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?

It’s only a vociferous group that want that. Many women in that age group acknowledge that they did have a letter to advise them and do not feel compensation would be a good use of public money. I had a very clear and easy to understand letter well in advance.

@TheignT thanks, I'm already aware of that but I have no way of checking whether the amount is correct. Which seems to me to mirror the position of some of the Waspi women - I know about it but I don't understand exactly how I'm impacted by it. Without more information, I just have to take their word for it.

Great post and it goes a long way to explaining the anger and indignation of the younger generation. Thank you.

I don't manage the WASPI group, I was there and that's what I saw at the time.

I was held in a mortgage for 18 years, after I left my abusive partner, unable to get a mortgage of my own, due to negative equity, and being unable to sell the house until it had reequalised in value. I could only afford to do a degree because I was single and had no kids. Times were shit for absolutely ages.

So you're gripe is that "those times were shit" and not actually anything to do with the state pension then?

People worried about losing their houses weren't really in the head space to chase up their pension issues. Is my point. It's not difficult to understand you have to look at the full context at the time.

But again, the ombudsmen ruling is ALL about communication and notification, for the later changes, nothing at all to do with the first changes in the mid 90s. Again, even if you'd got a letter telling you, it sounds as if you could have done nothing to change things. Hence, the whole thing is irrelevant. It's not about the pension ages changing, it's about whether some people weren't told - and following from them it's relevant whether they'd have been able to change things if they had been told.

But then no communication plan would have been enough? So much of this seems to be an argument for 'it is never ok to change the retirement age because you will never inform everyone absolutely 100% perfectly', but that's just not a reasonable stance. And again, the default position is that if your retirement age raises you just keep working longer, which doesn't actually need any planning for.

Someone upthread said I'll be cross if I'm told when I'm 70 that I can't retire until 80. I genuinely can't see what difference it would make to me to be told now or then. I'm putting all I can afford into a workplace pension, I'm not in a position where I can make other investments or similar. I have absolutely no expectation that the current statement that I'll get a state pension at 68 will stay true but what can I plan for except to have as much private pension as possible? Under what circumstances wouldn't that be my plan?

@NoisyHam yes I agree that the pension age needed to rise due to the country being unable to afford it for multi factorial reasons.
My DC will have to work until at least 70 I think and I have discussed with them the need to create a good pension for themselves as who knows if there will even be a state pension in 20/30 years. Could be means tested and not enough to eat and heat.
I naturally wish everyone could retire at 60 and release jobs for younger people but that will not happen.
I was ignorant at the time, did not receive a letter etc etc and as I’ve previously said was in a false sense of security. I am lucky though but worry about savings etc being taxed.

But you could also say that maybe because they were aware of their dire finances they'd be even more aware of their pensions.

I feel sorry for them but I agree with this. I am 44 now and don't think there will be any state pension for me

The WASPI argument annoys me intently. They wanted parity, but not to work until they were older like men. The changes were advised years in advance then it was claimed they weren't notified.

I'm a similar age to you and I agree that the idea of a pension will probably seem as anachronistic as women not having the vote and petrol stations everywhere by the time we get to 68 or whenever.

It's always a great danger to firmly base your plans around something that one government tells you several decades in advance, and then when that time comes, expecting that a completely different government will keep the same policy - and bind future (completely different) governments to keep the policy the same for what could be another 40 years until the end of your life.

You get half what he got don't you?

No, I'm not getting half of what he got. I understand that I get half of a certain part of it but without access to his contribution record I have no way of identifying how much that part was. If it's really as simple as that maybe you could DM me a link so I can follow it up.

I didn't mean half his pension, I meant half his SERPS or s2p. It will be explained on the gov.uk site.

Actually you could get more than half depending on his date of birth. I know I would get half of my husbands because we checked it out when working out our income and potential income depending on who goes first. It is on the govt site as additional state pension if I remember correctly.

@TheignT I know, the problem is that I can't find out what his SERPS was. Apologies to everyone for hijacking the thread but messaging is disabled at the moment, and I think it goes to show that pension issues that look as if they're simple to resolve aren't necessarily so.

And according to many others (me included), it's just not true that you didn't know. This was a major news story in 1995 (I can remember that, and I was a teen), and has been in the news regularly ever since.

I agree with you, Elevieta, it was well publicised. I too remember it in the mid 1990s and was in my forties. A lot of people thought it was a good thing!

The Ombudsman was clearly wrong and the ageist vipers on Mumsnet are right! Really?

Crying ageism because someone disagrees with you doesn’t add any credibility to your argument.

I have some sympathy for women who may have stopped working before pensionable age due to caring responsibilities or their own health needs and who expected to receive their pensions earlier than transpired. I suspect those women are in a minority but for them a little support is more than justified.

Can;t you check his paperwork? If he'd passed state retirement age, he'd be getting annual statements showing the breakdown of his state pension, between basic state, S2P, SERPS, graduated, add ons, etc.

It’s not me you are disagreeing with, it’s the Ombudsman.