Waspi women should be compensated for state pension age change failures

[IwantToRetire]

I heard a discussion about this on the BBC which was more detailed than this article, and implied that the problem wasn't so much how it was announced in the 1990s, but the later changes during the time Coalition was in power.

But suspect whoever is in Government there will be a delay in any payout.

https://www.professionalpensions.com/news/4188325/waspi-women-compensated-pension-age-change-failures

Somebody did try to suggest it wasn't fair on younger people to expect them to foot the bill (as if it hasn't always been the current tax payers who foot the bill at the time).

Which would be the same as saying the local government's who have gone bankrupt once it was shown they had discriminated against women employees and owed them money, shouldn't have to do it.

So not only are women too often cheated at the time, but are later told they shouldn't expect compensation because not fair on current tax payers.

(For some reason cant access the WASPI web site, but suspect it might just be overloaded. But when back on line may be worth checking their take on the situation. http://www.waspi.co.uk )

Just to answer the question about whether men were treated the same way - the issue is the sudden acceleration in the time frame for women's pensions to be aligned with men's. This obviously can only apply to women. So no, men couldn't possibly have been treated the same way, they didn't need to have a time frame to catch up with themselves.

Nooooo....I was born in December 1970!! Ffsake

If it’s not about compensation and taking mo ey out of the pensions of the next generation, claim you victory and say you don’t want the money.

The reality is that there isn’t the money to pay compensation at more than a token amount. They may end up targeting it at those in particular hardship, but politically I am not sure any party will want to do so.

I was mid 20s when the policy changed in 1995…. I remember it well. Undoubtedly comes could have been better, they always can. However I think a token apology is the most likely result.

What an extraordinary, unevidenced and spiteful diatribe.

There are no plans for it to be above age 68.

I was born in 1958 too and was affected. Yes, I felt really cheated that my pension age shifted from 60 to 65 and then 66 - I’d had redundancy, bereavement and a lot else to deal with and could really have done with it. I was too exhausted to work past 65 so I downsized and am lucky enough to be mortgage-free. For this last year I’ve been living on a very small work pension, about benefit level. I get my state pension this year and cannot wait! I think it was a worse blow though for women born earlier in the 50s who really didn’t have so much time to prepare, especially when the changes were speeded up. But should any of us be compensated? I don’t think so and I feel embarrassed by the clamour for compensation that’s being made. I’d rather the money went to providing much needed services for children or young people who are living in poverty. And I think it’s much harder for younger people who’ll have to keep working until 67, 68 and beyond.

I was born in 1955, and I did not get my state pension until my 66th birthday. I can't remember receiving letters per se, but I was well aware of the changes and that I would not be receiving state pension any earlier. However, if the government in their wisdom, wants to compensate me in any way, I'm not going to say no, am I?

Don't people realise that EVERYONE contributes to a welfare system which they don't necessarily use themselves? You can't just say I won't pay tax for this particular thing because I won't use it, it is childish and unpleasant.
I am a waspi and a taxpayer, and I don't say I won't pay tax for free childcare just because I didn't have that benefit.
I don't say I won't pay tax for education because my children never went to state school.
I don't say I won't pay tax for unemployment or disability benefits because I am lucky enough not to have needed them.
Tax is used for whatever the government of the day decides.
I do hope that the mothers of people on this thread don't do childcare for them.
Could someone tell me about what we older women have been 'given' as far as I can see we earned anything we have.

@oddandelsewhere

The baby boomer generation is the first generation to leave the next generation worse off, historically younger generations were better off than their parents. The boomer generation reversed that. The baby boomer generation has also taken out more than they paid in, whilst future generations will pay in more than they paid out. Free university education, triple lock pensions, younger retirement ages, subsequent generations will never have this. We have accepted it, after all everyone lives longer now and there is a cost to that, but the waspi movement has really annoyed me.

So yes, everyone contributes to the welfare system but the system isn’t functioning properly if it benefits one class or age group more than others.

OK @oddandelsewhere try free education, a growing economy, and the highest rate of house right inflation in any developed economy (1 in 5 households of your generation are millionaires, in asset terms.) What exactly about the above did you 'earn'? See attached link: https://www.ft.com/content/c69b49de-1368-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e What do you want the extra money for? To feel morally vindicated?

and @IwantToRetire I've no idea where your spiteful rant about young people being 'parachuted' into jobs came from? Or people having children, for that matter? When should people be 'allowed' high-responsibility jobs? One year before they retire at 60, perhaps?

Actually a large number of the much resented 'baby boom' generation have been amongst the poorest, especially the women. Many women of that generation did not work full time, or manage to accumulate much in the way of NI contributions, nor did they have private or work related pension schemes.

