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?

Yes, as far as I understand it, the ombudsman asked parliament to consider her (I think it was a woman?) recommendations. Parliament duly considered but decided it didn't agree.
Parliament is an elected body, the Ombudsman isn't.
In this case, I agree with Parliament's decision. I don't know why you'd be compensating the many women who say they knew about the changes, agreed with the changes, and planned accordingly. Or women who are rich or comfortably off - Theresa May, Princess Anne...
Also, as I said previously, some of that cohort were able to claim their state pensions in their early 60s - 60- 63. That seems like a huge luxury today.
I just think there are better things to spend 3 -10 billion on, and if we don't agree with Parliament's decisions, at least we can vote them out in 3 years. We can't do that with an Ombudsman.

I don't know why you'd be compensating the many women who say they knew about the changes, agreed with the changes, and planned accordingly. Or women who are rich or comfortably off - Theresa May, Princess Anne...

The Ombudsman's reason for this recommendation was purely pragmatic. There are without doubt some women who were unfairly disadvantaged by the changes. But the Ombudsman concluded that it was impossible in practice to identify these women individually.

I haven't seen anyone challenge this identification issue.

Ultimately it comes down to whether you believe that we should be compensating everyone who suffered, even if it means compensating people who didn't suffer, or whether you believe that we should only compensate people who have a quantifiable and evidenced claim, even if it means that some people who have suffered will miss out. That decision isn't made any easier when there are limited funds available.

The Ombudsmen compensation "suggestion" wasn't even to cover the pension that the women claimed they missed out on due to claiming they didn't have adequate notice. It was a kind of "gesture" of a pretty low figure, not in any way related to the "loss" they claimed. It was "compensation" for not providing the right information, rather than for the loss of pension. More of a sop rather than actually aiming to make up for the losses. Even more reason for Parliament to simply swat the idea away. Especially as the Ombudsmen found no error in law as to the pension changes themselves, just the way "some" people may not have been given enough direct information about it.

Yes, I felt at the time it was a bit of an appeasement offering.

It was available info for decades.
The women who are complaining were living under a rock and didn't show any interest in their pension forecasts. They only have themselves to blame.

They also had the option to carry on working longer, just like men have to.

If some women knew (me) then there is absolutely no defence that other women didn't. How can there be?

If they didn't know, it's their own behaviour to blame. The info was out there. They chose not to engage with it.

As many women on this year old thread have pointed out - the WASPI case is not about the 95 changes, its about the very late Osborne changes which resulted in women who had been scheduled to retire at one age suddenly having several years delay with very little warning - certainly not long enough to change pension arrangements.

As people have also pointed out - lucky old you if you had the right information but many women in this group were not informed by DWP and DWP were giving incorrect information for years to women trying to check their pension eligibility. I’m not a WASPI or close to it but I was also given incorrect pension info by DWP on more than one occasion.

Not all older women are “rich boomers eating the bones of poor hard done by millennials”. Older single women are the group most likely to be living in poverty and for them, the changes made a significant difference.

I think if you've been working and paying NI for years, then it's wholly unfair for the Govt to move the goal posts, and intimate that it's "okay" because people were informed.

Younger women on this thread will have known from the day they started work that their pension age was 67. If, when you young women are 50, the Govt sends you a letter saying that the pension age is being changed to 74, I suspect that you won't be a happy camper. Even if the Govt argues that you still have "plenty of time to make alternative arrangements". Because some people won't have spare cash to make up for a lost 7 years, and even those that could, might not want to just suck it up and work for an extra 7 years!

I think that the day you first make an NI payment, should be the day that your pension age is frozen. You're paying in good faith.

The WASPI website says this:

We do not claim to represent all 1950's women

But also says this:

We are a campaign group for 1950s born women who saw rapid and steep increases to their State Pension age without adequate notice. In March 2024, the Ombudsman found this to be maladministration and instructed Parliament to deliver compensation as quickly as possible. WASPI continues to work cross-party to see justice delivered for the 3.6 million women affected. If you are a woman born on or after 6th April 1950 to 5th April 1960 you are WASPI woman.

