'WASPI women' appeal court ruling

[GrimSisters]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54158832

I'm 41. I'd always wondered why women retired at 60 and men at 65 and have known all about the changes for years because I read the news and don't live under a rock.

Given that, at the moment, I'll get my state pension at 68, I'm struggling to understand what the problem is. Please could someone explain why having to work until 65, along with their male counterparts, is so distressing?

I thought we wanted equality? Must admit that I'm struggling to have much sympathy. I work in a relatively low paid job and have four colleagues aged between 55 and 63 who haven't complained about the situation.

If you're one of the women who has been affected by this change, I'd be interested to know what the real issue is because I'm really confused as to why it is such a massive issue.

I agree with Ken1976. I don't think the changes were unfair. The major unfairness was men retiring at 65 and women at 60. The judge said it was a correction to the historic unfair discrimination against men. I agree.

.

Remember, those of you who can't summon up any sympathy for WASPI women, that any government could do the same to you: snatch away your pension just as you get close to it, without bothering to tell you in advance, & make you work another 5 or 6 or 10 years. You think they'll stop at 66? No chance.

Yes, I cannot imagine anyone would take it on the chin and be quite so smug about wanting equality unless they had a loaded private pension they could fall back on. I agree the ages should be equal, and people need to remember, as has been said, that info wasn't as readily available as it is now.

Good for you and your NHS pension @Ken1976

@Ken1976
You're 67 and You got yours at 63?? I'm 66 and got mine this May so I had 3 extra years to wait. So that's is adding to misunderstandings I think.

And above where I say friend 3 years older got her pension 10 years before, I corrected it to 5 as it seemed too long but it wasn't. It was 10 years - that's a lot of money in total.

Straven123 are you talking about private pension here or state pension. I assume it must be private with early retirement being an option.

Am amazed by the lack of empathy shown by some here. If this had been a private company which changed the employment contracts and stole from the pension funds ( and yes, this has happened) and men had been affected there would be hell to pay. If anything womens pensions should have been doubled to compensate for the extra volunteer roles and low pay. In the current economic situation it might be an idea to allow women to retire on a pitiful pension at 60 and get younger unemployed people to train up and do the jobs. To keep women in poor health and less physically fit, in heavy manual labour seems perverse in the circumstances. Except of course that we are dispensable ..

Remember, those of you who can't summon up any sympathy for WASPI women, that any government could do the same to you

But they have done. When I started working, retirement age for women was 60, and that's what I thought would happen.
OK, I have more notice than the WASPI women, but they had plenty.
Also, things change all the time. Men had theirs changed from 65 to 68.
Just before I married they removed married person's tax allowance.
Heck, just before I was born they removed an allowance for children (don't know what it was called, but my mother still complains about it).

@Viviennemary

How much notice were the second group of women given when the change was accelerated. But if a change is made somebody willl lose out. Like changing people to universal credit, the two children rule, the temporary change of stamp duty.

There is no second group. It’s the same group who have been done over twice - once in 1995 and again in 2011.

Yes, somebody will lose out. We “somebodies” have lost out twice. In many cases just a couple of years before we were expecting to retire. If they’d done this to men there would be outcry. A lot of Waspi women’s partners are furious on our behalf.

Years ago people didn't get family allowance for the first child. And people got mortgage relief tax allowance. Women got less maternity leave. Some teachers retired at fifty with enhanced pensions. Are all these people to be compensated too.

Moreover it is money for women and children that always goes first, plus benefits for sick and disabled people. They cannot get away with the line that it is too expensive, when you see the huge sums being thrown about these days on paying for eg non existent track and true systems , cargo boats that don’t exist, PPE that is inadequate and furlough schemes to help keep the unemployment figures down. It is not that the money can’t be found, it is that women are not considered deserving enough. They are apparently out to get rid of us. MPs earn more in a day at Parliament than the pitiful monthly pension.

@Gurufloof

Also no one currently has a state pension age of 70 Yeah you got me, my actual state pensionable age is 69 years and 10 months. Close enough to 70 years as makes sod all difference. At the moment. Theres still plenty of time to change that. There is the little matter of quite possibly not being able to work that long. There is still age related discrimination, legal no, happens yes. It's just dressed up in a different way.

I assume you are not in the UK, then? State pension ages rises to 67 by 2028, no more increases at the moment.

Are people aware of further changes made to State Pensions in April 2016?

