Ageism,ignorance, intolerance. class bias on mumsnet re Waspi women

[CAJIE]

I did not honestly expect any compensation though I might have hoped. Iwas aware of this change but did not have the chance to make extra provision for it.I do have a professional pension but will have to wait a while longer for the state pension which is extremely challenging.My plans were changed by covid and I doubt I will be employed again except possibly on poor and temporary contracts or gig economy.Secondary school supply on a daily basis has more or less gone.
However what appals me is the attitudes of many mumsnetters who assume that everyone has the abiity to understand pensions and that the Waspi women should have taken so called control of their situation.Maybe some could but there is a hell of a lot of class bias towards the women in lower paid jobs who perhaps were overwhelmed by struggling to survive and did not understand or read the news or the pension changes were not clearly explained to them.Pensions can be hard to understand and provoke anxiety.This appalling prejudice that all older people are rolling in it and this nice habit of some younger women to be sadly quite misogynistic and ageist towards women who are in poverty is very concerning.All sections of society should thrive even in older age and perhaps you younger women should be challenging society, housing costs, the whole ideology of owning a house and actually trying to build something new rather than bitching about what boomers have and their endless cruises etc.
.You are turning against your sex and the comments are cruel and harsh.You know nothing about these womens lives.
Starmer wants to punish older people and older women are always a good target.Your spite about all the things that boomers are supposed to have and you apparently dont is unpleasant.Women beware women.Very sad and against justice.

@MerryMaker I don't think that is right. if you were employed in the U.K. and worked enough hours in the year, you will have paid NI and achieved a 'qualifying year' (or your employer was defrauding the Revenue).
Paying into an employers pension does not reduce your entitlement to state pension. It is in addition to it. Log onto www. Gov.U.K. and check your accrued qualifying years.

Actually it is true that men retired under the old state pension system (before 2016 so about 73 and up today) have much higher average state pensions than women because:

1. The old state pension has two components … the basic state pension which is flat rate and based on qualifying years; and additional state pension, which is earnings realted.
2. men generally worked more years with fewer career breaks and therefore are more likely to have full qualifying years for the basic state pension
3. men are more likely to have additional state pension income through SERPS because they were more likely to be working and their ASP is likely to be higher because they were more likely to be higher earners,

Since 2016 the (new) state pension has been flat rate so any difference in income is entirely based on how many qualifying years people have. On that basis the difference between men and women has narrowed considerably but there is still a small difference which is largely due to women not working (or not being eligible for NI credits) for more years of their adult life.

I suspect @MerryMaker may have been contracted out, which was where employers and employees elected to redirect some of their NI payments (the earnings related share that would have gone towards additional state pension) towards workplace pensions rather than State Pension.

From govt website https://www.gov.uk/contracted-out …

If you were contracted out of the Additional State Pension, some of your National Insurance contributions were either:

• lower than people who were not contracted out
• paid into another pension, for example a workplace or private pension

It was entirely normal and it was not the governments obligation to ensure that employees understood what they were doing.

@CAJIE back to the original point of the post.

I think what many people are frustrated by is the general handwringing of a generation which has had it better than any generation before, and will have it better than any generation that follows.

On the whole there is widespread reluctance to acknowledge the vast disparities in wealth and opportunity that have been acquired, and an insistence that the worst off people in the older generation are representative of everyone and that when they are mistreated in some way, everyone is.

WASPI and WFA are two clear examples. In the case of WASPI, staggeringly little evidence of financial hardship resulting from the change has been put forward, and no credible explanation has been offered of why more than three quarters of women were fully up to speed and planned accordingly, and why a minority were not. Yet still, advocates are claiming that an entire generation of women should be compensated at the cost of public services and working taxpayers. WFA is another, there is a more demonstrable impact on a group of people just above pension credit level but with below average income. However this group is small and does not justify the WFA being paid to an entire cohort of people, most of whom do not need it.

So while there is safety in numbers, I think what people are looking to the older generation for is recognition of where you’ve had it really good, and some sympathy for where younger generations have it much harder.

I find in general on MN that there is a much broader range of perspectives than in other parts of the press, with plenty of people coming on to say that no - they don’t need WFA, compensation etc. But if you want the “ageism, intolerance and class bias” to stop then you need to acknowledge some of why it’s there in the first place.

Also @CAJIE … can I check I have understood this correctly:

”I did not honestly expect any compensation though I might have hoped. Iwas aware of this change but did not have the chance to make extra provision for it.I do have a professional pension but will have to wait a while longer for the state pension which is extremely challenging”

This tells me you’re not actually retired yet, how old are you - when do you reach state pension age and when did you think you would get your state pension?

…and what were you expecting compensation for?

and no credible explanation has been offered of why more than three quarters of women were fully up to speed and planned accordingly, and why a minority were not.