LOL. So, all 1950's women except those born 1 January to 5 April 1950 inclusive!

What this campaign group says are "rapid and steep increases" are pretty much all of the increases!

might not want to just suck it up and work for an extra 7 years!

I think this is the main WASPI gripe, just not wanting to work longer! Join the club.

Younger women on this thread will have known from the day they started work that their pension age was 67. If, when you young women are 50, the Govt sends you a letter saying that the pension age is being changed to 74, I suspect that you won't be a happy camper.

When I started work retirement age was 60. It's progressively increased, and I think for me is currently 67. I don't believe any government has ever informed me personally by letter. I'm just sucking it up like every other person born from 1960 onwards.

They absolutely got the info at the time. They shouldn’t be entitled to anything. You just assumed you can retire? Should you not have researched such a big change in your life before just doing it, then complain about it? Like other posters said, it was EVERYWHERE. the people who didn’t get the information are either lying or stupid.

I never quite understand this argument that poor communication will have been hardest on the poorest women. Realistically, those women clearly didn't have private pension provision, so their only option with a change to state pension age was to keep working longer. So long as they found out before they actually gave in their notice, what material difference could knowing have actually made to them? There probably is a case that the richest women could have managed investments, private pensions, etc. differently to still give themselves the option of stopping work earlier - but obviously the WASPI campaign doesn't focus on them because, frankly, people won't have that much sympathy.

This is a ridiculous argument. By this logic, the earliest the government could increase the pension age today would be 2079, so that it only affected current 15 year olds.

NI is a tax, not an opt-in system - it doesn't actually matter whether or not you paid it 'in good faith', you paid it because you were legally required to.

Nail on the head. NIC IS a tax on income. It's not an insurance nor savings scheme. I've long advocated for it to be scrapped completely and income tax rates increased to compensate. If Parliament won't do that, then at least change it's name to "employment tax" or similar. That would send a clear message that it's a tax and had it been done decades ago, would have avoided a lot of the confusion and mixed messages caused by using the word "insurance".

The rules were changed in 2010 I was 55 at the time like a lot of women I was doing low paid work so no chance of making my pension a large amount, and not every waspi got their state pension at 65 because it then went up to 66 and I had to wait till then and yes I carried on working past pension age,

@Isseywith2witchycats There was a heads-up in 1993 when it was first talked about.

The 1993 White Paper 'Equality in State Pension Age' set out the Government's intention to equalise men and women's State Pension age at 65. It highlights four drivers for the change: women were increasingly playing an equal role to men in the economy.

This is from the parliamentary website ^^.

It was in the news at the time and I definitely remember it being there in 1995 when I was in my early 40s.

I don't understand why you weren't aware of it. It was headlining in newspapers, on radio and TV news for years and years.

But in 2010, you'd have already known your state pension age had increased from 60 to 65 as that was announced 15 years earlier in 1995! The changes around 2010 was to increase it incrementally from 65 to 67 which hit some people harder than others according to the arbitrary "cut off" dates of birth for the incremental changes. Literally no one, in 2010, saw their state pension age increase from 60 to 67 at short notice.

Agreed. Having the two parts, income tax and NI, is pure optics - but, as you say, it helps bolster the really unfortunate idea people have that they have a ring-fenced personal pot paid for through NI (which isn't actually how insurance works anyway, so I'm not sure the name can take all the blame for that) and therefore have paid for their own pension.

I'm the same. Started working in 1986, and my pension age was 60. I have never ever received a letter saying it's now 67. I'm not old enough to be a WASPI, but I do still feel miffed! My MIL died at 61, and my Mum died at 73. So to me, to pay in for 51 years, and potentially only receive for 6 seems unjust.

I agree 100%

So many women want to blame someone else, rather than their own lack of engagement.

