AIBU to think that WASPI women should not be entitled to compensation?

[mugglewump]

They've been on the news again marching for compensation in a climate where the government is having to make very difficult decisions about funding to stop our debt ever increasing.

I think there are far more deserving cases for goverment money than women who didn't act on information at the time and sort their pensions out or keep working (p/t or f/t) until retirement age.

Moreover, the people paying this compensation are those who will be working until they are 67 to 70 to claim a state pension. Surely, it's a bit ick to expect them to bail out women who retired at 60?

@Completelyjo no, women of my age didn’t feel it was unfair that men retired later. I worked full time and had a family. Had no help whatsoever from family members and certainly none of us had state funded childcare as is the case now. I worked a full day at work and came home to work in the home. Men didn’t take as much on in terms of household chores charing as they appear to now. That may be why women’s pension age differed.

Men had a 2 year increase in their retirement age women like me had 7 years. As I said - my husband is only 2.5 years older than me yet retired at 65. How did that happen if what you say is true?

So, in answer to your question, no it isn’t fair.

Well you have now, because it happened to me.

I was never told about it.

I eventually found out in the media, some time later. Luckily I wasn't near retirement, so it didn't affect my planning and I wouldn't expect any compensation.

But other women were really left in the lurch because they didn't know they had to work for another 6 years, and they should be compensated.

For all those saying that it’s young working people who are paying for pensions…..do you think we didn’t pay? I worked from 18 till 67, full NI payment over all those years, a lot of tax - what did the various governments do with it? Stash it away somewhere warm until I was ready to have it all back, thank you very much?
Yes, I knew about the change in retirement age which meant I worked an additional 7 years longer than I had pension planned for. But to say I didn’t put in my fair share and now someone else has to pay for me is just plain wrong!

It’s not unfair for women to retire 5 years before men because your DH didn’t take an active role in your family life. Okay good one.

You paid for the state pensions of people older than you. Of which there were vastly fewer.

Icould understand women who didn't receive the information and were adversley affected receiving a payout but not all women. I guess the issue is if they admit fault they would have to pay all

I’m now 67 for retirement and it worries me how I can work until then as employers won’t keep me to that age and I doubt I’d be up to it…just hope it doesn’t go up again.

I am looking for work at the moment in my 50s and it’s extremely difficult . It is really tough as ageism is rife so how the heck will jobs be available once you hit your 60s.

It is a nightmare scenario as won’t get pension until 67 maybe later …people expected to work much longer but what jobs will/can they actually do …not everyone has a good enough private pension to rely on.

This!

YABVU Op.

@Completelyjo You have not comprehended what I said. I said ‘Men didn’t take as much on in terms of household chores charing as they appear to now. That may be why women’s pension age differed.’

’Men’ plural… meaning that it was very much the norm for women to deal with the domestic side of things as well as working- that is the way it was. I proffered a suggestion that it ‘may have’ been why women’s pension age retired at 60.

We didn’t write the pension law and it certainly wasn’t because my husband didn’t play an active role in family life… how ridiculous.

I’m a WASPI woman and had notification it was changing on a sliding scale so that would have meant I would be 63 (this was sent only just before I was 60) but had absolutely nothing to say the goalpost had moved again. The first thing I knew was from the radio. It has made a huge difference and quite a struggle for the five years and two months before I got my pension. We entered into a contract to receive our pension at 60 and the callous way we were not informed was distressing. I know those who were not affected would not fully understand.

All I can say is bless your naivety if you don't think men and women in their late 50's today [never mind in their mid 60's 10 years from now] are not currently being managed out left, right and centre in favour of younger and cheaper staff, often overseas.

I'm just grateful that I am in a financial position that I can do something about it. My check today revealed an £11k a year pension with full entitlement. There are swathes of the next generation who will be paying rent until the day they die and if reliant on a state pension will live in abject poverty on these numbers.

I went to a school nursery when I was a small child. That was free.
Please look at how much nursery costs are now compared to 30yrs ago. The "free hours" make the tiniest of dents in what parents have to pay, and are by available for very young children.

And in your answer to my question / statement about the age of men and women when they get their pension, I'll say it again simply: if you were the same age as your husband you would have retired at the same age as him. If he were the same age as you, he would have retired at 67, like you. Women born at the same time as your husband retired at the same time as him. They weren't made to wait two years longer because they were female. Women's pensions were adjusted to have parity with men's.

