To be fed up with the WASPIs' renewed campaign?

[Jane379]

I sympathise with people who genuinely did not know but hiw many was this? And how would we know who to compensate even if the money were available?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/waspi-latest-compensation-legal-challenge-pension-b2976014.html

OK, but can you come up with a better way?

I disagree yes it might have been harsh for early 50s born women but I was born in the first few months of 61 and have worked since the age of 16 was under the belief for a large part of my working career that I would be retiring at 60 . Women born in the early 50s were pushed to 65 and later born to 67 . My friend born less than 2 years before retired at 66 as it was cumulative but that has now caught up and I will receive my pension ( and bus pass ) at 67 .

Well, I think doing what we do now, trying to keep the ratios of working time to retirement the same over generations is pretty fair, @MrThorpeHazell - just pointing out that it isn't true to say that the assumption is 15 years, it's that you spend around a third of your adult life in retirement.

Sorry, I was very busy- lots of interesting replies. I'll reply to more tonight....

That's true...but equal pay act came into force in 1975, surely unequal pay can't have had a huge impact on most of these women?

Mo one is suggesting you shouldn't get a person though are they? You've just made that up. People are talking about how you shouldn't be getting compensation for yhe change in pension age paid for by current workers. Which you absolutely shouldnt.
And FWIW I have 32 years contributions so far and 19 years till I can retire (unless it gets raised again) 9 months total maternity leave in that time. 2 kids.

That's not quite accurate. I was born in 53, the 95 announcement meant I'd get my pension at 63,in 2011 that changed to 65. So some women were due to get their pension at 65 but some at 61, 62 and so on.

I think the bit I hated was if I'd been born 8 hours earlier if have got my pension three months earlier. Cliff edges are annoying.

I think a campaign for the short notice some had with the 2011 change would have made more sense but it's history now.

no time for this - this is a small group of women who somehow missed the very public information that state pension age was changing.

we all have to work these extra years before claiming state pension.

yawn.

You did have plenty of time to make plans early 50s women had much shorter time to prepare for the 2011 changes. I just carried on working but some probably struggled with that.

Exactly. I’m under 50 and have very little chance of retiring at 67 which l worked out years ago. So l chuckle when my mum moans at retiring “late” at 62. After years of part time work as well. By the time l retire then l will probably have worked about 25% more hours over my working life than her

The horse / pony analogy is spot on

Agree…this is a small group of women who say they missed the information…I belong to this age group and it was widely discussed with friends and colleagues. Of course it was . It was a significant change and everyone was aware of it.

Re lower life expectancy- this does vary around the UK and based on income. London has better than some rural areas, Scotland is worse than England etc. Gen Z have healthier habits on average so that should do some good. But definitely there are serious issues re health of people in UK generally. This effects Boomers too, they are less healthy than generation before.

🤣🤣🤣 50 years of contributions is hardly excessive or out of the ordinary though. I will probably end up doing 55 or 56 years of contributions. Before you ask (like you ask someone else) l have already done 30 years

You were 34 when the first changes came in. So you’d been working 18 years. If you still thought after that that you’d be retiring at 60, you must be been amazingly isolated.

You are already entitled to free prescriptions and a Senior Rail card.

Everyone gets affected by changes in government policy. It’s annoying but the consequence of having a ridiculously large population for the size of country we have

To have changes in policy is part isn't the actual problem, it was the way that this has been completed which put some woman at a disadvantage without the ability to make those changes as time had passed.

If you were born in 1954 you would start work on average in 1968, without the ability to have a work pension, without maternity pay and the prospect of being sacked/let go when you got married or pregnant and not being paid the same wage as a male counterpart. All those factors in a job would affect the ability to pay into a pension and make provision. If you returned to work in 1994 at 40 years old you would then have equal pay and the right to have a workplace pension - but by now you'd have to pay much more into a pension at 40 years old to have the same affect as paying into a pension at 20 years old.

To say everyone gets affected by government policy, can you name another policy int he last 100 years that has changed and had so many factors that were affecting a group of people?

The life expectancy of the ‘baby boomer generation’ is 79-83.
The life expectancy of the silent generation (1925-1945) is 74-80.
So, as I said, the baby boomer post ww2 generation are the first generation to leave their offspring with shorter life expectancy and poorer.

The changes were announced in 1995 - if you were born in 1961 you would have been 44 at the time not 35

Really? You’re going to have to count that out for me because I can’t see it. Every time I take 1961 from 1995 it comes out at 34!

Yes so weirdly aggressive! Why am I an oik? How rude. FWIW I’ve paid in for about 32 years. High earner for most of it so possibly a net contributor. Dh and I often say how we had it easy compared to this generation. Minimal student loans. Graduated into a booming economy (early 2000s). Lots of graduate jobs. We have nothing to moan about.

im acting dumb this afternoon - sorry

But private pensions are not the problem surely?

the issue is people had planned their finances to retire at 60 and were taken aback that they had to work 5 more years.

Some people missed the info and so were pushed to retire at 65 say and had not realised the change and were completely shocked when they got to 59 that no state pension was available at the time. There was one woman I read about who literally ‘retired’ at 60 and went to claim her pension and was gobsmacked she didn’t have an income and wouldn’t be getting anything for many years. She felt it was unfair as she was (somehow) completely in the dark that she couldn’t retire at 60.

there are other women who know about the change but just felt it was unfair they had to work longer. You could argue working longer gave them 5 years more to invest in a private pension anyway so helped them plan more for retirement. I can see how you would be upset if you were a month off the change and had to work 2 more years as a result. Someone is always going to be the cut off. Bit like tuition fees. Someone was born on the last date they were zero and then the next day someone was born and they were liable to pay. I’d be annoyed if I was on the cut off so I totally get it but ultimately people complaining that they had to work to 65 when they were told at 35 doesn’t get much sympathy.

Prescriptions yes , but a rail card , yes at a cost but as I live in a fairly remote place , a rail card is not something I would really need for day to day living and my nearest station is 30 miles away .

It’s a difficult one and I can see both sides. Like many others on here I expected to retire at 60 when I started work. Then the pension age was raised so both men and women retired at 65. That is ok as why should we retire before men can. But then it started changing again - some can retire at 66 but as I’m 65 in August I have to wait until my 67th birthday to be eligible. That’s fine if you are fit and well but if you are unlucky enough to get cancer or be disabled and in pain then it can be very difficult to keep working. Both of those happened to me since I became 60 and I’m lucky in that I am able to get PIP but I really like to see some sort of scheme where once you get to say 63 or even 65 you can claim your state pension on medical grounds if a doctor is willing to certify that you genuinely can’t work.

Do you want a refund because you don’t live close enough to a station to get full use of a senior railcard??

Im really being dumb this afternoon - where have I mentioned private pensions? not being funny im struggling and have re read it but can't see it?