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?

Agree with this. I’m not a waspi - but think they should be paid.

OP says that there are more deserving cases for government money, but that’s irrelevant. Keir Starmer’s own children are currently being educated at a cost to the state - even though he’s a multimillionaire. Should we say that his kids can’t have their places in their state schools because there are kids nearby who need those places far more than his kids? It’s not about more deserving cases for money - it’s about the fact that the ombudsman has found in favour of the waspi women.

The majority of these women had decades to prepare. The only women with any mild claim are the 1,300 who might not have received the letter.
And even then it’s fucking stupid because who wrote to you in the first place to give you a pension age??

It’s completely fair and reasonable for the pension age to be aligned between men and women.

Honestly, I think this is the truth for most of the WASPI women. I don't see how it's possible for them not to have known.

They're pissed off at having to work for longer than they originally expected. And I completely understand that, but they're not going to get a huge amount of sympathy from the younger generations who are going to have to work for longer still.

The reality is that people are living longer and the birth rate is falling, so we need people to work longer as it is unaffordable otherwise. I'm not thrilled by the idea of having to work into my late sixties, but it is what it is. We all have to suck it up.

Why did you not look at your pension forecast years ago- in your late 40s or early 50?

It was and is your responsibility.

Your post is very much emotional and personal. You're not considering who pays for your state pension. Ironically, it's your children who are! They are taxed to the hilt to pay for your pension.

The reason the state pension age has risen is because people are living longer- to their mid 80s- , the population is falling if you ignore immigration (fewer babies being born) and there are over 3 million people who could work who choose not to. There isn't enough money to fund the state pension for 20 years .

When it was introduced, most people died at 70.

It was a tacit not an explicit agreement, that’s how it was.
In the sixties and seventies more boys than girls went onto higher education.Even those that did obtain degrees were more likely to be passed over for promotion, in favour of men.
In late 1960s 23% of women were in universities, rising to around 32% late 1970s. Hardly equality in action.

@soontobe60 So let's think about that.

You seriously expect to be compensated because you were unable to stop work at 60 and help out at home, babysitting, while I who am a year younger than the waspi group, have to work an extra 7 years to pay for you playing grandma.

And you really think that is reasonable? !!

For fuck's sake, we know that there was historic discrimination against women. That simply isn't relevant to this discussion. The WASPI women are not arguing for compensation for historic sexism.

I don't agree.

In my peer group the majority of my friends (women) went to uni and into work comparable with men. I did and spent my career with men and we earned the same. If I declined promotion it was a choice, based on family circumstances.

You've omitted to say how many men went to university in those decades.

Girls may have decided not to go into higher ed but that was often down to family expectations - not lack of opportunity. Women chose to marry much younger and have children much younger.

There was no 'tacit' agreement. That's a nonsense.

The government was out of order accelerating the change in the first place. I do wish people would stop accepting the continual shafting of a group of women who mostly didn't have access to private pensions for the majority of their working life to 'prepare'.

Get up off your knees for the love of god.

The Gvt making it compulsory that employers make pension contributions, the financial incentives to save into a pension and associated publicity, the 25% tax free lump sum, the provision of a Gvt pensions advisory line all signals that the policy has shifted.

It used to be that you worked until the day your received your carriage clock on your 60th or 65th birthday. And that by and large, a state pension was enough to retire on. Now people plan, or are urged to plan, for savings so that they can still retire earlier than 67 if they choose, and manage until they receive state pension.

Of course this is really hard for many, with high energy bills, sky high housing costs , general COLC. And for most of the MN demography - the childrearing years- those are the years when it is hardest to make pension provision.
However, later, when childcare costs are lower and there is more scope to get promoted, work f/t etc, hopefully people can start to build their pension plans.

I hope you, OP, do not have to work until you are 67 unless out of choice.

Why should the government even write to them!?
The vast majority of laws or tax rules changes etc are up to the individual to keep themselves aware of and act accordingly. These pension changes were in the press for many years before they came into effect. Tough luck on these WASPI women.

I am a Waspi and have had to wait an extra 6 years to get my state pension but I absolutely knew about it from years ago and just cannot understand those who say they didn’t know, it seems fair to me to bring it in line with men especially as they tend to die earlier.
Personally I feel embarrassed by the whole movement, it’s like the little woman at home who can’t read the newspapers or understand the news, I don’t remember being written to personally it was well advertised.
Also for most who say they didn’t know to prepare if they had known what would they have done differently? For most it’s to keep on working like men.

