Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

OP posts:
BananaPeels · 14/05/2026 17:23

MikeRafone · 14/05/2026 17:06

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?

Workplace are private pensions not state ones

Uricon2 · 14/05/2026 17:26

I'm born early 60s and of course started work with the 'expectation' that I'd retire at 60. The age was repeatedly increased well into my adult life. It really did have to be levelled up with men, was unsustainable at 65 and while I feel sympathy with the 53/54 cohort of women, I have friends in that exact demographic who managed fine, who despite being 'Waspi', worked, had private pensions and paid their NI. I don't recognise the world that some are describing although I was seemingly part of it.

Once said that if you claim not to know about all this happening you'd have needed to be living under a rock on Mars and that very much irritates me about their campaign.

OIh and for @notateenietiny , 40 + years NI in . Stop crowing over the young, they're the ones paying your State Pension and have challenges of their own.

Lollygaggle · 14/05/2026 17:30

When I first started work it was commonly expected that my cohort would retire at 55 , courtesy of early retirement , job pension , endowment payments etc .

I remember well the outrage when men’s and women’s pension ages were equalised . What I remember most is that the MP who represented Gowan (in Glasgow) said the whole pension debate was immaterial for men in his constituency where average life expectancy means that most will die before pension age . This is still true today where average life expectancy for men is 65.8 in Gowan .

It seemed perfectly fair that pension ages were equalised and long overdue.

Likewise as population has aged and pension bill has increased it has meant that pension age has increased . This is yet another bill which our children and grandchildren will have to pay.

Personally I have not been well enough to work in my main job until 67 but can see why age has been raised and had made provisions for increased working age as finances allowed and as the benefits I thought I was going to get from pensions disappeared.

I find it difficult to see the justification for compensation for pension changes that were discussed, well advertised, necessary and made up for unfairness in the system for men who have always had a shorter life span but had to work 5 years longer. Particularly as the cohort of people this affected had many welfare , housing , health and social benefits that are no longer available let alone better final salary pension arrangements for those with private pensions .

Just as many of my parents generation had early retirements , large endowment pay outs etc that my generation didn’t , we have had many benefits that the
next generation haven’t had .

With this background it’s difficult to have much sympathy for WASPI claims for compensation.

Putneydad7 · 14/05/2026 17:50

Whatever the arguments for and against;

Point 1 No benefit should ever be universal regardless of the wealth of the individual.
Point 2 No-one ever pays into "their" govt pension. You are paying the people who are retired today. When you look at the demographic timebomb of the workers to retired ratio you realise what nonsense the whole system is. Quite literally the definition of a Ponzi scheme and they never end well.
Point 3 The government every year spends more than it takes in tax, so to add more to that spending will add more to the debt which is being kicked onto our children and grandchildren.
Point 4 The generation this debt is being forced onto can't afford a house, AI is taking their jobs, they have student loans up the wazoo.

So in summary put your begging bowls away, there ain't any money left.

MrsMurphyIWish · 14/05/2026 17:50

When I started teaching in 2000 everyone was retiring at 55. My retirement age was 60 when I was 21. I have had changes - including TPS being tied to state pension age. To be completely controversial are the late 70’s women the new Waspis as we now need to retire at 68?

BIossomtoes · 14/05/2026 18:40

GoldMoon · 14/05/2026 15:56

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 .

I’m the last person you’ll find disputing that it was atrociously and unfairly executed. I’m right at one of the cut off points - if I’d been born eight hours earlier I’d have got my pension four months sooner.

BIossomtoes · 14/05/2026 18:44

MikeRafone · 14/05/2026 16:42

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

Sorry, I make it 34 too.

MikeRafone · 14/05/2026 18:55

BananaPeels · 14/05/2026 17:23

Workplace are private pensions not state ones

No, work place are different from private pensions and again separate from state Old age pensions

Whammyammy · 14/05/2026 18:57

Viviennemary · 13/05/2026 22:06

They'll get nowhere. Men got a far worse deal. Shorter life expectancy yet had to work 5 years longer. I wish they would quit moaning,

Agreed. Equal rights is what we demanded and what we got.

BananaPeels · 14/05/2026 18:59

MikeRafone · 14/05/2026 18:55

No, work place are different from private pensions and again separate from state Old age pensions

Edited

well mine is a private pension. My work pays into it and so do I. It isn’t the state pension

MikeRafone · 14/05/2026 19:04

BananaPeels · 14/05/2026 18:59

well mine is a private pension. My work pays into it and so do I. It isn’t the state pension

if your work place is paying into your pension, I doubt it’s a private pension- but a workplace pension. This is different from a private pension and although both have tax advantages they operate differently.

These two different types of pension are differ from a state pension

MikeRafone · 14/05/2026 19:07

Workplace pensions are arranged by employers with mandatory employer contributions (usually 3%) and tax relief, while private (personal) pensions are set up by individuals for greater control over investments. Workplace schemes offer free money via employer matching, while private pensions, such as Self-Invested Personal Pensions (SIPPs), provide more investment choices

hopefully this is a more comprehensive explanation

SIPP vs Workplace Pension: What's Right for You? - Chest

Trying to make your pension work harder? This guide shows how SIPPs and workplace pensions stack up. | Chest is a UK pension app that turns everyday cashback into retirement savings via a personal pension (SIPP).

https://www.joinchest.com/blog/sipp-or-workplace

NoGarlic · 14/05/2026 19:24

Vivienne1000 · 14/05/2026 03:05

The act came out in 1995. Letters were sent to every woman who would be affected.
I was born in the 60s and my retirement age is 67. You are very lucky.