Those who were contracted out of SERPS due to being in an occupational pension scheme paid a lower rate of NI contribution. This stopped in April 2016 and everyone pays the same rate.
When the new flat rate pension was introduced it was reduced for those who had contracted out of SERPS and paid the lower NI contribution. From April 2016 you can earn back the reduction by the continuation of paying NI contributions until you are State Pension age (no choice if working!) I was told I had to pay for at least a further 5 years from April 2016 until March 2025 (last complete tax year before I get my state pension) to ensure I get the full rate state pension. Having worked since 1976 it would mean I will have paid NI for 49 years if I continued working. Found this information from my gateway account with HMRC.

From April 2016 married women and those who have divorced or widowed whose state pension age is after 6th April 2016 can no longer rely on their husband's (or ex to date of divorce or late to date of death) to boost their pension to the rate of 60% of standard if their own contributions record falls short of this rate. Nor will your state pension increase if your husband dies. From that date women will only be paid based on what they personally paid into the scheme.

I know married women who for various good reasons have not worked for 40+ years who would have expected a state pension of 60% based on their husband's contributions who will now get a much lower pension based on the few years they did work and any credits for child benefit, carer's allowance etc.

The only exception to this new rule is for those women who are still paying a reduced married woman's contribution (must be very few)

@Viviennemary

Years ago people didn't get family allowance for the first child. And people got mortgage relief tax allowance. Women got less maternity leave. Some teachers retired at fifty with enhanced pensions. Are all these people to be compensated too.

Don’t be ridiculous. You’re actually highlighting why this is so unfair. This is the same generation that might not have got child benefit for the first child - mine was born in 1975 and we got it when he was two. Women didn’t get any maternity leave. There was no affordable child care so careers were stuffed up because there was no alternative to leaving work.

Why would someone be compensated for retiring at 50 with an enhanced pension? Actually that sounds like pure fantasy.

Sorry, I meant 68 not 67.

@eufycurious

Sorry, I meant 68 not 67.

I have got all this wrong, which shows how confusing it is! The pension age will rise to 68 between 2037 and 2039. But it is still not 70.

If anything womens pensions should have been doubled to compensate for the extra volunteer roles and low pay

Women who have spent much of their life caring, working intermittently, p/t or in low paid jobs have benefited from the more generous single tier pension. Some women have definitely won from having their pension age raised so that they didn't become eligible untill after 2016.

It is still a piss poor amount. The rest of our European friends are shocked at the amounts ad feel genuine for our plight, especially now with Brexit looming

Genuine pity

@LaurieFairyCake

Also, I don't want 'equality'

I want liberation. And in a world where women do the majority of the domestic tasks/child care/and suffer career loss due to reproducing/are assaulted, abused and harassed pretty much constantly - well, having the right to work just as long or be paid just as much on top of that shit list feels like utter fucking arse.

Couldn't agree more.

You work more hours, you have time in lieu!

Sigh. I meant some teachers were able to retire at 50 on generous enhanced pensions. Quite a few missed out.

So how does that compare to ripping off an entire generation of women twice?

How does it compare with ripping off generations of men, many of whom never saw their state pension.

@Ken1976 I m sure you were not the only woman notified about the second change but plenty of women received no notification. That has been admitted by the DWP so you can't argue that.

You took 12 years out to have children. I chose not to have children and therefore took no time out.

You say you are 67 and received your pension at 63 and 6 months. Well I am 66 and received mine at 65 and 10 months! Yet you think it is fair?

I have no problem with men and women retiring at the same age. Of course they could have lowered the age for men but that was never going to happen.

The first change to get the ages equal was fine, the second wasn't. Many did not receive notice of it and even they did there was no that much time to do much about it.

@deydododatdodontdeydo but we didn't have plenty of notice of the second change. As I keep saying, many had no notice whatsoever and that has been confirmed by the DWP.

Even the ones that did get notice, it was not very long and, depending on their circumstances, what were they meant to do?

"In the late 80s I missed out on a promotion to a YTS boy who was incapable of doing the job because
“ He will one day have a wife and family to look after so needs the extra income”

So much this. I worked most of my life in banking. If a man got married or had a baby he almost automatically got a promotion as he would now have a family to support.

I'm one of the lucky ones. I'm 59 now and although my retirement age is now 67, I have a company pension that I still get at 60. The menopause had ruined me..the thought of working til 67 appals me.

@Viviennemary

How does it compare with ripping off generations of men, many of whom never saw their state pension.

False equivalence. The scale was even more loaded in men’s favour in the same age group before you even consider pensions. Lots of women never reach pension age either. It will be more now.