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.

Until the men wanted to share all the benefits they had received over the women of your generation, all of the extra wealth they accumulated from the better jobs they got because of nothing but sexism, nothing should have changed to be 'equal' with them.

Equality was just something the government of the time were hiding behind to save money in any case, but I really hate seeing women trot this line out when they suffered so much due to sexism

There’s no discrimination against any group of women here. it’s entitlement from one particular group of women (who interestingly enough don’t want the same for younger women).

And waspi women were not childbearing age in the 60s. We’re talking about my mother and aunts generation. Abortion and contraception was widely available, workplace pensions were available and most women worked.

I'm a month away from counting as a WASPI, I think. I only found out about the change because I spotted a teeny paragraph in the money page of The Telegraph. I'm not aware of having seen it mentioned anywhere else. I don't recall being told about the process being hastened.

Compensation should be paid if it is due, which the ombudsman has said it is. The annoyance anyone might feel over the opportunity cost, whilst understandable, is irrelevant. I find the whole thing very depressing really. What a mess.

ie 40% of pensioners have incomes too low to pay tax. We have very low state pensions compared to most of Europe which is probably why average pensioner income including private pensions is lower that most European countries. The fact that a percentage of better off people in each generation do very nicely doesn't alter the reality for the majority in each generation.

It also wasn’t anti feminist that they got their state pensions five years earlier than men, despite having higher life expectancy. Equality in action of course…

There’s no discrimination against any group of women here. it’s entitlement from one particular group of women (who interestingly enough don’t want the same for younger women).

Why do you assume that they don't want the same for younger women?

I am so, so thoroughly depressed with women being pitted against other women. I don't believe for a second that the majority of WASPI women believe that their children should get less than them. I know my mum does not want less for me.

Do you have children yourself?Parents tend to want their children to have good futures, they want better for their children than they had themselves.

The Ombudsman who took actual evidence disagrees with you.

This was a group of women who were lied to by DWP even when they sought information and whose pension age was changed with very few years notice. If you "knew about this at school in the 80s" before the initial changes were even made then you must be aware that the coalition implemented a very late acceleration of the changes.

This was specifically about women. It did not affect men who experienced no such acceleration in the extension of retirement age.

It also wasn’t anti feminist that they got their state pensions five years earlier than men, despite having higher life expectancy. Equality in action of course…

Just like the equality they experienced in the workplace throughout their careers, eh?

Absolutely. By that logic we’ve all missed out on £50k as we have to retire later. Many of us have also missed out on plentiful social housing and free university education too. Can we demand compensation?

One is not linked to the other. Women still suffer inequality but don’t get to retire early

I only recently found out that because of the changes made, I apparently haven't made enough NI contributions to get my full state pension (though I have a work pension).

At one point, I was told that I had. When I checked up last year, I was told that I was 3 years short because the rules had changed. I made a voluntary payment of over 800, but I'll be damned if I'm paying any more.

Apparently I get my State Pension at 66 yrs and one month. It does piss me off. I recall reading the Telegraph paragraph and thinking at that point that I'd be getting my State Pension at 65. I'd also worked out how many years NI I had to pay at that point.

Yes, again, you do realise that until 1986 women who wanted to work over the age of 60 were not legally entitled to, yes? They could legally be sacked at age 60, tough shit. It was only a brave woman taking her case to the European Court of Justice that meant this was overturned and women could worked longer if they so wished.

Does the report say they were lied to?

I haven’t read the whole thing so if you know where those words were used, that it would be helpful to know. I haven’t seen that documented anywhere.

That is OUTRAGEOUS! I did not know that

This is not true nor what the ombudsman found. There was not a whole group of women who were “lied to” by the DWP. Just some evidence of unreliable information.

everyone knew or should have known about pension equalization. Claiming that you thought you could retire at 60 on a state pension in 2010 isn’t realistic.

Also interesting that these campaigning women only want the money for themselves. They don't mention the women born in the 60's, 70's and upwards. They are annoyed because we have to work longer. Well so does everyone now. They aren't any special case.

Didn't affect WASPI women though did it. They're not that old.

One is not linked to the other. Women still suffer inequality but don’t get to retire early

It's lucky really then isn't it that WASPI women have only campaigned about their pension, because if they campaigned against the sexism that blighted their working lives (indeed, if all women campaigned against it, and how it continues to this day) it would cost the state and the patriarchy a fuck ton more than what is suggested in the WASPI report.

No, they have campaigned because the goalposts changed for them in such a ridiculous space of time for them to be able to make any financial preparations to deal with it. It's not the same thing at all.

You've lost me: why did men have a better deal getting their state pension at 65 whilst women got theirs at 60? In my book women had 5 years extra pension (ignoring the longer life expectancy).

@Annettekurtin - can you confirm what age you think a WASPI is please? I believe it's 50s born women, I could be wrong as your list of "widely available" access to abortion, contraception, workplace pensions and that "most women worked" really isn't true for that generation of women.

Ever heard of "Pin Money"? Yes indeed many women worked, but for "Pin Money" and this concept extended to the workplace too. Wages reflected the lesser value of 'women's work'.

I'd rather re-write history but that's the truth of it.

Where do you get £10bn from ? The likelihood is that compensation won’t be anything like the actual pension costs, if it’s a paid at all. These women fought for their rights - some were badly affected by the governments’ ‘fuck you’ attitude.

Goodness! When I started the post, it was more a case of mulling over an uncomfortable feeling about the result this morning. I didn't expect us to be still discussing it 23 pages later. 😳

I've read EVERY single post and I'm not sure I'm any the wiser. I do feel sympathy for some women but it has really enforced my belief that there is still a personal responsibility element to this.

Some of the posts about pitching women against women though, I feel pretty strongly that we shouldn't be shutting down points about inter-generational inequality as unfeminist and playing into "their hands". There's big old problems in society atm and telling younger women their perspectives on this shouldn't be voiced feels inherently anti-feminist to me. Lots of statistics are showing that younger women are taking the brunt of the current cost of living crisis and we'd be doing women as a whole a disservice to not look at whether one generation, in the things they are fighting for, and defending, are pulling the ladder up behind themselves.

Indeed.
And on that note there are more under 30s that are millionaires now than ever before. Data from HM Revenue and Customs shows millionaires aged under 30 is rising in the UK. Figures show a 33% rise in the number of under 30s earning an annual income of more than £1m. So, based on that arbitrary marker, maybe all benefits and childcare concessions etc should be stopped for ALL under 30s, taxpayers should be able to stop contributing towards the costs of people having children that they can’t afford after all……Or, alternatively, it’s not relevant to most people under 30 and it would be stupid to pretend it is and base any kind of welfare program on that - or summat 🙄.