Letters to women born between April 6, 1950, and April 5, 1953 were not sent until between April 2009 and March 2011.

The government's 2009-2011 letter campaign (delayed from original plans to send them much earlier) missed a significant number of affected women, mainly those born 1953 - 1959.

Many affected women received only 18 months' notice of a six-year increase in their state pension age, unlike men who received six years' notice.

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) found that maladministration and injustice had occurred and, as a result, they recommended compensation.

They said:
"For most sample complainants we consider the primary injustice is that they were denied opportunities to make informed decisions about some things, and to do some things differently, because of maladministration in DWP’s communication about State Pension age. That is a material injustice."

I didn't get a letter. I phoned the DWP in 2012 to find out if the change had been implemented and whether my NI contributions were OK. I was 57.

crossedlines · 14/05/2026 19:37

Letters to individuals yes. But the changes were very widely publicised before for years before then. TV and radio campaigns, leaflets in libraries, doctors etc. it’s ridiculous for anyone to claim that they got to their late fifties still thinking they could claim state pension at age 60.

Nanda66 · 14/05/2026 19:45

NoGarlic · 14/05/2026 19:24

Letters to women born between April 6, 1950, and April 5, 1953 were not sent until between April 2009 and March 2011.

The government's 2009-2011 letter campaign (delayed from original plans to send them much earlier) missed a significant number of affected women, mainly those born 1953 - 1959.

Many affected women received only 18 months' notice of a six-year increase in their state pension age, unlike men who received six years' notice.

The Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) found that maladministration and injustice had occurred and, as a result, they recommended compensation.

They said:
"For most sample complainants we consider the primary injustice is that they were denied opportunities to make informed decisions about some things, and to do some things differently, because of maladministration in DWP’s communication about State Pension age. That is a material injustice."

I didn't get a letter. I phoned the DWP in 2012 to find out if the change had been implemented and whether my NI contributions were OK. I was 57.

Edited

Im sure this isn’t correct. It wasn’t 18 months notice of a 6 year increase. It was from 63-65/66 if I understand it correctly.

BananaPeels · 14/05/2026 19:47

MikeRafone · 14/05/2026 19:07

Workplace pensions are arranged by employers with mandatory employer contributions (usually 3%) and tax relief, while private (personal) pensions are set up by individuals for greater control over investments. Workplace schemes offer free money via employer matching, while private pensions, such as Self-Invested Personal Pensions (SIPPs), provide more investment choices

hopefully this is a more comprehensive explanation

Still private pensions regardless of organised by an individual or a workplace

But like state vs private schools.

shortsaint · 14/05/2026 19:48

i feel a bit unsympathetic too. I’m 58 and when I started working I was told state pension was at 60. I have that on my ancient (pretty worthless) pension paperwork. It’s 67, fair dos.

InconsequentialFerret · 14/05/2026 19:59

These women really grind my gears. Apart from the ones whose pension age changed from 65 with little notice, I have zero sympathy.

No one believes you never knew, it was publicised everywhere. Do you take us for idiots?

Please campaign about something useful and relevant if you're going to campaign about anything. Your greed is obvious.

InconsequentialFerret · 14/05/2026 20:01

Nanda66 · 14/05/2026 19:45

Im sure this isn’t correct. It wasn’t 18 months notice of a 6 year increase. It was from 63-65/66 if I understand it correctly.

The WASPIs like to conflated the two to try and garner more sympathy.

InconsequentialFerret · 14/05/2026 20:06

From the report:

Communication between 1995 and 2004
Between 1995 and 2004, DWP’s communication of changes to State Pension age reflected the standards we would expect it to meet. Accurate information was publicly available through DWP’s agencies, pension education campaigns, leaflets and website.

Nine whole years of communicating the information accurately and effectively. But the WASPIs missed it all! 🙄🙄🙄 When people far younger managed to get the message.

Say it isn't about greed and the chance to get a nice lump sum for nothing.

MikeRafone · 14/05/2026 20:06

BananaPeels · 14/05/2026 19:47

Still private pensions regardless of organised by an individual or a workplace

But like state vs private schools.

I’ve tried explaining, if you can’t understand then unfortunately it isn’t something I can help with

the employer doesn’t pay a percentage towards private school fees

BananaPeels · 14/05/2026 20:08

MikeRafone · 14/05/2026 20:06

I’ve tried explaining, if you can’t understand then unfortunately it isn’t something I can help with

the employer doesn’t pay a percentage towards private school fees

I think you are getting very pedantic in this. It is completely irrelevant to the debate which is about the State pension. Everything else is privately organised ie not by the state. Google it, it will tell you the same. It is a turn of phrase to indicate the distinction that is all. Not sure why you are obsessing over a distinction everyone else understands.

MikeRafone · 14/05/2026 20:11

BananaPeels · 14/05/2026 20:08

I think you are getting very pedantic in this. It is completely irrelevant to the debate which is about the State pension. Everything else is privately organised ie not by the state. Google it, it will tell you the same. It is a turn of phrase to indicate the distinction that is all. Not sure why you are obsessing over a distinction everyone else understands.

It was you that brought up Private pensions, not me

RustyBear · 14/05/2026 20:16

MikeRafone · 14/05/2026 19:04

if your work place is paying into your pension, I doubt it’s a private pension- but a workplace pension. This is different from a private pension and although both have tax advantages they operate differently.

These two different types of pension are differ from a state pension

It is possible for an employer to pay into a SIPP - my husband’s employer did for several years.

Swipe left for the next trending thread