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

I'm 38. I'm fully expecting to reach retirement age only for the government to suddenly say "sorry, starting today we are taking away the state pension. Soz."

But I dont begrudge these women their moment.

And almost all of this is utterly irrelevant to the question in hand. However good, or bad, their working conditions were, or happy or otherwise their marriages were, all they had to do was work a few more years til they could draw their pension. Plenty of unhappily married or single people today working with poor pay and conditions who will have to work longer.

That's life expectancy at birth - if you live to 65, your life expectancy is mid-late 80s: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/bulletins/nationallifetablesunitedkingdom/2022to2024#life-expectancy-at-older-ages

Quite.

ive already said upthread that I’m only just a tad younger than the WASPI women. My ‘expected’ state pension age for at least the first decade that I was in the workplace was 60. I’m pretty sure even as a youngster in my first job I grasped that it was bizarre that it wasn’t the same as men’s state pension age. Women were fighting for equality so why would any of us expect our pensionable age to be 5 years younger? It’s so disingenuous when these WASPI women bang on about ‘6 or 7 years of pension being stolen from them’ - it’s rubbish.

I wasn’t in the least bit surprised when the pensionable age was equalised. And of course the more recent raises have affected everyone - men and women. My pensionable age is now 67. Nothing has been stolen from me. I have the common sense to understand the simple economics of affordability.

I still work. My NI contributions are fully paid up so I don’t stand to personally benefit from continuing to pay in but again, I understand how it works. I’m not paying into some ‘personal pot.’

The grasping, individualistic attitude of the WASPI campaign has done them no favours. Particularly (and I accept this is on an anecdotal level but it’s a fair point) some these women had taken years out of the workplace or years working part time, and were disgruntled mostly about just not really wanting to go to work rather than a genuine belief that they were ‘owed’ money. Of the WASPI women i know, that’s the case. A fraction older than me. The maternity rights, childcare provision etc was exactly the same for me as it was for them - ie: really bloody tough! But some of us got on with going to work and taking personal responsibility financially rather than whinging.

I’m in the waspi range, not expecting a penny to be honest. Well pissed off, my really lovely sister in law who never worked but is a little older than me, got pension at 60, yet l who always worked had to wait until 66.

I'm sure that when the Waspi thing started, the focus was on the 2011 changes. So I too find it odd that this time round, they're focusing on the earlier changes which they have less justification for challenging.

So much for people taking more than they put in:

Furthermore, the National Insurance Fund has a growing surplus, due to paying price-linked benefits while collecting earnings-linked contributions. By March 2006 the surplus is projected to be £34.6bn, of which £25bn can be treated as usable surplus, above the reserve which must be kept for prudential reasons. If current policies continue, the surplus in the fund will be about £60bn by 2009. This is a convenient extra source of revenue for the Treasury, but it could fund better pensions. Income to the NI fund could be further increased by raising or abolishing the Upper Earnings Limit on contributions to the State Second Pension.

Good find @MikeRafone.

Maybe, but you were saying that 15 years should be used to decide what the state pension age should be.

I would also be very surprised if actuaries were using a long term fixed figure rather than basing it on mortality rate statistics.

The guidelines are that you should get at least ten years of notice of your pension age changing, @BiteSizedLife (forgot to quote)

This is quite good background reading

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06546/

I wish they would focus on the cohort from 1953 and 1954, that would be the most realistic chance of getting any compensation at all I think. Because these women genuinely have cause to complain.

Complaining about the 1995 changes is just ridiculous and makes them look very unsympathetic to the younger generation.

I thought NI paid ‘notionally’ towards the NHS though (I know ot all just goes into a big pot). No one ever said that NI contributions only go to pensions so can’t work out how there would ever be a surplus.

They’re not guidelines, it’s a legal obligation. Which is a tacit admission that the 2011 changes fucked women over.

Your thought process has certainly been shaped by the patriarchy, whilst you're entitled you your opinion others are also entitled to theirs and if they want to call ut unfairness then they can.

And your comments totally miss the point that I was responding to a question about the EA and saying that it was not the case that the day after it came in there could be a reset that put women on the same footing as men.

Years of inequality between the sexes had already taken from them financially, and making differential pay illegal couldn't reverse that. It is a double whammy for women who were held back from acquiring better pensions to be told by other women that 'you wanted equality, so stop moaning now you've got it'. It is future generations who have had the full benefited from equal pay.

Many 50s born women fought for equality that their daughters take for granted, and many are fully aware of the hardships for Millennials and GenZ woman, as they see it first hand in their families.

And please don't misrepresent my words. I didn't mention happy or unhappy marriage - I said that the EA didn't change the infrastructure or domestic culture, and that women who have low pensions because they paid a lower 'stamp' were told they would benefit by paying the extra into their husband's SERPs, but lost out if they were no longer married in retirement.

