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?

The basis for the claim and reason the claim continues to hold traction.

I have to say I have even less sympathy for someone who choose to retire in their 50s without so much as even checking their NI credits when the retirement age will soon be 70.

Exactly this, you put it much better than l did. Thank you. Many women had workplace pensions which were payable at age 60. Retiring even a couple of years earlier because of ill health meant that those pensions would be payable earlier but at a significantly reduced rate. Had they known that SP would not kick in as they expected, they could perhaps have struggled until age 60 and taken the full workplace pension. As it was, many had to try to rejoin the workforce at significant disadvantage.

I think the point has been somewhat lost here. The recommendation for compensation was based not on the fact tht the retirement age rose, but that DWP failed to adequately advise those women affected. It’s all very well saying the changes were in the news, etc etc, but that doesn’t absolve the DWP of it’s responsibility to communicate effectively with the affected women to ensure they had accurate and timely information to minimise the effect on retirement plans they had already made. It seems to be unthinkable to some here that previous generations planned for their retirement well in advance.

If you are in ill health you don’t ‘choose’ to retire - for some it was a necessity.

Had they known that SP would not kick in as they expected, they could perhaps have struggled until age 60 and taken the full workplace pension. As it was, many had to try to rejoin the workforce at significant disadvantage.

If only there was a way to find out before handing in your notice and packing in your job on an assumption.

Then it’s not relevant! Either you were medically retired due to ill health and therefore the statutory retirement age is irrelevant or you choose to retire early in your 50s when you couldn’t have afforded to fund your retirement until 65.
Ignorance isn’t an excuse. Women aren’t babies. They are perfectly capable of their own financial planning.

I think for those people who were economically literate, fine. There are many people who are not. I've worked with and known professional women all my working life. Some had missed the 'opted out' pension consequences, an astonishing number left the finances to their partner or husband. My mantra to friends and female acquaintances is always, 'Do you know where the money is? Can you access it if you needed to?' Maybe that is infantilisation, certainly I couldn't live like it.
The information might have been 'everywhere', I honestly don't remember. I knew what was happening but I think the lived consequences for people may not have sunk in for all. Covid hasn't helped as jobs were unavailable or lost.
I've written before about my SIL. Major health problems, hasn't worked in decades, asked me to help her find what her pension would be. I couldn't.
No up to date passport, no driving licence, no mobile phone contract. I spoke to my DB but he won't do anything.
People are not all the same.

If it was necessity, how would knowing have changed anything? Either they chose to stop working, or they would have stopped regardless, pension or no pension.

I did point out that many women took early retirement through ill health because they anticipated SP. Not so easy to get back into the job market when you’re late 50’s/early 60’s and in ill health.

This. Is. Going. To. Affect. Everyone. Not. Just. WASPI. Women.

And it's going to affect younger women even more because they'll be trying to access the job market in their late 60s and possibly early 70s.

I accept that there is a brief window where women were really affected by timings. However, the water has been muddied by people suggesting that compensation is due to all the women born in one decade, and only those women, due to something that they seem not to understand is going to impact all of us and the younger of us more significantly.

I've worked with and known professional women all my working life. Some had missed the 'opted out' pension consequences, an astonishing number left the finances to their partner or husband

I know women my age and younger who leave finances to their husbands.

Bonkers.

Also, it doesn't let them off the hook, if they choose not to take responsibility then it's not up to the government to hand hold them.

I'm pretty illiterate financially. I never took out a pension, in fact didn't even think about the SP until I kept seeing all the stuff about topping up and realised that if I didn't top up I might not get the full pension. I'm a spender not a saver. However, all this is my responsibility. It's not like there weren't adverts and articles and tv programmes about the sense in taking out a private pension yourself. I chose to completely ignore it. And here I am! I'm on it now, but I can't make up for the lost years, and can't work full time so am limited as to what I can do.

Can I have comp for not listening properly too?

Like it or not, the WASPIs had from the mid 90s to 2010+ to do something about their pensions. If they chose to ignore everything in the media (or chose not to see what was right in front of them) they, like me, have to face the consequences of that.

The only group deserving of sympathy or recompense are the women and men who suddenly had their pension ages go up from 65 with very little notice.

