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.

There is a spectrum of difficulties where people who are severely affected will require a POA; others can work but still struggle with financial planning and general admin. So for that latter group of people, when a government fails to articulate the 2011 changes, it is highly likely that they would have been caught short. And yes this doesn't just apply to pensions. Furthermore, some charities that were set up specifically to help these people with admin have been shut down (certainly in my area) so if you are vulnerable or are a vulnerable family, it is very very hard to navigate this sort of stuff.

😂 You can't be serious. Do you snarl at the Cat's Protection League because they don't campaign for dogs? Or call the British Heart Foundation selfish for not researching skin diseases?

And on the point of housing. Mortgage rates jumped from 11% to 15% in 1980 and stayed historically high. My parents bought their house in 1965 for £3000. A similar property my DH and I bought in 1979 cost nearly £18,000 - a 500% increase, and the mortgage payments took up all of my monthly wage - a princely £200 pcm. It’s all relative to the times.

For most couples, being able to afford your own home meant you needed two wages but mortgage rules were much stricter - basically because women were subject to being fired for getting pregnant and maternity leave varied from company to company, with entitlement mostly linked to length of service. In 1985, it was decided workplace subsidised nurseries were a taxable benefit, adding £700-£1000 to women's tax bills, and in 1987, the universal maternity grant was removed and state paid maternity allowance was heavily restricted. I think it was that same year I remember an employee by the name of Maria Brown, hitting the headlines when she lost a lawsuit against her employer, who had selected her for redundancy because she was pregnant.

The rights women enjoy now have been fought for by older women criticised for being boomers and ‘having it all’, some of whom are now being discussed here in the most mealy mouthed terms, simply for deciding they weren’t going to stand for being shafted when it came to their pensions too.

Well said.

Yes, very much this. I paid loads of tax and NI for decades, while having no children and enjoying private health insurance. So, younger whingers, I subsidised your healthcare and that of your children, paid towards your education and your DC's, helped you give birth and part-funded any ambulance you called.

I wasn't using any of these services myself. So should I demand a refund from you, or do we live in a society that should look after all its members sufficiently and fairly?

I've equally never had a letter that my pension age has increased to 68 but I still know that it has done.

Because I've never had a letter, am I also entitled to compensation when I get to 65 and "suddenly discover" that I have to work an extra 3 years all because I never got a letter?

There is a degree of personal responsibility about keeping yourself informed.

But Waspi women expected others to help fight their cause. The valid point was that few of them were interested in fighting any other causes for other people affected by governmental/civil service foul ups.

If such groups actually worked together, there'd be better chance of campaigning for change and a more efficient/competent civil service. When there are parallels, the groups affected need to work together for better effect and better outcomes.

@Garlicking

"Or do we live in a society that should look after all its members sufficiently and fairly?"

Yes we should definitely treat all members of society sufficiently and fairly, which is why it is so grossly unfair on younger women to either pay higher taxes or receive lower public services in order to pay the costs of universal state pensions, free NHS, winter fuel allowances, bus passes etc etc in the full knowledge that they will be highly unlikely to receive the same.

That's the bit that is not treating all members of society fairly and sufficiently.

@GarlGarlicking unless you are a higher rate tax payer, you're not even covering yourself, let alone subsidising anyone else.

Very few are net contributors in terms of tax paid and services used.

Well said.

I'm one month too young to be a WASPI. I got one letter very late on to tell me that my retirement age is now 66 and one month. (In the 90s, I saw one small article saying that it would be 65 and hadn't realised that it had changed yet again for my age group.)

I'm fortunate - I have a work pension. As I mentioned in another comment, I did send off for a state pension forecast more recently and was shocked to find that I no longer have sufficient contributions for a full state pension: the last time I checked, I was told that I was fine. This time round, I've been told that the rules have changed. Was also told by the DWP call handler that it was unrelated to the change in retirement age.

I've no doubt that some will castigate me for not being fully informed. At one point, I was working full time and caring for three adults. I've spent years just putting one foot in front of the other.

I paid loads of tax and NI for decades, while having no children and enjoying private health insurance. So, younger whingers, I subsidised your healthcare and that of your children, paid towards your education and your DC's, helped you give birth and part-funded any ambulance you called.

I wasn't using any of these services myself. So should I demand a refund from you, or do we live in a society that should look after all its members sufficiently and fairly?

Literally everything in this post is irrelevant!! Absolutely ridiculous.
"Younger wingers" are paying your pension and YOUR healthcare in return.
But you want more.

