WASPI - Women Against State Pension Inequality

jem16

Playing_with_Fire wrote: »

The main reason is that women born at that time didn't have the same opportunities for work as men, the social expectation for staying home to raise children was much stronger, and it seems that the main assumption for women was that they would have their husbands pension to retire on.

Most of the people reliant on their husband's pension have already retired at age 60. The Married Woman's stamp was abolished in 1978, before I was even married.

I am one of those affected and I certainly don't remember having any less opportunities for work as men. I chose to have a break for 5 years when my children were young but many of my age did not. During that time I was protected by HRP ( Home Responsibilities Protection) so I have a full NI record of my own. I was also able to build up an almost full Teachers' pension.

I'm not sure you're referring to the correct women here.

nearlyrich

I was born in 1961 and when I started work I expected to retire at 60, I remember it moved to 65 when I was early 30's and I then it went up to 67 and a few months for me. I pay well over the average NI but will only get the standard state pension but I have paid into a private pension or a work place pension so I can retire at 55 next summer. I don't think it's right to complain now if they didn't worry when it was announced all those years ago..

dunstonh

The main reason is that women born at that time didn't have the same opportunities for work as men, the social expectation for staying home to raise children was much stronger, and it seems that the main assumption for women was that they would have their husbands pension to retire on.

Women benefited from home responsibilities protection. So, they built up their their own entitlement through that.

bigfreddiel

missbiggles1 wrote: »

"Informed personally"? How much would that have cost, just to let people know who can't be bothered to follow the news?

A pointless campaign that just makes adult women look like idiots!

It wouldn't have made any difference, the letters would be binned or forgotten about a year later.

Maybe an annual personal reminder would have been better!

Cheers fj

MoneyWorry

I must say I am heartily sick of this campaign. I am a woman, born in 1960 and I knew about both rises at the time they were implemented. If these women had taken the appropriate action in 1995, then the second rise would be easily accommodated.

I took this action, plans went a bit awry in that time as I have been made redundant twice, the latest at age 53. We're constantly being told these people had less opportunities than men and they can't find work. I was back in work after both redundancies within 3 months (no choice being single), earn less than in 2006, but still actively save for retirement. It takes backbone and determination, but I'd rather try it this way then sit back and try it on for the inevitable compensation.

missbiggles1

Playing_with_Fire wrote: »

I'm not affected by the changes, however I support the campaign.

The main reason is that women born at that time didn't have the same opportunities for work as men, the social expectation for staying home to raise children was much stronger, and it seems that the main assumption for women was that they would have their husbands pension to retire on.

I support that the retirement ages should be equalised, and that work opportunities should be equalised, however it is unfair to penalise the women who didn't have equal work opportunities before, by increasing their retirement age more quickly than they can plan for it.

There is still a significant pay gap between what men and women earn and what men and women can save for retirement. Once the government have fixed that they have my full support to close the gap in the state pension age, but not before, and not without enough notice.

I'm in that age group and none of those things were really true - we're talking about women whose working lives started in the 1970s, not the 1870s!

In addition a woman who was at home rearing children would receive NIC credits for all the years that child benefits were claimed anyway.

ManofLeisure_2

MoneyWorry wrote: »

It takes backbone and determination, but I'd rather try it this way then sit back and try it on for the inevitable compensation.

I take it that if WASPI are successful, and compensation is paid, then you will say no?

Daniel54

In a BBC Moneybox interview broadcast today ,Ros Altman confirmed that the Government will not make any changes to current arrangements

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34357595

WASPI will not be successful.There will be no compensation for ignorance of a widely known change that was legislated for 20 years ago.

I was born 1954 and my wife 1955.We will both receive state pensions later that those who come before us and earlier than those who come after .C'est la vie.

Overall,our generation has not been dealt a bad hand and I find this complaining rather unnecessary.

MoneyWorry

WASPI will not be successful. In order to do so every Act of Sexual Equality would have to be turned over. I know women who are in their 40's still with no pension in place just thinking they can rely on a husband or partner. That's fine, but when they want to retire early and can't, who's fault is it? Like others have said on here, these women were only born in the 1950's not the dark ages.

Bogof_Babe

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I'm in that age group and none of those things were really true - we're talking about women whose working lives started in the 1970s, not the 1870s!

In addition a woman who was at home rearing children would receive NIC credits for all the years that child benefits were claimed anyway.

A very high proportion of working women in the 60s, 70s and even 80s were not in professional jobs, and sat in rows in open plan offices typing dull things all day, or worked on factory assembly lines doing jobs that are now done by machines. They were not well paid, so it is unfair to suggest that all working women of the era had the chance to build up their own retirement provision. Those bright enough and lucky enough to get to university and leave with a good degree could expect to progress through the ranks of their chosen profession, but these were a minority in those days. Even in my (girls only) grammar school, unless exceptionally bright, we were steered towards catching a good husband and a life of domesticity.

I only aspired to a reasonably comfortable retirement myself due to not having the good fortune to have children, so as one of the aforementioned lowly office workers I worked full time from age 17 until nearly 51, when my parents required my care. There were not the promotion opportunities for everyone, as for every junior manager there were probably a dozen typewriter bashers, who couldn't all work their way up the ladder, and it wasn't that sort of culture anyway, as managers tended to be recruited externally.

Also not having children meant more disposable and saveable income, which coupled with our fairly frugal lifestyle gave us a bit of security for our post-working lives.

I was lucky enough to become eligible for my SRP at 61 and 10 months, and I do feel sorry for my sister who is less than two years younger than me but will not receive hers until she's nearly 66, so I'm not unsympathetic with those caught in the wrong time frame. However my SRP is and will remain about £35 a week less than the new "universal" pension, so it's swings and roundabouts.