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.

This was in the days before the internet. If you didn't get a letter ( I didn't) and it wasn't in the newspaper you bought or you missed the TV news the night it was reported then you weren't under a rock you just were not informed.

Tax is paid on pensions, in case you weren’t aware.

I think it's a very disappointing decision, but I accept that the Ombudsman has far more knowledge of the situation than I do.

Tbf the bill passed in 1995 and I assume it was debated and discussed for a bit before that, so yes - that's 30 years ago.

Will we get a tax refund for the compensation if the WASPI women in our life spend no time with DGC?

The internet existed in 2010 when these changes were announced.

@ifIwerenotanandroid https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13834281 this is a news article from 2011

‘Today’s taxpayers’ include pensioners.

Well I was born in the 50's and in my case I did know about the changes ( which were first mooted in 1991 but the Act didn't come into force until 1995. It only affected me having to work a further year than I had expected from the 1995 Act when things changed in 2011.

But I am still on the old basic pension and not the new one, which as benefits get uprated by % means that the difference of amounts between the two gets ever bigger. So in some respects it's swings and roundabouts for me

I think the issue is the speed with which they changed the goalposts. Friends only 3 or 4 months younger than me - had to work considerably longer due to the 2011 Act changes

I think compensation of £10k per woman is unreasonable since every one's circumstances and how people were individually impacted will be different tbh

National insurance is not paid and income tax wouldn't be paid either on a state pension.

I was sunk in childcare and being a single parent in 1995. I didn’t have time to watch the news. Or read a newspaper.

I’m 60. I knew nothing about 1995.

There were two increases for WASPI - the first increase from the 1995 Act - in my case the increase was just over three years. Then the second increase happened because of the 2011 Act - in effect targeting the same women twice. Indeed the maximum amount of the second increase was 18 months, (mine was actually six months) but that was added onto the original increase. My total waiting time therefore was just under four years in total.

One thing I don't get. Even if you take the (tenuous) assumption that people missed the news, Internet, DWP letters (if they got them) for 30 years. Then they also did no proper retirement planning/assessment from middle age onwards - did they not talk to their friends, sisters and work colleagues? Surely, there must have been grumbling amongst other women of a similar age about the changes and what it would have meant for them?

The internet was widely used in the 90s.

There were two increases for WASPI - the first increase from the 1995 Act - in my case the increase was just over three years. Then the second increase happened because of the 2011 Act - in effect targeting the same women twice. Indeed the maximum amount of the second increase was 18 months, (mine was actually six months) but that was added onto the original increase. My total waiting time therefore was just under four years in total.

Well if the whole compensation is based on not having enough notice then you obviously can't include the original 3 years in that figure can you?

I didn’t have it. I knew hardly anyone who had it in 1995.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow but the argument for comparison isnt based on the 1995 announcement. It's the 2010 one. Otherwise we're all due compensation for having to work longer!

Well certainly, I talked about it with my friends. We all knew.
You can’t just assume you will get your pension at 60 because they did 20 years ago!

It was the case in the past that part time workers were excluded from paying into pension schemes, including in the NHS.

But they have had it since then, still plenty of time to get caught up and as per poster above, the relevant announcement was much later anyway.

DH is an IT consultant and I don’t think he even had it at home until about 1999/2000!

<googles> “decisions from the past that might affect my retirement when I’ve not been advised that anything is changing”

It was always known that the retirement age for women would increase. But the date of implementation was brought forward with little to no consultation. So women couldn't effectively plan for it.

It was an absolute balls up, and shouldn't have happened the way it did.

I don't think compensation would be in any way adequate, or reflective of lost pension payments, but is more symbolic. Although it is almost certain to not happen.

It wasn't widely publicised. And you're talking about a time when effective retirement planning just wasn't so much a thing for women as it is today. The women impacted by this didn't all have "careers" and it surely doesn't take much brain power to realise that.

Oh, and the Internet was not "widely used" in the 90s either. Most homes didn't have a computer.

The thing is, if someone was to come on here and complain about the unfairness of the woman down the road receiving more in universal credit, or having a bigger council house, or generally being in receipt of a better benefits package, they would be lambasted and told to mind their own business.

But in this instance it's fine to complain about receiving less than your neighbour because you're six months younger.

Are we going to start compensating younger people because they were born in a year which means the minimum wage for them is lower than someone over 25?

The system isn't fair. Life isn't fair. It's like this across every conceivable demographic.

I can't help but feel the WASPI movement is a very cozy, middle class endeavour by women who feel exposed for not being as financially astute and organised as they want people to believe. This probably isn't helped by the faux intelligentsia Sandi Toksvig jumping on the bandwagon.

How do you catch up on something you didn’t know about?