The state pension change I would propose is that people who have worked and paid full NI for for 42 years (not credits) don’t have to wait until they are 67 to claim their state pension. This would help address the inequalities of those who started work at age 16-18, who often are some of the most disadvantaged and lowest paid and die younger than their peers who went to university. It would help avoid the difficulty of those who have done a manual job who may have limited transferable skills being expected to seek work at age ages 65/66. It would also relieve pressure on GPs issuing sick notes so people so they can claim sickness benefit instead of unemployment benefits. Some countries already do a version of this.

For those that berate the WASPI women, think of all the unpaid work women in their 60s used to do when they retired - the CAB volunteers, going into schools to hear children read, meals on wheels, driving the elderly to hospital appointments and looking after grandchildren and elderly relatives. Then think of all the women expected to be in the workforce for 7 more years and the impact on career opportunities for those coming behind.

I don’t want compensation, however, I think the way this change was delivered has sent an important message to those coming behind about not trusting what you are told and things may change. My pension age was still 60 when I had DC, were I to have known I would have to wait for my state pension until age 67, I would have had a career break, but I returned to work straight after maternity leave so I would be fully paid up in terms of NI contributions to retire at 60.

I paid for a lot more than that, as did many others my age. The tax burden on income was much higher generally over most of my working life and the tax free earning thresholds lower.
It wasn’t the case that the government only took what they needed to pay pensioners from my income! I wish, then I’d have been able to retire at 60 with a fat personal pension instead.

@Fidelius For all those saying that it’s young working people who are paying for pensions…..do you think we didn’t pay? I worked from 18 till 67, full NI payment over all those years, a lot of tax -

Statistically waspi women worked and contributed financially less to the state than younger working men and women today. That’s just a fact, not an attack.

But did the majority of the childcare + caring for elderly parents thereby saving the state money.

My retirement age is now 67 and my contributions are fully paid up at 54, having worked since I was 16, but I still need to continue paying contributions! THIS makes me pissed off tbh, but there we go.

I’m not sure how I feel about the WASPI compensation. My DM could have retired at 60 but did so at 74, even with health conditions.

Everything seems unfair, why should I still keep contributing when I’m paid up? How is it fair that 3.6m women might receive compensation when many of them WERE aware? Will my contributions help to pay for this if successful?

Based on the amount of media that came out about it at that time, that's like someone not noticing brexit happening. I don't buy their arguement at all. They must hate the younger generations to raid the pension pot this way when we'll be retiring at 70.

That’s not why women’s pension age was lower. Nor is it so women could make sandwiches for their older husband upon retirement.
When the 60 and 65 age difference was put into pension law women had a much lower life expectancy. In a world of equal pay, gender equality and women’s life expectancy surpassing men it simply doesn’t make any sense for women to continue retiring 5 years before men. Therefore it was rightly changed.

when this was just announced in the mid-90s we didn’t have wall to wall news. Or widespread public use of the internet. It was very easy to stay uninformed about current affairs if you weren’t bothered. I had one lovely, intelligent friend who couldn’t name the prime minister, and was completely unbothered by our WTAF reactions.

Even now, There are huge swathes of the population who choose to remain ignorant about lots of important issues of the day. So I can well believe the WASPI women didn’t know about the changes, but I can also believe they were informed eg by letter but didn’t pay attention to it or understand it.

when I first started work I expected to retire at 60, the state pension age was soon equalised to 65 and raised to 67. I knew about each change when they were announced, was discussed amongst female friends and financial planning has taken it into account ever since. Yes there are times in our lives when there is a lot of shit going on, but we have to take responsibility for ourselves and our own decisions, and that includes staying informed. It’s easier today than it’s ever been, especially to log onto HMRC and view your pension forecast.

What some women do or don’t do outside work within your family is your choice and not relevant to your pension age.

This, and had fewer opportunities to either train for, or be accepted into, higher paying employment. My generation aspired to do so and made it possible through activism, for other women, and women following to do so too.
As a result many of us have fully contributed economically.

@sillybillydh If I were the same age as my husband I would have retired at 60 or just over.

@Petrine But that arguments could be applied to anything. If everyone on this thread was your husband’s age we could have retired at 60. Im 7 months younger than DH but he can retire at 67 and me 68. It’s unfair but these changes have been made and we have to deal with them - without putting extra burden on our country’s finances.