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.

Thing is, as you well know, the difference in housing costs is many times bigger than the average costs of a mobile phone, gym membership or Netflix subscription. Foreign holidays are no more expensive, in relative terms, than UK holidays were in the 70s and 80s, in fact, they're often cheaper, hence why people go to the Med instead of Morecambe! It's your kind of response that makes the younger people more annoyed as it shows you just don't understand the problems that younger people face today. However much you save a tenner from cancelling Netflix and save a tenner from moving to a cheaper phone tarriff, you're not going to save enough for a house deposit (usually tens of thousands) when you're paying £800 per month for a poxy one bedroom flat which is paying someone else's mortgage so they can have a comfortable income in retirement!

@MalvernValentine I am 59.
Lots of people retire with just a state pension. Maybe you are well off so do not know these people. I know lots of people in this situation, or who have a tiny personal pension plus state pension.

In the 70's and 80's I think more couples got married younger and went from the family home to their own home.
We rented just for 7 months but had been saving for a deposit whilst living at home.
Houses were much cheaper though, however we were only allowed to borrow 2x dh wage and .5 x mine.
Dh and I have given both dc deposits and I think it must be very hard for first time buyers without any help.

Not well off, no. Very humble beginnings)working class background. Just of an age where living off of state pension won't be possible when I retire and of a generation that are mandated to make their own private provisions.

You may know lots of people in your situation but again, my point was that it's unlikely that it is a comfortable position.

WASPI should have been informed. Younger women don't hate them. But it IS hard to have sympathy. Most women work now. Yes they can because they can access better childcare, but they also HAVE to because you can't love on one income. They have to save for their own retirement and possibly won't access the state pension until 71.

WASPI did have more limitations, but the majority could have worked for a good 20 years or more after children grew up. For those that had their health and ability to work but chose not to......why should anyone feel sorry for them? Especially when you can actually work past retirement age. Pretty much like all the women in my family have had to (your age and older).

Wasn’t about losing thousands. It was about the accelerated timescales.

How old are you @mitogoshi - my colleague is 65 and said it doesn't affect her, she's never been married, always paid full NI since age 18 and isn't able to get a state pension for another 12/13 months

Two of our DC stayed at home until they were mid twenties. They worked 2 jobs. Eventually bought one bed apartment each in cheaper part of Glasgow. At the same time friends were scooting about in leased cars, paying MUA for every night out they had. I'm not suggesting that things aren't difficult for young people but you can only spend your money once and I think some would benefit from some good money advice.

@MalvernValentine Most people only manage top ups to the state pension.
And you are still fairly young then? You have zero understanding of menopause and ageing.

@SignoraVolpe
Houses were much cheaper though, however we were only allowed to borrow 2x dh wage and .5 x mine

Is that because you were the lower earner or was it sexism? Would it have been reversed if you earned more than him?

@JoanThursday1972 It was the mortgage rules. And it was based on the idea the woman might get pregnant. Many women did not get much maternity pay and nursery places were few and and far between. There were childminders, but there was not the level of regulation there was now so standards were not always that high. So more women stayed at home until their children were at least 3.

She did have the money. She was relying on state pension for the upkeep - the point at which she couldn’t afford it was when the state pension didn’t materialise. I know quite a few people who used buy to let as an alternative to a private pension.

@JoanThursday1972 and it did not matter if the woman was the higher earner.

It was the mortgage rules for women in 1976.
Also i worked for lloyds bank and they would not allow women to join the work pension scheme until they were 25 as they assumed most would have left to have dc so I lost 5 years work pension. And I wasn't allowed the cheap staff mortgage either because again I was a woman.
We weren't allowed to wear trousers either. 😅

Tbh lloyds bank remind me of the Victorian bank in Mary Poppins.

So... relying on money that she didn't actually have. The 2nd property was purchased in 2012 so not sure what the excuse was there.
Landlords get no sympathy from me. You want to invest in property, do your research and make sure you can afford it.

@BlBlueBadgeHolder I'm middle aged, so no, yet to experience the delights of menopause. But how is that relevant to the WASPI outcome or the claims on here about posters hating women over 60. I'm going to have a menopause though and still not be able to claim assistance from the state until the same age as everyone else. What is your point exactly?

Incorrect. Most people are paying for private pensions and a lot always have even prior to automatic enrollment. Which is why younger women aren't allowed ears. We'll have the same problems eventually but have to pay a heck of a lot more and wait a lot longer to access a state pension.

*All ears 😂 sorry about all the typos. I'm clearly not clever despite the snark of the poster that said so 😂

One post.

You can experience menopause when you’re young. I went into it at 32 after a cancer scare and a total hysterectomy. By the time I reach the age of having completed natural menopause, I will have worked for over 20 years with its symptoms.

I know it’s pedantic but it really irritates me when people use the menopause as a way of insinuating that younger women are ignorant, when in actual fact some younger women are actually experiencing it and will do so for many years longer than those who experience it naturally.

It was sexism. It would have been the same if she was the higher earner. Because no maternity leave, no maternity pay, precious little childcare available. Women were legally asked in job interviews what their plans were for starting a family. Nobody born since about 1980 has a clue what it was like for us back then.

I agree it should have been communicated properly. Perhaps rather than compensating everyone by a relatively small amount they should ask women to submit evidence of financial loss as a result of not receiving a letter (beyond loss of pension as that would have happened regardless of communication). Obviously some women wouldn't receive anything as a result but some might receive quite a lot. Would you be happier with that?

She likely did her research and did make sure. Until it became clear her pension wouldn’t kick in as she had planned for. That’s the whole point - she planned based on information at the time and then the goalposts were moved - but I realise private landlords are vilified on MN at every turn.

That would seem fairer, I agree, but the principle here isn’t the financial loss, it’s the failure to communicate.

Yes, but people don't normally receive compensation for something unless there has actually been a loss as a result of the failure. So if people are in the same position regardless of the letter why would they be eligible for compensation?

She didn't do the research though clearly. The changes were made by 2012. Obviously she didn't even check or seek financial advice. Making assumptions and hoping for the best is not the same as planning. As with any other investment, BTL landlords are not owed returns.

I feel like this is a bit of false argument. If you are completely incapable of managing your own financial affairs, there is a safeguarding factor there and that is a situation where a Power of Attorney or an Advocate should be at play. The onus is on that responsible adult to be aware.

It wouldn't just be pensions that could go wrong in that situation, it could be all sorts of financial problems.