Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.
MSE Poll: Should 1950s WASPI women be compensated?
98 replies
10.1K views
Quick links
Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support
Replies
Male or female, no one is being forced to retire later, just forced to collect their state pension later. The interim period requires independent planning.
I hope this is all covered in school these days thanks to Martins financial education petition.
If the WASPI women are compensated, it won't be free. Their grandchildren will pay for it in taxes.
I can recognise this is an injustice that should be righted whatever the cost.
If we accept no compensation we set a precedent, what's to stop the same happening to me in 45 years?
What's to stop it happening to you, you ask? Welcome to the forums by the way, and for asking this question in your first post.
The simple answer is to pay attention to things that may affect you when they're announced 25 years in advance.
It's not rocket surgery.
There's also the other side of the coin, if granting this compensation was to set it's own precedent, what's to stop other special interest groups claiming compensation for things they conveniently forgot they were told.
-o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries
If you're 22 it already HAS happened to you - the state pension age has been increased so it's higher for you now than it was when you were born. Tjat's exactly what happened to women in 1995, and to both men and women in 2011.
And there's every chance to say that it may well happen again before you reach that age.
So how much notice do you think you should get for that ?
And are you expecting compensation too ?
Now - we want the loan repaying please so that we can retire.
We are not against age equality but we are against the unknown.
And, if they can do this to us - then what else can they do to others? Think about it.
It is not a benefit, it is not compensation it is our money that the government borrowed to bail the country out of certain situations and we now would like it back please.
Do you think that a private pension provider could get away with this.
Maybe a solution would be to get the banks to pay back the monies that were used to bail them out and give it to us in repayment of our borrowed oops, sorry, stolen pension.
No, it isn't. NI is for all intents and purposes a tax.
Any NI paid is used to pay benefits - it isn't invested in a "pot". Why does this only apply to 1950s women? By that logic it surely applies to 1960s and 1970s women too?
Pure fantasy.
The DWP detailed various campaigns and communications that were issued to raise awareness of the changes. One of the claimants confirmed that she had received TWO letters with her new state pension age, yet still thought it was 60. On that basis, what difference would a letter have made?
The vast majority of 1950s women have had two increases at most to their state pension age (1995 and 2011).
All logic and reason would point to the contrary.
Every man born after 1953 and every woman born after 1950 have had their state pension age increased already. Yet all the talk is about compensating 1950s women only. That is what needs thinking about.
Yes, it is. As defined in law and as confirmed in the Judicial Review.
Contrary to what a previous poster has said, it's not just the state pension - my company pension is now also geared to 67 and would be (substantially!) scaled back if I claim before then.
And seconded what previous posters have said - those women who are now hardest hit were those that were probably paid less than their male colleagues in the 70s, so double whammy.
It's not compensation that's required - it's re-aligning all pension ages, so that while eventually both men and women retire at 68, but on a much more gently sliding scale - even potentially bringing down some older men's retirement ages to more closely match womens.
I dont know the figures, can you tell me either what you paid into your state pension and what you receive. Or do it as an average.
This is the problem, if Graspi should get money then so should men of the same age and then in theory so should women like me who were born in the 60s (I was born in 64) and expected to retire at 60 but now will retire at 67. It's all getting a bit daft though.
Everyone had 15 years notice, and it was phased. I have sympathy for the women affected by the 2011 changes, that really was too little notice but everyone else, no. I've not moaned once and not about to start now.
The original proposal was well founded on both financial and demographic grounds, it was made giving ample time for those affected to adjust to it (bar arguably a very small group to a limited degree).
The sense of 'entitlement' beggars belief.....and clearly equality is fine as long as its asymmetric. The court judgement was correct on legal, moral and commonsense grounds.
This ill thought out, uncosted and opportunistic proposal should go straight in the bin. Where is the money to come from for this - no doubt 'the rich' again.....well you can only shake that money tree so often.
Labour party is not fit for purpose.