@Motheroffourdragons the reality is, the majority aren't net contributors. So that's a bit of a red herring argument either way. Unless you're a higher rate tax payer, the reality is no one is funding anything other than what they take over their lifetime.

It's staggering that young womens are being called selfish for simply acknowledging WASPI women have an earlier retirement age and did have the choice to work after having their families.

It does seem anything other than blind support is met with some quite strong resistance here or claims of misogyny, ageism and now being self centred.

Us young ones should ignore the fact that some women didn't read or watch current affairs and didn't bother to work once their kids left home. Gotcha

I think part of the problem is that, when all this was announced, the internet wasn’t in widespread use.

Information was only spread via the odd TV advert, or on poster boards, or by personal letter.

Nowadays, it’s easy to look up info, but it wasn’t then. I don’t know why the government didn’t notify everyone - I’m swamped with info nowadays.

If money is owed, it should be paid.

Labour and the LDs seem to be going down the route of a flat £2950 for every WASPI, but some want more.

The Tories will kick the can down the road until the election. 😗

Aye. As I've said, I knew about the change to 65 (but not from any official letter). I didn't realise that my pension would then be moved again, up to 66 and one month, until I finally got an official letter.

I stopped reading the financial press some years back. I'd been concentrating on trying to function whilst working and caring for family members. At one point, when I tried to get a bit more help, I was scolded by a carer who told me that she was in exactly the same position as me since she was working whilst being the mother of two children.

I'd say that caring for three disabled adults is somewhat different.

Yes I would agree there is a degree of personal responsibility but if you're paying into the system - they have a responsibility too, to make sure they have informed everyone of the changes. It seems the ombudsman agrees with me and they will be across the fine detail a lot more than anyone on this thread.

@Alwaysdieting

" in 1987, the universal maternity grant was removed and state paid maternity allowance was heavily restricted. I think it was that same year I remember an employee by the name of Maria Brown, hitting the headlines when she lost a lawsuit against her employer, who had selected her for redundancy because she was pregnant. "

This was a US case and Maria Brown was fired in 2006 with the legal case in 2012, not in the 1980s.

Basically her employer argued that they fired her because she didn't perform well in training in her new job. The employer won on the first case but Maria Brown was successful on appeal and won $75000 in damages.

spigglelaw.com/can-a-judge-reverse-a-jury-verdict-in-a-pregnancy-discrimination-case/

You could literally have the exact same case today where the employer argues the firing had nothing to do with the pregnancy and the employee saying it did.

As someone staring at the retirement age of 71 currently I understand why you are conflicted

@12345change

"but if you're paying into the system - they have a responsibility too, to make sure they have informed everyone of the changes. "

So in that basis should everyone who will be getting a pension at 67 or 68 also be entitled to get compensation because they haven't received a letter about the change?

The waspi women have been stolen from. The cost of this is a fraction of of the cost of track n trace etc.

They should be compensated without question

So was actively parenting and caring for lots of disabled adults probably. Seems an odd thing for you to try and compete over.

You assume there was choice after having children. The realities were that for many women returning to work after raising children, it was difficult due to the misogynistic attitudes to mothers. I know myself how inequality ramped up massively when I became a mother and juggling motherhood and work was a nightmare (this isn't a new phenomena). Also, some women continued in their caring role, either supporting children with disabilities who became adults with disabilities or elderly parents or both. And as I've explained previously, there can be real constraints on time and energy that can make it difficult to plan. In any case, it is not the fault of women, whatever situation they are in, it was the government that messed up.

Missing the point. I’m a WASPI, born late fifties and was supposed to have received a letter in 2011. Like many women I didn’t receive anything at all, but according to the findings in the report, rather than 2011, I should have had that letter up to three years earlier to allow for proper retirement planning so as not to be at significant disadvantage. With something as significant as a change in pension age it should not have been left to those affected to find out for themselves. DWP are a law unto themselves and will now delay compensation by refusing to co-operate. We should be asking why they are taking this stance when it’s they who failed in their duty of care - both in advising those affected in a timely manner, and in the quality of the information given to those who made enquiries after discovering what was happening.

@Flowers4me nope. No assuming. Just watching the rel.life example or much older relatives and the many woman around me that did exactly that. Went to work after kids. On the 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s...I could go on.

Thank you.

I started working in '84. I made exactly the same contributions as the men who started the same time as I - and yet my first two years of contributions would have disappeared into the ether if I'd died in post.