On retirement their state pension was much less than their husband' ( if still married or still with a living spouse). Furthermore, many, like my own mother were still living in housing association or council homes - not homeowners at all. At one point the government was talking about a bedroom tax, and my poor mother thought she was going to lose her home of forty years on account of it.

I cannot stand all of this inter generational polarisation and hate fest that has become so prominent in recent years.

When you blanket categorise people in this way you are prone to making sweeeping and unfair statements.

Most people did not go to university in that generation; they married young and had children. Most women did not work full time or have careers with pension schemes and benefits. They didn't have lots of foreign holidays or eat out at restaurants on a regular basis. As a child we holidayed in North Wales ( my parents had never been abroad until 1990) and that was the only time we ever ate in a restaurant - and that would be fish and chips.

It was far more normal for people to live in council houses, and so have nothing to pass onto their children, and many elderly of that generation have lived in poverty or near poverty for all of their retirement.

@SiriAlexa .
Free university education was for the 5.8 % of the population who went to university the year I went (1974) It covered fees but the maintenance grant was means tested. My parents grudgingly supported me 'because I was a girl and would get married'.
You say that people of my generation retired earlier, but as they had started work earlier (16 for the vast majority) they still had a working life of 50+ years.
The triple lock on pensions was brought in because pensioners were the most likely group to be living in poverty. Remember that if one so called Boomer in five has assets worth 1 million then 4 don't and may be a long way from that.

@stressedout1994 .
Are you seriously blaming my generation for the economy growing? Most people would regard that as a good thing. I do hope that you don't inherit anything from your parents ill gotten gains.
And where did I say that I wanted more money? What I want is for the government not to feel that they can remove contributory benefits without telling those affected in detail and personally what they are doing. Unfortunately this is a group which has been consistently discriminated against for a large part of their working lives and it looks as though that discrimination is still continuing.

It was actually in the 1995 Budget statement by the then Chancellor, Ken Clarke.

So four out of five (80% of pensioners) aren't. Granted that's not such a snappy and divisive headline, though.

Can you post a headline about how many state pensioners are living in poverty? just for balance, you understand.

On retirement their state pension was much less than their husband

Wasn't that mainly because of the Married Woman's Stamp, though? It wasn't compulsory to pay a lot less in NI contributions and then only qualify for a much smaller pension.

My MIL (pre-WASPI age) insisted on paying the full stamp herself - and was scoffed at by those paying less - because she has always wanted to retain her financial independence and not be treated as nothing more than an extension of her DH when it came to her own future financial security (she also has a private pension).

Surely it was obvious from the very name of the MWS that this would be the case? It's all very well saying that you've paid all your NI contributions for X years, but if you've only paid a very small percentage, you can't expect to qualify for as high a pension as the men and women who paid the full amount over all those years.

I don't think any of us can know what plans there might be currently, or what could happen in the near future.

When the state pension was begun, the age was deliberately set above the normal life expectancy, so most people would never receive it.

People are happy to take for granted the greater average life expectancy that medical and scientific advances have brought us nowadays; but where do people think that the money will come from to not only pay for the extra years of healthcare needs (for older people who, previously, would have just died before that healthcare was ever available) but also to pay for their pensions for all those extra years?

Let me reassure everyone on here that I never paid a 'married women's stamp'. I don't know anyone who did.

My first job (1975) was in the Department of Health and Social Security and MWS was still operating. In those pre-computer days all the info was contained in leaflets with a detachable form at the back saying that you'd read and understood the information contained therein, and the form was signed and handed back to your local office for them to retain on file. So a woman wanting to pay MWS would have to acknowledge that she'd either read and understood the form or had an interview with a staff member explaining to her the consequences of paying MWS - I can remember doing a few and handing out the leaflets for them to read. Ditto with NI.

Women might say that they didn't understand it but that wouldn't be because the info wasn't available, even back then (can't speak for previous decades, obvs).

You were very wise, then, as were those in your social circle - but it was definitely a thing that a great many married women DID opt for.

What was the justification given for women who had paid the full stamp getting a smaller weekly pension than a man in the same position? Was it to do with having made fewer years' NI contributions; or was it even adjusted to take account of receiving it five years earlier and likely living a few years longer than men?

Well we can’t know what the government has in mind at the moment, but any changes it is planning will need to be consulted on which point we would find out more about them.

What we do know is that cohort life expectancies are around two years’ lower than they were fifteen years’ ago, which reflects how improvements in mortality have slowed down, as well as the impact of the Covid pandemic.

Free university education, triple lock pensions, younger retirement ages, insane capital gains on houses, being able to afford to have/raise multiple babies regardless of income bracket (many of my millennial friends feel like they can't financially now).