Govt considering u-turn on WASPI compensation

[Ticklyoctopus]

https://news.sky.com/story/government-to-reconsider-whether-to-give-compensation-to-waspi-women-13468696

Oh God no 😖😖😖😖

Oh yes this too. The fact is things change and some policies benefit some generations more than others. Life is not fair. Younger people have learnt this from a young age with tuition fees, ridiculous house prices, increased tax, etc etc. And the pension age for anyone born after the late 70s is now 68 and rising. So they don’t bother to protest. We are used to it.

Yes there are some things around now that may benefit the young that didn’t exist for older people. But imo they don’t bridge the gap to make up for the things that can really hold young people back from progressing in life, that people used to be able to do much easier (like buy a home). There is a reason the birth rate is declining and more people in their 30s are living with their parents.

It’s amazing how there seems to be all this noise for WASPI women, over an announcement that was made decades before it was implemented.

That’s the entire point, it wasn’t decades. The 1993 changes were fair enough because, as the government said - and I quote The change will not begin to be implemented until 2010. The lead-in period of over 16 years allows plenty of time for people to adjust their plans..

The 2011 changes were implemented immediately and meant that a woman who was expecting to be able to claim her state pension in 2013 or 2014 had virtually no notice that she would have to work several more years. And a cohort of around 500k women born in 1953-55 were particularly adversely affected.

I’ve said repeatedly that I don’t want or expect compensation, that ship sailed long ago. For those of you who think it’s unreasonable of us to feel we’ve been treated unfairly, do none of you have mothers, aunts or even grandmothers who were affected and pissed off?

According to this Parliamentary report, the original planned additional maximum increase in pension age in the 2011 act for any of the women born 1950 to 1955 was 2 years.
This was reduced to maximum 18 months maximum additional wait for pension age as the 2011 act was passed through parliament.

The problem was discussed and a better compromise arrived at.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-7405/

This is some way from the hyperbole and seems not that unreasonable.

It’s certainly not an extra 4/5/6/7 years which does seem to be claimed by some.

I was a young working adult in 1993 and there was loads of publicity around the original pension changes; there was no excuse for not knowing about these changes which seems to be the core of the claim for compensation.

It's them who deserve some sympathy.

Not the full 3.6 million the Waspi campaigners are going on about on their website.

Whilst my mother was in one of the last groups to receive her pension at 60, all three of my aunts were in the affected age group. They simply carried on working. They all knew about it. Sure, they grumbled about it, naturally, that's understandable, but none of them acted like it was a total surprise. Because it wasn't.

I have sympathy for the fact that they all lived through a time when it was harder to get pensions full stop for women. Places that did offer workplace pensions often only offered them to the men in more senior positions. Low wages meant private pensions simply weren't an option.

That being said, that doesn't only apply to WASPI women. Workplace pensions weren't mandatory until relatively recently. I was in my 30s before I had a job which offered the scheme. Women older than me but too young to be WASPIS by a couple of years will still have gone through the same issues, many still were unable to access good pension provision.

I have sympathy for the women who couldn't carry on working for various reasons who were denied access to other support to tide them over.

We're all pissed off about having to work longer. Many of us in the generation just behind the WASPIS aren't in such a different boat that we've all got great provision. And whilst there's more likelihood for those of us over 50 that we will get a pension, as a pp pointed out, it's still possible it will change again.

You've got yours. That's why the sympathy isn't there, to be honest. All of the WASPI women now have something that is not a guarantee even for those of us in our fifties.

I might be 70 before I can retire. Can you understand why it might be hard for us to sympathise?

I never understood why pensions for women started at 60 anyway. It should have been the same age for both sexes. And it should have risen along with life expectancy.

Pension age for women was set at 60 to meet their needs. Historically women faced a lack of a workplace pension, higher unemployment, a history of being a homemaker, working part time and the resulting poverty. These factors particularly affected single women.

It was also partly to ensure married couples retired together, as it was common for the husband to be older.

The system reflected traditional gender roles, with men being out at work and women being housewives.

Things have changed considerably since the 60/65 retirement ages were set, with women qualifying for work place pensions, equal pay and equal opportunities.Having said that, there is still work to be done around equality. And of course we are all living longer.

The issue for women of the 1950s has never been about the change to retirement ages.

The issue for women of the 1950s has never been about the change to retirement ages

Hard disagree on that. I know many 1950s women who regularly post on social media that the government ‘stole’ x years from them and ‘When I started working at 16 I was promised a pension at 60’.