There are many credible reasons why some women may not have been aware. Firstly information was harder to access - the internet was in its infancy certainly in terms of home computing, information came through the news or direct mail for things that impacted you particularly. If you didn’t get your mail for any reason you wouldn’t know you would be personally affected.

Society was far more patriarchal as a whole. And much more abusive with fewer ways to leave. It’s not unreasonable to think some women didn’t know because they had a husband opening their mail so simply didn’t get notification because their husband controlled their lives.

It was a time when men were often still considered the bread winner and women left all things money to their husband, who simply didn’t notice or care that the changes impacted their wife - and a view that she’d be ok because she’d be living on his pension.

Social media didn’t exist and in some circles women tended to socialise with others in similar circumstances and stages of life. If your circle was small, and you were in the midst of child rearing you wouldn’t necessarily have been chatting pension ages with friends so wouldn’t necessarily hear it through the grapevine.

I don’t find it unbelievable that a third of women didn’t know - I have no idea how my mum would have found out in her particular circumstances.

She missed all of this then @Jellycatspyjamas … that patriarchy must have been strong?

76. DWP told us it made considerable efforts to communicate State Pension age changes and to ensure those affected could access detailed and bespoke information about their State Pension entitlement, including:

• running pensions education campaigns, which included information about State Pension age equalisation (The evidence we have seen confirms DWP did make considerable efforts - across a variety of formats and using a range of media channels and stakeholders - to promote pensions awareness and planning for retirement through its pensions education campaigns)

• publishing ‘numerous’ leaflets from 1995 onwards (Leaflets were available from Benefits Agency offices, by calling a helpline, by freepost, or (from around 1998) accessible online. Some were displayed in Post Offices, GP surgeries and by other stakeholders (such as Citizens Advice Bureaux)…Nearly seven in ten leaflets available over the following decade mention that women’s State Pension age is changing. A survey in 1999 found that 96% of respondents considered information in the leaflets was easy to understand.

• making State Pension age clear in the 22 million State Pension statements issued online, by post or over the telephone since 1995

• issuing around 17.8 million automatic pension forecasts (APFs) between 2003 and 2006 with a leaflet explaining the increase in State Pension age for women

• making information about State Pension age available on its website, including an option for individuals to calculate their State Pension age. From around 2001, as well as information about State Pension age changing, an online State Pension age checker was available. By inputting their date of birth, women would have been shown their State Pension age.

• writing to 1.2 million women affected by the Pensions Act 1995 between 2009 and 2011, and those affected by the Pensions Act 2011 between January 2012 and November 2013.

• issuing around 17.8 million automatic pension forecasts (APFs) between 2003 and 2006 with a leaflet explaining the increase in State Pension age for women
• writing to 1.2 million women affected by the Pensions Act 1995 between 2009 and 2011, and those affected by the Pensions Act 2011 between January 2012 and November 2013.

Too late, much too late. It’s simply not good enough to notify people of such an important change between seven and ten years after the event in the case of the 1995 change and up to two years (by which time some of them still thought they were about to get their pension) for the 2011 change.

I wonder how many people still don’t know that pension payment isn’t automatic and it has to be claimed?

I knew, was pissed off about being hit twice and am over it. I never expected any compensation or wanted it but I can see why so many of my worse off contemporaries are aggrieved.

She missed all of this then … that patriarchy must have been strong?

She was in an extremely abusive marriage. My dad strictly controlled what came into the house and was deeply suspicious of the state, so yes she would have missed most of that. If she had been aware my dad would have told her it didn’t concern her because he would “take care” of her. And she would have listened because a) fear, b) what else could she do. You clearly have no concept of the lives some women lived.

While this is obviously a very unfortunate situation, it isn't the fault of younger tax payers to compensate

While this is obviously a very unfortunate situation, it isn't the fault of younger tax payers to compensate

I never said it was, if you look at my previous posts you’ll see that I don’t agree with compensation being paid. I was answering @MillyGoat questioning how my mum (and many other women) could have missed the information.

It wasn’t the “fault” (I think you mean responsibility) of the boomer generation to pay for a war that ended before we were born, but we did. The final payment was made in 2006. Everyone who pays tax will be paying for postmasters and infected blood victims - quite rightly. Taxpayers have to foot the bill for government fuck ups, unfortunately.

It was a fuck up, but most of the WASPIS could have made up for the shortfall in state pension by continuing to work. It might be very disappointing to be asked to continue to work when you thought you could retire (hence my sympathy) but it isn’t asking for unbearable sacrifices, and is still far less than what the Generation Z and Generation Alphas will be expected to do. It’s definitely not up there with the infected blood scandal. The ‘couple of thousand pounds’ per compensation for each WASPI woman will place the country under considerable strain and the general feeling across the generations isn’t so supportive. Factor in things like triple lock pensions and, rightly or wrongly, it appears as if the financial issues of the last fifteen years have had less impact on the older generations. Within this there are some (including WASPIS) who are really struggling due to particular circumstances, but the demand for blanket compensation has almost been counter-productive.

