying that isn't shit. But it's definitely not 60-66 with no warning like lots of people keep claiming.

I wanted to be an RAF pilot - no chance in the 1970s - because we "might get pregnant". 15 year-old-me asked "but what if I signed an agreement to have an abortion?" [in the unlikely event I'd get pregnant if my job depended on it].

I was laughed at.

An important point the younger generation posting on here are missing is that Waspi women such as myself started work and worked at a time when women were paid considerably less than men for doing the same job. It was also not the case that women could stay on in their jobs after having children. Not long before I started work it was not acceptable for women to stay on in their jobs if they got married. Women have nearly always been treated as second class citizens. Many of us also worked in careers that required a great deal of stamina and strength such as teaching special needs children, children with severe behavioural problems, psychiatric nursing etc. Working full time in these jobs at over 60 years of age takes its toll on your health. Also, a lot of our contracts only expected us to work to age 60. Once you reach your sixties, it’s likely your elderly parents need your care or your adult children need help with childcare with childcare costs being so high.
My parents developed Alzheimers and Vascular Dementia and I couldn’t work on at my career because of this. I am nearly 70 and still not solvent as I had to take out loans, having no pension and no career. If I had had my state pension at 60 it would have helped considerably. Being told the goalposts have moved by six years with short notice just wasn’t good enough and although I have my state pension now it is the old one not the new one of £204 per week. If only!