I feel sorry for the women it affected (my mum was one) - they found out v late and it wasn't staggered. A friend of hers who was 18 months older than her got to retire years before her. How is that fair?
However, when state pensions were introduced, people lived only a few years after retirement. Now people can live for 20 years after retirement age - most of the "welfare" bill is state pensions. I think that expecting working age people to pay for people to sit around in retirement for decades is unfair and unsustainable.

I think for those people who were economically literate, fine. There are many people who are not.

But surely, if you don't understand something important, it's even more crucial to seek expert advice and guidance?

Obviously nobody can know everything about everything, but everybody can contact somebody else who does know. Even before the Internet, you could easily have found a number in the phone book - or sent them a letter.

I'm still amazed at how many people were blithely willing to trust their financial security for what could have been decades on what they reckoned was probably the case, rather than just spend a couple of hours making sure that everything was as they hoped and planned. Most people spend longer than that planning a holiday that will last a week or two and then be history.

I'm sure there would have been immense complaints if they'd brought in the equal pay act, but only to apply to women under a certain age at the time and staggered over a number of years - maybe at least 20 years, considering how many people are complaining that 20+ years was insufficient notice time between the pension age changes being everywhere in the news and them being brought into effect.

Not a single person would have insisted that they should have kept the old regime that they'd always known and expected for those who were then considered 'too old' to adjust to the idea of being paid a (much higher) equal wage for equal work.

I'm no supporter of the waspi campaign but at the same time we have to be fair. Women did not necessarily get 20 years notice of the second change. I was 58 I think, happily preparing for my delayed pension when I found out it had been delayed for a second time. I got just under 5 years notice of the second change while I was still preparing for the first change. I do think the second change was rushed through with women born in the mid 50s not given enough notice.

Even then it's done so let's get over it. Given I "lost" about £50k compared to what I'd have got if it hadn't changed I think a couple of grand is rather irrelevant particularly as it's over ten years since I was 60. I'm not prepared to waste my life on something that happened that long ago.

But they didn't 'find out very late'. That's the problem. If there had been nothing said about it whatsoever until a year before, then yes, but that wasn't the case. Numerous people on this thread who weren't WASPI but were adults at the time this was proposed 15 years before were aware of it. As I have said, I was one of them, and I am no financial whizz and certainly didn't know because I was reading the financial times.

As I have already said, I understand not knowing what to do about it, or not being able to do anything about it. But I still don't understand, can't get my head around people only finding out at the last minute.

Is taking early retirement due to ill-health when you could keep working with enough financial incentive not fraud?

Some of them did find out pretty late, though! There's a group of women that knew changes were coming in principle but only found out under Cameron/Osborne that it had been accelerated to include them too, with < 2 years notice.

I think the govt could have done some sort of compromise like compensating people through their tax code so they are reimbursed a certain percentage of the compensation a year, rather than in a lump sum. Or means testing the compensation. Would have been better PR if nothing else.

Thanks for a great post.

Those are the group who might actually deserve compensation. Not the rest.

Cameron / Osborne brought forward the qualifying age of 65 by two years not with two years notice. The change was implemented through the Pensions Act 2011 and had effect from 2018 when it would previously have hit 65 in 2020.

Well aren't you a peach? Your post is a great example of why so many people oppose this compensation idea. It is all about righting a 'wrong' for one specific group of people while throwing everyone else under the bus. Do not expect us to care about your rights when you don't care about ours.

Sincerely, a childfree, obese immigrant

This.

I had no idea I could basically opt out of taking any notice of current affairs and policy changes and just assume that the retirement I was 'promised' at aged 22 would automatically be mine nearly 40 years later.

They’ve got literally nothing to lose by complaining so they do just to see how far it takes them. The alternative is that they work for another couple of years. Why is that such a hardship? I work full time at 65 and it’s exactly the same as it always was - no big deal, just normal life.

I agree with most of what you say, obelixtgegaul

I was born '58 and would not expect any compensation. However, I do slightly sympathise with those born in early 1950s. Lots of these women won't have had private pensions or the time to get their finances in order before the change.

Yes, well, reading this thread has mollified my view in re: those caught out by the second wave, etc. I'm not wholly unsympathetic, I just don't like the tie-in some PPs have put forward with wider issues implying some level of anti-feminism.

FWIW I do think there should have been some effort to bridge the gap for those who struggled. Nobody should have been left in poverty. But a blanket payment for all should not be expected or looked for.