Maybe they agree with the change for others but not to themselves. Many of us started working when there was a lower age set to what it will turn out to be.

The issue raised by WASPI is not about the changes in retirement ages, it is about how women were or were not notified and how much notice was given.

I’m a 1954 birthday, so in the group hardest hit. I didn’t have a workplace pension, I was a housewife and graduating onto part time jobs. I supported my DH whilst he progressed in his career. He left me with three young children. He never paid a single penny to support them.

In my circle of friends, no one thinks the retirement ages change is wrong.

Excellent response!

I'm just a couple of years shy of being a WASPI woman - born early 60s. My retirement age is 67. When I started working, retirement age for women was 60 and yes, of course, I'd like it to have stayed there, but it didn't, for reasons I understand even if I have the odd whinge about them. Most of the women in the WASPI age group had plenty of notice of the change, as did my age group. Women born 1953-55 had less than optimal notice, for reasons explained by PPs, and I have some sympathy for them.

But most of my sympathy is reserved for the people on low incomes, of all ages and both sexes, who've never been able to save for a pension or whose savings could only be minimal. The people now in insecure hourly-paid employment without any employer pension contributions and, if they're younger, with no knowing when on earth they might expect a state pension. The people whose careers in secure but low-paid jobs were largely before employers had to pay contributions. Those people couldn't have saved for the future, no matter how much notice they'd had of increases to the state pension age.

Many of my WASPI-age friends worked in the public sector and have retired on final-salary schemes long-since closed to new entrants, and are living comfortable lives. Good for them, they deserve them. So do the people coming up after them, but they'll get a much smaller workplace pension. There's no way a blanket compensation payment can be justified, paid for by working people whose pension entitlement, by and large, is worse than those being compensated.

I was able to carry on working for 2 extra years (not possible for all, I know), and I think there are many younger people who need some financial help tbh. Time this was put to bed.

I'm a WASPI woman, born mid 1950s.

Whilst I did moan a bit about the changes, if I'm honest it gave me more time to save for retirement, which I needed because workplace pensions weren't a thing for most of my working life.

I struggle to believe many women weren't aware of the changes and I think they should let it go now - we can't afford it

WASPI woman here.
I do feel sorry for the small number of WASPI women who, for whatever reason, genuinely did not know and/or genuinely were unable to improve their financial situation in time. I have no time for the entitled ones who are demanding full back payment for all.

I completely agree.

I was born in 1956. The rules changed, we had time to plan and I feel no entitlement to any 'compensation' from the tax payer.

I think the most vociferous money grabbers (sorry, campaigners) really do believe the interpretation of the truth that's presented on the website.

For example another poster mentioned that the Waspis say they've been robbed of x years of pensions, adding up the five years from 60 to 65, then adding on to that the 1 or 2 years when things changed rapidly.

When the fact is the initial changes were well advertised, well in advance, and in the ombudsman's report, it states that quite clearly.

But there's nothing like pound signs to give you amnesia. These women need to read the room, there are far bigger injustices happening in real time.

And who the fuck really expects a personal letter every time legislation changes that affects them? Doing that would cripple the economy on its own.

Using that logic, I should get my pension in a couple of years at 60 because I've never received a letter telling me of the changes to 65, 66, 67, or 68!

Born 1959, so towards the end, but very well aware of the changes which were very well publicised and much discussed. I have a friend who was born in 1951 and her state pension is £400 a week - almost twice mine. She is widowed and also gets some of his entitlement. I could bleat on about how unfair that is, but these things have to change. As a country we can’t afford to do this, let alone ‘compensate’ Waspi women who did all know . I just don’t believe that they didn’t. And I’d rather have my husband than his pension (as would my friend) I’m still working and have no plans to retire. I’m still active and healthy and able to continue contributing.

I have a friend who was born in 1951 and her state pension is £400 a week

I’d love to know how she manages that because she’ll be on the old state pension which is £176.45 a week. Even if she claimed pension credit it wouldn’t be more than £230.25.

Like I said, she also receives her husbands entitlement. I’ve no idea either - I thought it must be a mistake but she showed me her letters explaining it. And she can’t be the only one.

Some people do get more due to SERPs. Some get up to £222 extra per week due to this.

That makes sense. SERPS was essentially an alternative to a private pension so she’ll be getting her £176.45 state pension, then the contributory SERPS pension on top. Thanks for clearing that up @shineandsmile.

That doesn’t sound right. Are you sure this income is from the state pension?