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 started teaching in '84.

I discovered that the first two years of my teaching pension were discounted because I happen to have ovaries instead of testicles: if I had died in post, my parents wouldn't have been given the first two years of my pension contributions, whereas a male colleague who started at the same time would have had all his contributions given to his parents if he'd died in post.

I recall reading that one of the reasons that women originally got their state pension at 60 was because most were a bit younger than their husbands and it let them retire closer together. Also made it easier to care for family members.

Getting my state pension at 60 would certainly have made life a bit easier for me. My husband's health made it necessary for me to retire at 58. I did get a reduced teaching pension, so I'm not destitute and certainly better off than many.

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).*

Reread my first paragraph? You don't think men of that generation had a better deal in the workplace throughout their working lives than the women? Have you never heard of the gender pay gap? Do you think things are equal for women at work now? It's still unequal. Although nowhere near as bad as what WASPI women would have experienced, in terms of the choices of careers and prospects for senior roles?

I didn't say that men got a better deal getting their pension at 65-I made the point that they had it better all through their working lives. And that is worth a huge amount of money- far more than the additional state pension the women were getting for drawing it earlier.

I just find it laughable when equality is mentioned in this- equality wasn't a consideration when women couldn't work beyond 60, before the equal pay act which really isn't that long ago in the scheme of things etc.

For this generation men had an all round better deal.

Benefits and childcare are already means tested. Pensions are the outlier. Not the gotcha you thought it was...

I was aware of it - thinking back to where I was working at the time - from around late 90s.
Seems like a generation of women that fought for equal rights in the 70's suddenly being proud to proclaim their ignorance and ability to stick their heads in the sand.

I don’t think the PP was referring only to a particular group of women were they? They were suggesting any woman being ‘allowed’ to retire five years earlier than their male counterparts couldn’t be a feminist. Its history is steeped in misogyny, as are so many of the legacy situations women find themselves in.
No doubt plenty of people will queue up to blame ‘women’ for the bankruptcy of local authorities over wanting compensation for years (ongoing until very recently) of unequal pay for equal work.

Not sure I fully understand but nice to see something nice happen to these ladies. I’m not in the business of being miserable when someone else has good fortune. Also, money is being wasted left right and centre at the moment, might as well go to these older ladies.

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

We did then the goal posts were moved. Twice.

@newskinnyminnieme

"my issue is in that calling the pension a benefit allows the government to argue that it is discretionary, or that it isn’t something people should expect, when it is paid from contributory payments by individuals through their working life"

That's not how the state pension works. The contributions you paid whilst working went on paying for the pensions of those who were already retired. They didn't go into your own ring fenced pot.

The state pension is very much a benefit.

Tell me where women are suffering anything like the inequality they did in the 1950’s ?

Absolutely agree with you OP on your last post. I really do feel that today's women have been sold a bit of a 'lemon'. Seems equality now means that most women don't just 'have it all' the 'have to do it all' instead.

It's all gone a bit to shit really.

@Sallyh87

"Also, money is being wasted left right and centre at the moment, might as well go to these older ladies."

There are a lot more areas of Govt spending that could do with extra cash before it is spent in compensation.

Personally I would like to see higher spending on education and mental health but others will have different priorities.

25 years apart... the rest of us are already up one change so I'm sure we'll catch up.
Actually, I was alive in 95. Can I count that one too?

I fall into the age range and knew about it ages ago.

I honestly think some women were living under a rock. Completely ridiculous some of their stories.

Some of the stories in the press are hard to believe.
Like one woman saying she went to work in a factory at 14 full time.
She's younger than me and the school leaving age for her was 16.

I also think it's odd that women wanted equality yet complain when they want to retire earlier than men, especially as they have longer life spans.

Interesting how so few actually understand what has gone on here and how selfish people are not wanting these women to get an apology and compensation which they so deserve.

In my opinion, this is a massive scandal, bigger than the post office scandal and needs addressing now before more of these women die. This scandal and the post office scandal show how we can't trust our officials and governments, sadly. More accountability is need - prison terms for people when deliberates lies and cover ups can be demonstrated.

