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.

Well firstly, it’s only as recently as 1986 that women had the option to work beyond 60 (when men could work til they were 65) even if they wanted to because compulsory retirement meant they had no choice. Thanks to a brave woman who took her case to the European Court for Justice, that was overturned. Before that women just got sacked, legally, if their employer saw fit.
Secondly, on the point of younger tax payers paying etc etc. That’s just how a taxation system in a welfare state works. Richer people pay more than poorer people. Able bodied people (sometimes, not always) pay more than less able bodied people, etc etc. You do realise the WASPI women were also once younger people, paying tax for the benefit of their elders? Also, what do you mean by older mainly non tax payers? If they earn enough, they pay income tax at the same as anyone else does, whatever their age.

No, I'm just not agreeing. Listening to explanations goes both ways you know, there's plenty of women here explaining why they disagree too.

it seems so many have made this worse by failing to plan properly for their retirements

Unfortunately many who did make plans had them rendered worthless by the unexpected changes of the second rise. I was lucky as I was able to adapt mine - not everyone could.

What those that are younger have to realise is that times were very different.

You cannot look at what you as women have to day, the choices you are able to make, the fact that you have opportunities most women at 16 couldn’t even dream about, and the access to information and connections between different groups to discuss what you think is fair or unfair.

The reality is growing up i. The 50s and 60s, unless your family were middle class + or you were incredibly bright and had a family who despite being poor/ working class were able to make sacrifices for you to stay on at school and do A levels and then go to university
Most girls, especially if their family was struggling left school at 15/16 on the Friday and were starting work on the following Monday and were helping to feed and keep a roof over their families heads and were married soon after and had their own families soon after that.

The problem I see is that after years of sporadic employment, few or no qualifications, unless you know someone to vouch for you, as a woman between the ages of 60-current retirement age the likelihood of you getting a job that isn’t one of those jobs that the government doesn’t pay the employer for you to do. You are virtually unemployable.

Who wants to employ a 64year old woman who hasn’t worked since 1979 and who’s only qualification is a 25m swimming badge.

Why do you think people receiving pensions won't be paying towards any compensation? I started paying tax and NI when I was 17. I'm 70 now and my tax for last month was £150.76. My Dad was 93 when he died 10 years ago. He was still paying tax along with £4,800 a month for his care. My MIL was 94 when she died. She was still paying tax. Just because you are in receipt of a pension doesn't mean you stop contributing.

Equally studying full time and working part time is no picnic. My kids generation have to pay what is effectively a 10% graduate tax too just for the privilege of doing that. And pay taxes for pensions for current pensioners.

Everyone saying it is only the difference in pension payments, prior to the retirement age for women increasing as soon as woman had her 60th birthday if she carried on working she no longer had to pay NI contributions.

Because on average they pay far less tax but receive far more benefits than working age people.

Yes, I'm in my late 50s and not in good health so I am planning but also being realistic about the fact that retirement age could further increase. I don't think it at all unlikely that there would be less than four years notice.

@borntobequiet - the most effective contraception at the time was 'don't get pregnant' if you want a 'career'; however it was possible to get an abortion via a rare BUPA clinic for £100 or so if circumstances needed and allowed it. £100 was a lot of money, but many people did scrabble it together if needed.

It was while I was still at my Grammar School getting Careers advice that I learned from the RAF that my ideal job prospects as a Pilot (pref fighter jets) were dashed, simply because I was female.

Im concerned that the equalising of the pension age is going to lead to further problems for women. There tends to be 3-4 years as an average between couples. I can imagine men reaching retirement age and pressurising their partners to also retire. With private pensions, they tend to commute quite heavily for early retirement. I lose 20% of my already fairly crap pension if I take it 4 years early.

It's just another way women will end up poorer than men.

First of all I was too old for school when this legislation was first mentioned and I did take responsibility.

I paid into a private pension

How much is that private pension worth now

Precisely £0

You are assuming that how you live today, taking responsibility and having your pension protected that it has always been like that

My pension, together with the rest of the companies workers had their private company pension used to prop up the ailing company and there wasn’t anything we could do about it.

