WASPI - Women Against State Pension Inequality

BucksLady

Mr_Costcutter wrote: »

I could say more, but sadly feel 'what's the point'.

There is always good reason to fight for those who are disadvantaged in one way or another. You clearly care about the disadvantaged folk you work with - says a lot about you

colsten

BucksLady wrote: »

There is always good reason to fight for those who are disadvantaged in one way or another. You clearly care about the disadvantaged folk you work with - says a lot about you

I have no issue supporting the disadvantaged, quite the contrary. What I do have an issue with is that women who lie about not having known and who have do not appear to be needy want "compensation".

Mr_Costcutter

[QUOTE=ManofLeisure__Would_just_prefer_it_if_those_who_wish_to_whinge_(for_want_of_a_better_word)_about_WASPI,_did_it_on_a_thread_created_for_that_purpose_:D.[/QUOTE]

Don't think you are the only one

jem16

ManofLeisure wrote: »

What makes me cross is that those who are so opposed to WASPI, haven't started their own thread

This is a thread about WASPI - care to point me in the direction of where it says only those who support them must post here?

MPD

These women aren't really against state pension inequality, they are against their own personal losses due to the unwinding of state pension inequality.

Any concession they may win is exacerbating the inequality suffered by men.

Mr_Costcutter

jem16 wrote: »

This is a thread about WASPI - care to point me in the direction of where it says only those who support them must post here?

Oh for goodness sake give the poor chap a break. If his comment was 'serious', I doubt he would have placed that smilie at the end!

Pennylane

the petition is being debated in Parliament at 4.30 this afternoon and you can see it live.

catkins

molerat wrote: »

It would not be OK if that is what was actually happening. WASPI or WASPE or WFSPI is a bunch of "entitled" women wanting to keep the status quo by undoing changes made in 1995 which many of them chose to ignore at the time.

I was notified in 1995 that my retirement age would be raised (I can't remember if it was to 62 or 63). I accepted that as I realise people are living longer.


The next change I didn't receive any notification about. Whether a letter was sent but went missing I don't know. I can't remember exactly when I did receive a letter confirming my pension age but I was somewhat surprised to see that I will now be 66, 9 months and so many days. That's a pretty big jump.


I am now 61 and cannot work due to ill health. Of course, to the powers that be, I am not ill enough to be entitled to any sort of benefit so I get no money whatsoever. My OH works full time. He is self employed so there is a lot of pressure on him to earn enough.


I personally think it is unfair that if you were born in just a couple of certain years you are literally penalised. My hairdresser was born less than 2 years before me and yet is getting her pension now, along with her bus pass.


It should have been brought in more gradually, as was originally intended. To be told "sorry you were born in the wrong year so instead of your age being raised to 62/63 it is now going to be just short of 67" is just wrong.

jem16 wrote: »

So to reiterate - will it help those particular people to pay every single 1950s woman, regardless of need, an amount of money equal to having their state pension at age 60? As there are around 3.7m women born in the 1950s that would amount to £112bn.

Is the WASPI aim realistic or is it likely to lead to failure of those very women?

I don't want or expect my pension to be backdated to when I was 60. I can fully accept 62 or 63. What I do not accept is the jump to almost 67 when if I had been born a year earlier I would be receiving it at 62/63

jem16

catkins wrote: »

I don't want or expect my pension to be backdated to when I was 60. I can fully accept 62 or 63. What I do not accept is the jump to almost 67 when if I had been born a year earlier I would be receiving it at 62/63

That doesn't sound right. What month and year were you born? You say you are 61 now so probably a 1954 birthday.

I was born in 1956. The 1995 Act increased my retirement age to 65 and due to get my pension in 2021, one year after equalisation had taken place. The 2011 Act increased it to 66.

For you to have a state pension age of almost 67 you would have to be younger than me so your 1995 age was never 62/63. However if you're 61 you're older than me so your state pension age is probably 65 years and 9 months.

So something is wrong with your ages. I suspect you actually have both dates wrong. My friend is 61 now and her 1995 date was 64 years and 4 months approximately. After the 2011 Act that became 65 years and 10 months - a further increase of 18 months. Yours will be similar.

retiredandskint

Likewise I needed 39 years worth of contributions and no home Responsibilities for the first few years my children were born. I get approx £109 per week. A lot short of the new £155 which will be available. Every rise will see the gap widened. Should I be compensated?

Nothing is fair in this life and there will always be winners and losers.