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.

we knew it was coming. All the posters claiming they thought they could retire at 60 didn’t do their homework. Ultimately we all need to take responsibility for ourselves

You had four years notice of the change though. It wasn't sudden.

I have listened to women who were there.

I am challenging that the changes were solely due to WASPI women. It started before them and will continue after them.

Well said @HalfAVirgin

You seem to have totally misunderstood that post but anyway…
Roughly, on average, what age do the current generation (that you are referring to) start paid work where they pay NI and Income Tax, do you think? I imagine it’s considerably higher than the average age the WASPI generation started in full time employment that attracted NI and Income Tax.

This thread is utterly depressing to read. We live in a patriarchal world and, as women, we still face massive barriers. It is so sad that we cannot support one another and celebrate our wins. Instead we're falling into the divide and conquer mentality that deflects from the people who are responsible for this mess - the government

completely true - it's shameful and one reason I'm happy we have an Ombudsman to examine all the evidence.

1. A lot of the work was done by people older than the WASPI women - the Equal Pay Act, for instance, was passed in 1970 so only the very oldest could have been even tangentially involved

Barbara Castle introduced the Bill, passed in 1970 but it only came into force in 1975. And that did not mean that the magic wand had been waved and everything was equal. It still isn't, by a long way. There is a gender pay gap that women, including WASPI women, have been and are fighting to eradicate to this day. A fight that benefits today's working women, there have been some victories. But the war isn't won, and the fight goes on.

@DigitalDust you were claiming women had equal pay after the equal pay act. Which we did not. Unequal pay was still blatant when I entered full time work at 16 in the eighties.

I know - but the PP seemed to be saying that the changes were solely due to WASPI women. Which isn’t the case.

I find it really hard not to get angry at younger women spitting venom at 'boomers', which, let's face it, is what's happening here. I bust a gut helping to win rights & freedoms for women, many of which did not come into force until it was too late for us. I didn't do it for myself, I did it for women so they'd have less shit to go through. It feels like they're complacent about these rights, with no clue how recent and fragile they are.

The task is nowhere near complete, yet they're giving rights away instead of fighting for freedom - and they're busy hating us instead of understanding the implications.

"This thread is utterly depressing to read. We live in a patriarchal world and, as women, we still face massive barriers. It is so sad that we cannot support one another and celebrate our wins. Instead we're falling into the divide and conquer mentality that deflects from the people who are responsible for this mess - the government."

It's quite hard to celebrate the wins of a particular group of older women when you are the group who have to pay for that win though. Especially when they still got to retire earlier than you'll ever be able to.

I certainly did not intend to claim that. We still don’t have equal pay!

You had four years notice of the change though. It wasn't sudden

that is not enough notice to prepare for any major change in life - particularly a financial one.

Well said!
They are utterly clueless

In many cases women were dismissed once married or pregnant , paid less than men for the same job, paid " married women's stamp" and as a result got a far smaller state pension .
What happened in 2011 was the issue and its a disingenuous argument to refer to 1995.
The issue is the plans were escalated, leaving women in poverty or having to work far longer.

I'm very pleased at this judgement and the spite of those not getting it ( I'm not either) is a real own goal.
Keep voting for worse conditions for everyone ✅
Doing the Tories jobs for them

It’s more notice than for a lot of major changes in life…

This isn't for women

It's quite hard to celebrate the wins of a particular group of older women when you are the group who have to pay for that win though. Especially when they still got to retire earlier than you'll ever be able to

all working people and pensioners, WASPI or otherwise pay taxes - so they will pay too. Young parents get more financial support and leave from work than the older generation of parents ever did - should older people be bitter at that? It's really short sighted to make these comparisons.

Pensioners can be both wealthy and pay less tax. We don’t tax wealth in the uk. In fact, that’s the true position- they do pay less tax and are more wealthy (as a generation ofc).

There is no money. Every year the uk has to borrow to fill the deficit. If you want one group to have more, someone has to pay for that.

state pensions currently cost around 10% of all government spending. That’s a huge huge amount. Far higher than ALL defense spending.

why should women unite that one group of them gets pensions at a younger age and the rest pay for it? I don’t think there was any unfairness and my own state retirement age is older than theirs. This is an issue of inter generational fairness imo. There is absolutely no reason why one group of women should get their pension early due to feminism imo. Quite the opposite

That isn't the same as fulltime work though, it was 44 hr working week when I started work and fewer holidays than now, as far as I remember I got 2 weeks plus bank holidays.

Like I said, you're not seeing the implications.

If you want an explanation, ask somebody else. I'm always bloody explaining. Several women have done a good job upthread and there's much, MUCH more.

So true. I started work in the early 1980s and our firm (a small 2 owner firm with about 10 staff) had a pension scheme we were encouraged to join. In the mid 80s, "contracted out" pensions (from SERPS) were a big thing that was literally all over the media, newspapers, mailshots, etc. where you could "contract out" of the state earnings related scheme (SERPS) and, I think 2% of your NIC was paid into a private pension scheme on your behalf by the government. The information was out there and there were provisions for people whose employer didn't operate a scheme (though lots of employers did!).

Unfortunately, the old saying is true, "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink" - sadly lots of people couldn't be bothered to research pensions, decided not to pay into private pensions, etc., and now it's come to bite them on the arse!

The part I don't understand was what was different for me? I understand people saying they didn't know it had gone up to 65, despite this being known about in 1995, but that doesn't seem to be the part people have a huge issue with, it seems to be the rapid increase from 65 to 66,67, etc. But was that not the same for men? Did the 2011 or 2018 increases for men happen on a different timescale?

• men, not me 🤦🏻

Not all pensioners pay tax. About 40% of all pensioners don’t pay any tax at all. And as a whole, pensioners pay less tax than working age people, especially when you take into account NI (which is a tax).