I have learned over the years, when ever people tell me to just do this or that and then you are entitled to Y or Z it is all BS

Other people maybe but not me.

Abortion has been legal since 67. Contraception since the 60s too. This is not a waspi thing.

Agree with a PP on this. What's so special about the extra increase of the "WASPI" women. Didn't men of the same age also get the same pension age increase in 2010, with the same amount of notice? And the increase before that was to bring the women in line with men and they had around 30 years to prepare for.
WHY are this one group so different they deserve compensation?

Not all pensioners pay tax
Children and students don't pay tax. Some working aged adults don't either - either because they don't work enough hours or other reasons.
Really not a good idea to pit one generation against the other in this way - it plays into the hands of those who want to divide and (mis)rule.

Absolutely no way should we be paying compensation. The vast majority of radio/press news stories seem to be from women who had planned/hoped to retire at 60 and had to work longer when they found out their retirement age had been moved.
I agree with PPs - you would have to have been living under a rock to say you didn't know!

Pension funds have been protected for decades. If that did indeed happen to you, it’s very unfortunate but it must have been a very long time ago.

the waspi generation are just retiring now. They had many decades of modern pension regulation.

And you’re spitting back at younger women. We’re grateful but it doesn’t mean we live in the land of milk and honey. And if we dare say much often the response is “what are you complaining about, women older than you had it much worse than you”.

which is.. paradoxical, to be kind about it. Our grandmothers and mothers wanted better for themselves and their daughters when they were of a certain age but then tell their daughters that it is about the choices they’re making and ignore the systemic context we’re living our lives in.

@Yalta. Not describing me, as I have no private pension, but I remember working with a very nice older man in a warehouse back in the early-mid 90s who had done the 'right' thing just like you.

His planned 'comfortable-ish' retirement went tits up when his private pension became worthless on retirement. The State Pension was just 'nose above water' in those days. And he had to work on in a shit job that he was more than over-qualified and experienced for (ex-engineer/supervisor) just to make ends meet.

@Bjorkdidit

"wombat15 · Today 12:16

I think your financial advisor was lying when he said it would be illegal for you to have a private pension in the late 80s because you were a married woman."
I seem to remember it was illegal for anyone to have a private pension, until reforms made by Margaret Thatcher's government.
I remember my DH paying some money which was returned, as his payment was declared as illegal.
Up till the reforms private pensions were only available through one's employment. This might work if you stayed with the same employer all your life, but difficult if you changed jobs. So the idea was a private pension which would be portable to different jobs. At the same time many defined benefit schemes closed (final salary), and most (except for the public sector) have moved to defined contribution (ie your own pension pot).

Since when have people trusted governments? They change all the time and the promises made by one may not be fulfilled by another. If anything in the 80s and 90s many people thought there would be very little pension at all by the time they were elderly.

I think a lot of the attitudes of some of the posters here goes a long way to explaining some of the mess we've found ourselves in politically in recent years in this country.

I think it's absolutely mad that women just assumed they'd retire at 60, didn't have the mind to check this at any time up until they reached 60 and then got a shock in 2011 when they found that the pension age had risen for them too!

I am in my 30s and I have grown up hearing all the time about increases to pension age, that I probably won't receive a state pension, that I'll be working until I'm 75 etc etc.

This has been public conversation for decades now.

There is simply no way women have worked in the noughties and not been aware of this.

What I believe has happened is the insidious "I'm alright Jack" attitude has taken hold, where they blindly assumed that they were immune from changes and that they couldn't possibly be facing any negative impacts - after all, that only applies to the younger generations. So they didn't listen and hence the outrage that they've not been protected.

That’s right. But not really the point- the post was in answer to a claim that pensioners pay tax therefore pay for their own pensions (which isn’t true).

allowing one generation of people to retire early while another pay for it is hugely unfair. There is no magical “baddie”. Just people paying tax and people taking out the system.