As of 31 March 2025, the Great Britain National Insurance Fund (NIF) held a
balance of £79.3 billion. While this fund is legally separate from the government's general tax revenue, it is not ring-fenced, as the Treasury can use any surplus to cover general government expenditure, and surpluses are often used to reduce national debt. 1, 2, 3]
Key Details About the National Insurance Fund (NIF):
Fund Status (2025/26): The balance of £79.3 billion in March 2025 was above the required minimum, and the NIF is projected to increase further in the 2025-26 financial year.
Purpose: The NIF is primarily used to pay for contributory benefits, with the state pension being the largest expenditure, accounting for roughly 95% of payments in recent years.
Not a "Pension Pot": National Insurance (NI) works on a "pay-as-you-go" basis, meaning current contributions pay for today's pensioners, rather than being saved in a personal pot for the individual contributor.

Is it Ring-fenced? While legally separate, the NIF is not ring-fenced for pensions alone. It is technically a separate account from the main Consolidated Fund, but in practice, the government uses the fund to manage social security payments.

The consolidation fund does run at zero

taken from AI hopefully answers your question about NI and how they calculate a surplus.

I don't think this is just about them being aware or unaware though. It's more about getting the rug pulled out from under you, when you had been working and paying your NI in good faith.

In April 2010 is when the transition began. Before this date, women could still retire at 60.

I was born in 1969. I started work in 1986. So for the first 24 years of my working life, I was paying NI, assuming I would get my pension at 60. Turns out I'll only get it at 67. So I have to work 7 years longer, and I'll receive £84k less. That feels like a piss take. And I'm not even old enough to be a Waspi woman!!

Funny how no one was ever given the option to not pay the element of NI that goes towards pensions. It's just been a case of the Government saying "Yes, we changed to goal posts, but we did tell you, so that makes it all ok". No, it's not okay! No where else in life would this be acceptable. "Yeah, I spat in your dinner, but I told you, so it's fine!"

There's something unsightly in seeing a woman bring down other women. Bless you OP for feeling fed up. I'd say Waspis are "fed up" with women like you doing men's thinking for them.

But surely everyone is in the same boat? We all now are practically working to 67. That is what I don’t understand. Yes the rules changed and you have to work longer but basically you are saying that the rules can never changed because someone will be the person affected the most. how can you avoid changing a rule and someone being born the day after the change?

NI rates have fluctuated over time which means some people ended up pay thousands of pounds more than they would have done.

tax thresholds haven’t moved with inflation so lots of people are now paying 40% tax when years before their inflation adjusted salary wouldn’t have been caught.

students now have to take on £30k of debt when a generation before got it all for free.

frustrating, annoying, unfair. All this things. But I don’t know how a government can change a rule without someone being affected negatively.

Exactly! Changes take place constantly in society for economic reasons. Subsidised childcare came in after I’d had years of paying full nursery fees (equivalent to my take home pay.) It would be ridiculous for me to expect a refund or ‘compensation.’ And I’d been one of the women campaigning for childcare to be at least tax deductible or ideally to get a few hours a week subsidy.

In a forward looking society people don’t always expect to personally benefit from change - they support change for the benefit of future generations. It’s the self-serving attitude of the WASPI women which many of us find so unpleasant.

nothing to do with hating women or being suckered in by the patriarchy - I’ve noticed these accusations always seem to be used in place of an intelligent argument. I worked for years during the time when my pensionable age was 60. It’s now 67. Of course on a selfish level it would be nice if it was 60 - but on a societal level I’ve got the common sense to see that it be economically disastrous.

I’m a couple of years older than you and I couldn’t disagree more. It’s absolutely right that pension ages were equalised between men and women and with greater life expectancy and pension affordability I don’t think the increase is unreasonable. I have known for many years that I wouldn’t get my pension at 60 and have planned on that basis. Since 1995 we have known that it wouldn’t be 60, not since 2010. The change from 60 was announced in 1995.

A small number of women were very disadvantaged by the more recent changes, but most of us have had adequate time to plan.

How did she get a full state pension if she never worked? She would only have some NI contributions if she received Child Benefit but even if she did have some NI contributions due to receiving child benefit, she still wouldn't have enough contributions to receive a full state pension.

I still think 67 is too old. My Mum died at 73, DH's Mum died at 61. I know loads of people who died in their early 70's. Working 50+ years, to only receive a pension for 6 years does feel like a piss take.

It's a moot point really, because people who have never worked (and who don't therefore qualify for the State Pension), do receive Pension Credit which is only £3 a week less than the SP. I hate to use the phrase again, but, PISS TAKE.

Oh give over. The rest of us are having to work an extra seven years too, and we have also all paid in our entire working lives. I’ve no interest in paying even more tax to give a small minority of people compensation for having to do something that everyone else also has to do.

That's disgusting. Yet anyone who has worked for the majority of their lives have to pay to top up their allowance.