OK then @Shwish following your line of reasoning, if a gen z person gets pg on a one night stand, realises too late to have an abortion, had little family suppprt, etc, is it the responsibility of older, retired people to fund their benefits? You do realise that many pensioners continue to pay tax I assume?

One of the real idiocies is the situation regarding free prescriptions for all over 60s. DH and I are still working full time and I will until 65, DH probably until 70 (through choice). We get free prescriptions. Our mothers are in their late 80s, pay tax and still get free prescriptions. They used to donate their winter fuel allowances.

OK then following your line of reasoning, if a gen z person gets pg on a one night stand, realises too late to have an abortion, had little family suppprt, etc, is it the responsibility of older, retired people to fund their benefits?

The welfare state should be there to support people if they fall into hardship, regardless of age. I think most of us on the left would agree with that.

But it has to be the same rules for everyone. Universal Credit is notoriously complicated to navigate. If you've failed to claim because you didn't understand the system then you don't get compensated for that, it's tough titties. If you've failed to file your tax return because you didn't know you had to do one then you get fined.

@RosesAndHellebores do you mean that you think free prescriptions should be abolished and means tested instead?

I do in principle but don’t think they should if it means using pension credit as the threshold again as too many people in the middle may become reluctant to use prescriptions. I’d say anyone who is a higher rate taxpayer but that’s complicated to implement. I also think pensioners should pay NI (ie… more tax).

The ‘couple of thousand pounds’ per compensation for each WASPI woman will place the country under considerable strain and the general feeling across the generations isn’t so supportive.

The couple of thousand pounds also won’t make a material difference to most of these women, it certainly won’t make up any shortfall in their retirement plans. We don’t have the funds nationally to pay £10b on principle.

@Millygoat bearing in mind that I'm not eligible for the state pension until 66 and some months and dh not until 67, I don't think free prescriptions should be available before state retirement age.

In a perfect world we could pit the £9.90 in a box at the pharmacy to go towards prescriptions for the poor.

On the other hand our IHT bill has just become eye watering without planning and many older people will think "F It".

Ah I see, yes interesting point. Re IHT - are you farmers or is this because your pension pot will be brought into IHT?

I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect a pension to be IHT free. It’s a financial asset just like anything else.

@MillyGoat no we aren't farmers. My family were and the farm went in the early 80's due to IHT bills that prevailed then. My comment relates to DH's private pension pot. Not a disaster because we can gift it. You do realise that for the self employed the money invested in pensions doesn't come with the luxury of an employer contributions.

We have also already paid rafts of tax, about £250k pa in DH's prime years. One sometimes wonders how much labour governments want. We can and will take assets overseas.

I agree, particularly given that the money attracts tax relief on the way in - at 45% for the highest earners. Expecting that money to never be taxed feels a bit like wanting your bread buttered both sides with jam on top. And of course you can swerve IHT on it by just spending it.

Yes I’m fully aware that self-employed workers don’t have employer contributions (since you employ yourself…) but presumably you received tax relief on your own contributions and also take your tax free lump sum as well?

@RosesAndHellebores employer pension contributions are not something that employees get and self-employed don’t, overall they are essentially deferred pay and should be considered part of an overall compensation package rather than a luxury. But that’s for another thread!

@AnneElliott I was referring to the McLoud judgement -the specific circumstances of that were discrimination against the younger cohorts of retirees who had paid in to final salary pensions and were being forced to transfer on to a new defined benefit scheme at significant financial loss and linked these to the state retirement age.
This judgement has allowed many people in public sector pensions to retire or lift their pensions at their expected age eg 60. It was solely because of the mainly male firefighters' union. (Unfortunately for younger people who joined a defined benefit scheme this will not happen).
In the light of this I don't see how denying the ombudsman's judgment on WASPI can be anything except sexism.

Early retirement ( 55 - 60) particularly for government employees including NHS is actually good for the economy, saves ££££ in senior public sector pay, avoids complex redundancy HR issues and provides free care and social support for elderly parents, grandchildren and volunteers who run .... well - everything!!! It also frees up promotions for younger people. I'm completely baffled by the posters who think that older generations who have retired are just slackers. They are out doing all the things councils used to be able to afford- planting town flower beds, driving voluntary ambulances, running meals on wheels / shopping services, organising food banks, home start, any charity or community group. Younger people seem to think they have a hard time but they benefit from a massively different lifestyle than older generations. People expect to be in very highly promoted posts in their twenties and thirties where older people would work in to their forties and fifties for the same posts. It's only because of early retirement and demographics that this is possible!

@RosesAndHellebores I mean there is a simple way not to lay IHT on a pension pot - you could, you know, use it to fund your retirement as intended.

If you die with a pension pot so large it attacts IHT you are someone who is very very wealthy.