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?

Because they're lying!

Women should stand together against injustice. I can’t believe the attitude of some younger women, towards older women.

You have an ignorant and disgusting attitude @mugglewump .

They didn’t get the information in time. Hence the court case. And to me yes they deserve it. Some have lost thousands on pensions and had to work much longer than they thought. Hence the case.

why should they suffer because you think there are more deserving cases for
money?

Why do you think there was an obligation on the government to tell you, but no obligation on you to keep up with basic changes that might affect you?

And fwiw, you weren't expected to make up 6 years of pension in 2 years, you were expected to work a few years longer, as announced decades earlier.

Do you not have any concept of personal responsibility?

I was born in 1959, so just in the waspi cohort. I will get my pension this year at 66.
I knew the age was going up, I thought to 63, I had a letter about that. I didn't get a letter about the rise to 66, but it was in the press/tv so it wasn't a surprise.

It would have been nice to get my pension earlier, and some compensation money would be welcome but I can see why not. The contaminated blood scandal and the post office are more important!

Historically women retired earlier than men so they would be at home to look after their husbands when they retired. Older women often were not entitled to a pension in their own right, far fewer worked outside the home, child care was not available to most and so on.
Things have changed- married women are entitled to our own pensions, we are not forced to leave work when we marry or have children, we are, in law at least, equal to men.
It is right that men and women retire at the same age.

It does annoy me though when younger women say (to paraphrase) " I will probably never get a pension so you old women shouldn't get one either!"
Why not campaign to not raise the retirement age? Macron has had to back down after the huge protests against the pension age rising from 62 !

I am 64, just missed out on being in the WASPI group, and I agree with you.
I personally feel very aggrieved that all of my pre 2016 NI contributions have been downwards revalued and I no longer qualify for a full pension
Thats just the way it is. I don’t expect anyone else to compensate me for being adversely affected by a change in the law.

Surely we are all responsible for finding out information related to our financial future? They didn’t bother to check and got caught out , that is their own fault. How can anyone justify paying everyone £2k because a few people did not check their facts.

No doubt because, if it doesn’t affect you, you weee told in time. Those born before April 1960 particularly at the much earlier years were not informed as per the ombudsman claim

i am ashamed to see so many women not supporting other women who have suffered

Why would younger women support additional compensation for not retiring at 60 for one group of women, while not being able to do this themselves?

Younger women won’t be retiring with a state pension at 60, and probably not at 65, 66, 67 or 68 either.

So why would they be pro compensating other women who still get a much better deal?

I am a WASPI woman and I don't need the compensation; I would be hard pressed to say I suffered as a result.

However there any many many women who did, and they should be compensated. Not everyone knew in time to make alternative arrangements or couldn't make alternative arrangements.

Women aren't required to support absolutely everything other women say, just because they're women. That's a nonsense.

I accept that the UK Government is wrong to ignore the Ombudsman. If a court finds that compensation is due, I'll accept that. What I won't do is agree that WASPI women are all absolutely correct in what they say and believe, just because we were both born women.

Nobody asks men to support all men's views just because they're men.

My mum is a WASPI and I remember the changes to pension age being discussed between my mum/her friends/my dad when I was a CHILD. They should not get any compensation, we have so many other competing and more important priorities, e.g., the NHS, social care, policing, the courts service, ukraine etc. and there is not enough money.

I do have sympathy with them on Labour's 180 degree turn on this to be fair.

I would support compensation on a case by case basis if individual women can prove a) that they had credible reasons for not knowing what was basic common knowledge and b) that they suffered genuine financial hardship as a result.

They weren't entitled to it, that's the point. Benefits entitlements change all the time. We can't create a culture of compensation for anyone changes don't suit. That's not affordable.

What I don't understand is why I haven't heard of a single 'MASPI' man who is demanding compensation for having his retirement age increased from 65 to 67, 68, who knows where eventually?

Surely nobody is trying to claim that men are fully able to understand, accept and rationalise their financial circumstances; whilst poor little women's delicate simple ladybrains can't possibly do the same without somebody wise holding their hands through every stage of a very well-publicised national change.

I'm also astounded that so many people actually blissfully trust governments to never change any policy, over decades, so that it works more in their favour and to the disadvantage of ordinary people, without even the most cursory check before giving up their job and burning their financial bridges - even meaning that they may risk homelessness and having to live in their cars!

Are there really people who just blithely hand in their notice when they reach what they have kind of heard (maybe decades ago) is retirement age and assume that a cheque will arrive in the post every week after that, without even double-checking something as crucial to their lives and wellbeing? Plenty of people check bus and train times more rigorously than that!

They don't have to prove anything, the ombudsman ruled in their favour.

I'm aware and I think it was a ridiculous decision.

Along with many other women of my age, I didn’t have an opportunity to pay into a workplace pension. This was employment in a bank, where my DH also worked. He could pay into a pension and he also qualified for a cheap mortgage, I did not.

When I got pregnant, along with most women of my era, I gave up work. Back then we didn’t have nurseries, so most women became SAHP. I supported my DH, whilst he progressed his career. I gave up my career.

You young women need to be grateful for far more equality than us older women have lived with. The attitude of young women towards us older women is utterly disgusting.

Macron has had to back down after the huge protests against the pension age rising from 62 !

No he didn't - the law increasing it to 64 was passed in 2023.

And in any case, most of us have enough on our plates without having to stage protests against something which is absolutely bloody inevitable due to the state of the country's financial future.

As opposed to older women who want younger women to work longer, so we can pay for them to retire early. There's no solidarity here but older women started it.

They aren't going to get any compensation. Maybe start a thread called "who else hates Boomers?" There have been a few here lately which have basically invited a pile on about this generation. I personally object to the negative stereotyping anyone based on the charateristics of age, race, religion, gender, disabllity, marital status etc. You may be genuinely interested in the Waspi women or you may just be looking to revisit a well worn trope. I won't be around when Gen Z are posting negative things about their Millenial parents and I hope it doesn't happen but there does seem to a trend of each generation blaming the previous one.

I'm in the WASPI woman age bracket - born in 1954 - and found out at 58 that I wouldn't be getting my state pension until I was 64 and 3 months (I know it's since been extended further for younger women) having planned to retire at 60 for a number of years previously. As such, my choices of work roles (senior management, private sector), training and development opportunities etc were influenced by that. By the time I found out, it was too late to back track on career opportunities and make other decisions.

I can honestly say that I had no idea about this and had no recollection of receiving any notification about the changes and how they would affect me going forward.

Having said that, I'm not fully on board with the idea of the government paying compensation. Had I received my pension for the "missing" 4 years and 3 months, I would have received around £35 - 40K and WASPI are talking about compensation of a couple of thousand I think, which won't come close to the shortfall. Time to move on.

Thank goodness it’s not just me. They actually did get the information but still didn’t do anything about it. And given I won’t be getting my own pension til at least 67 and rising, and it may be means tested or god knows what, no I don’t have any sympathy

The announcement was first made in 1995.

The women affected would be in their 40s then.

They have no excuse for not knowing this. I suspect they didn't engage with the various announcements over the years.

(I'm one of them and knew.)

Well I think we shouldn't be paying for EVERYONE'S kids to have free breakfasts - that's also an undeserving case. People should feed their own kids just like we did.

Surely it's a bit ick to expect the taxpayer to bail out feckless people who prioritise themselves over feeding their own kids? Or who benefit by greedily stealing our tax money when they're earning mega millions?