This is what I don't understand either. I remember it being in the news at the time of the change and I am far too young for if to have affected me.

No it never seemed fair that women retired earlier. Well it wasn't fair was it.

Hmmm. It was because there was such awful employment prejudice against older women and women who had children that they really struggled to find half decent jobs that would employ them once they were mothers and were seen as unemployable once they reached about 60- so the State stepped in paid an earlier pension instead.

Further more, it was seen as fairer because men typically married women a few years younger than them and so it seemed better to retire both people in a couple at about the same time. In a time where one wage often did support a household, it was seen as likely to cause financial hardship if the man retired and then had to 'keep' the couple on a single pension. Plus, it stopped 'him in doors all day' having to do the washing and cooking himself if his wife still worked

I am a waspi woman who was made fully aware of the changes.
I have not been on any marches etc as I am fully aware that the numbers are too few; ie not enough votes. Secondly, the country is too broken for any compensation.
However, I should point out that there were two changes and the second change was less than 5 years notice. (I still have the letters).
What stings is that when it came to MPs themselves, they decided not to implement changes that would take place within 5 years, yet they did with this group of women.
However, I am surprised at women who did not know as I certainly was applying for forecasts etc as retirement approached. (Apart from the notification received, which I guess some women may not have received).
I certainly find it hard to believe that some women did not know of either of the changes. As I said there were two changes. The first was to align the retirement age with men, then 65. The second changes was to put the age later and to speed up the alignment.

It IS relevant because the historical sexism, and its affect on salaries, pensions, promotion prospects, etc etc, is precisely the reason that woman found it hard to make additional provision once the date change was announced.
IF they knew about it.

And no need to be so rude.

But what additional provision did they actually need to make? Surely they could have just carried on working until retirement age, like so many other people have to do?

Of course the historical discrimination is relevant. Women of my era didn’t have access to workplace pensions, therefore their current situation is affected. Moreover, the casual way pension changes were introduced is a perfect example of discrimination.

I can’t believe I’m having to explain this.

Completely right.
In addition I have never understood why none of the WASPI women ever thought it was inequitable and unexplainable why men had to wait 7 years longer than they did. Why do they think that is fair for men to wait 7 years longer and never campaign against that, whilst thinking them getting their own pension 7 years earlier than men is fair and kick up a racket about it?

Women may have chosen not to invest in a private pension but they could still read and listen.
This information was out there.

Well I'm 'of your era' and I'm getting my workplace pension. As are hundreds of thousands of women including women I know now in their mid 80s and older.

These women worked in local government, teaching, nursing, medicine, the NHS, private companies, etc etc.

What work did you do?

I’m now 70 so definitely in the WASPI timescale. Personally I think some woman, especially widows, are struggling with the cost of living today (also some men).
Thankfully, I’m ok so wouldn’t need compensation. However, the thing that annoys me is this:
When I got married, the rule was that a married woman had a choice to pay a lesser amount “Stamp” aka National Insurance, but she would then only get her state pension when her husband reached state pension age (65). If she continued to pay full National Insurance, then she would receive her state pension at 60. I choose to pay my full National insurance based on this rule.

I think it’s unethical to change a rule once it has been adhered to.

Just saying ……

You see I don't see it as a loss, rather the opportunity to earn my full salary for another seven years which is worth significantly more than the state pension. I am therefore "quids in".

I was born in 1960 so can retire at 66. I was aware of the proposals in the 1990s. They were all over the news and I wasn't living under a rock. I have checked my pension entitlement every couple of years since.

As a feminist, I welcome the opportunity to work as much and earn as much over my lifetime as a man.

@GottaGetOutofDairy Further more, it was seen as fairer because men typically married women a few years younger than them and so it seemed better to retire both people in a couple at about the same time. In a time where one wage often did support a household, it was seen as likely to cause financial hardship if the man retired and then had to 'keep' the couple on a single pension. Plus, it stopped 'him in doors all day' having to do the washing and cooking himself if his wife still worked

Why is this nonsense regularly posted on mumsnet?

You don't think it was because a couple may struggle on one single pension?