I am also very sceptical of the motives of the 'Chair' of the group running Waspi women, and her intentions. I don't see how in all honesty she can believe in what she is doing, as she is a former high flying professional.

So where you were you from 1986 onwards not to be aware of this change?
It was in the media- radio. TV, newspapers and in general conversation.

I started working many years before you and knew of the change because it was first mentioned in 1993 and then again in 1995.

Do you never watch the news, read newspapers or listen to the radio?

Did you never ask for a state pension forecast for yourself?

The average life expectancy now for women is close to 85. I'm sorry about your Mum, but the state pension was never intended to support anyone to their mid 80s, it was based on a life expectancy of around 70 when first introduced. So, 5 years after stopping work.

Eventually it's likely there will be no state pension as it's not sustainable in its present form. People will have to invest in a private pension from when they start work.

Leaflets were also included in most "official" paperwork from Inland Revenue, DSS etc in the 90s, such as the annual benefit entitlement letters, annual PAYE tax code notification letters, annual tax demands, etc.

I remember piles of the damned things. I did personal tax return preparation in those years, and we'd get piles of letters through the post being our accountant/agent copies of letters sent to our clients, literally hundreds of such letters each year, and there were always "leaflets" included outlining the annual Budget changes, etc. and distinctly remember the "your state pension age is changing" leaflets. Yes, not personal ones, but certainly generic ones. The same leaflets as were in the leaflet racks in GP surgeries, dentists, opticians, hospital waiting rooms, etc.

Of course, "some" people never bothered opening their letters as we'd get quite a few each year provided by clients along with their payslips, P60s etc (again often unopened), which we had to spend time opening and reading simply because the client couldn't be bothered!

I also know for a fact that in our quarterly newsletters posted out to clients, we mentioned the state pension age changes quite frequently. But again, we also knew that many clients didn't bother opening/reading them as again, come the year end, we got quite a few unopened newsletters given back to us in the carrier bag of paperwork they dumped on us!

You can lead a horse to water .........

I'm 52. The day I started work, it was 60. At the moment it will be 68 if I am lucky. I am expecting that to change. It's not remotely unfair of the Government to move the goalposts because situations change. The demographic has changed. I can't expect a dwindling workforce to support a top-heavy ageing population just because the pension age was 60 when I started.

It wasn't a promise. Nobody signed anything guaranteeing me anything. It isn't 'my' money, I didn't pay it into a little account with my name on it.

Most of the people younger than me probably won't be getting their pensions until 74. Maybe those just entering the workforce now won't get one at all. Yes, they realise that's likely, so they are paying in to their own, if they are able, as well as paying the NI for the Waspis and for me, when I get there.

It's not OK, it's not 'fair', but it's the nature of not having a magic money tree and an increasingly ageing population.

No, I won't feel hard done by. I will likely have to work longer than any WASPI woman. A pp complaining that her poor mother had to work until she was gasp 68, well that will be me. If I am lucky. Oh dear, she's still working weekends. Welcome to the world of the rest of us.

OK, I am that bit younger, and things did get better, although most of the workplaces I was employed in didn't offer workplace pensions until they were legally obliged to, and pensions advice wasn't brilliant for people my age. I got stung by a private company early on. Still my fault for not doing more planning myself.

Many women just a few years outside the WASPI bracket were no better off that the WASPIS as far as pension opportunities went, so they'll be working probably into their 70s as well. The alternative is to keep expecting a smaller number of people to pay for an ever-growing group.

I get fed up of the WASPI campaign but to be fair you have had decades to prepare. How will you feel at say 66 if they say you can't get your pension till you are 70 or 71. It might bother you more at that point. I worked till 70 and still do a bit of consultancy at 72.

I started work in 1985. From the mid nineties when we were bombarded with info about the pension age rising to 65 I knew it was changing. TV, radio, newspapers, magazines. It was everywhere.

It's hard to feel miffed when it's only gone up another two years for me since then!

Plus at 57 I find it incredible that when my mum was my age she was able to retire only three years later!