I just sneak into the WASPI group and also find it amazing that anyone can claim they did not know. The changes were all over the newspapers, radio and TV so, even those of us with jobs and young children in those years (like me) would struggle to miss it.
Like many women in my age group I help family with childcare and, while I don't think our generation had everything easy, every generation has its challenges, I do think this WASPI campaign is somewhat distasteful given how hard life is for younger people who will end up paying for it

They're going to wait for as long as possible. Disgusting. They should be made to pay the compensation to the estate of those who die while they are sorting it out

I knew.

I knew for years and years. I got letters years before I was going to be 60/65/ 66.

These women are lying or trying to cover up their own stupidity.

I wasn’t looking for a gotcha, how odd.
And Child benefit has only fairly recently been means tested. And there’s plenty of threads of working age parents whining about that when they’re on £100k+ on MN. Being responsible for your retirement and planning ahead, despite goalposts moving, is apparently a thing. Being responsible for affording your kids and not having them if you can’t afford it isn’t - if lots of OPs are to be believed.
Personally I’m nowhere near retirement age, and have been a higher rate taxpayer for years now. I’m very happy to live in a country with a welfare system, despite paying in way more than I’ll ever take out. Paying pensioners a level of benefit they can live on, particularly if they’re under the income tax threshold, is as valuable to me as paying a benefit for those of working age with children, to ensure some level of equality. That’s what a country with a welfare system should do, or else I’d just move somewhere like Singapore and only pay for myself. But so many people seem to think it’s some sort of personal savings scheme and begrudge anyone else who is not paying in exactly the same as them from taking anything out.

Nor do I understand the argument that women have missed out on £50k by retiring x years later..

Well that's what we would have received in pension payments between the ages of 60 and 66. However as the pension age increased we had to work six more years.

So the benefit to the government is the money saved plus the additional PAYE and NI payments made by those women working. For a woman on £36,000 a year that would be an extra £42,000 over six years. So WASPI women have benefitted the coffers by anything from £50,000 to £92,000+. Yes the overall income may have been higher than the pension but it had to be worked for. And one thing that I haven't seen mentioned so far is that women tend to suffer health issues earlier than men because of the precipitative effects of hormone decline post menopause, so not all women are capable of working the extra.

And we may (but probably won't) get on average £2,000 compensation.

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).

But for those not paying tax it's because their only income is the state pension, which will be £11,541.90 a year from April. Do you fancy living on £11.5k a year? While for those of us who have other sources of income we pay tax like anyone else over the personal allowance threshold.

I am ambivalent about the Ombudsman's findings as I've said before on this thread. All generations benefit and suffer in their own ways. But as I've said even on this post, I suspect the discussion wil be purely academic as the govt. are strongly resisting paying the compensation that's been recommended. So today's younger taxpayers can rest easy that they won't be funding anything more.

I agree 100%

I genuinely do not understand how these women are saying they didn't know.

They must not have read any letters they received, did a pension forecast, or even read the papers or listened to the news.

It's all disingenuous.

I think the misjustice is that young people now who are working will be forced via taxes to pay. That's the miscarriage of justice.

Don’t be ridiculous. The post office scandal is completely different and 100 times worse.

@Gymnopedie Did you never receive any letters?

Where were you when the letters were sent?
When it was in the news for years before you reached 60?

Genuine questions.

I was born in the 1950s. I knew, and knew for ages.

I welcome any compensation at all having watched my Mum crawl to what she thought was her retirement date in a highly physically demanding public sector job with multiple medical conditions which she would had not continued in if she had known months before her 60th birthday it would be moved by five years.

I do think this WASPI campaign is somewhat distasteful given how hard life is for younger people who will end up paying for it

I'm younger, in my mid 30s, and I don't find it distasteful. Just because things are hard for younger people right now doesn't mean that other generations shouldn't campaign for the injustices that affected them. Good on them for doing it.

I imagine the vast majority of them would support a fair state pension for their children as well, but given no government or prospective government has actually said anything about what the pension will be when millennials reach retirement age, there isn't a lot that they can do or say on the matter, is there?