MSE Poll: Should 1950s WASPI women be compensated?

XRAT

I am a male but was aware of this many years ago. I cannot understand why so many women were unaware until recently, surely some of them read the national press? All they had to do was mention it at the hairdressers, word soon would have got around, it seems it was too boring, no one wanted to listen. Had they all been sent a letter, who would have read it? It's boring financial stuff.
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.

scottyell

I'm 22 and I'm absolutely in favor of compensation, even if it may hurt my future prospects.
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?

Molly_Mulldoon

XRAT, as a WASPI woman, I couldn't agree more.

Paul_Herring

scottyell wrote: »

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.

p00hsticks

scottyell wrote: »

I'm 22 and I'm absolutely in favor of compensation, even if it may hurt my future prospects.
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?

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 ?

rafbase

So sad that this is called compensation it is the repayment of a loan. The fact is that we 50's women paid into a pension pot to receive our state pension at the age of 60. Just like you would with a company pension. You agree a retirement date, pay in a certain amount over a number of years and then you are able to collect a pension and retire. Seems simple enough. However, the government decides that it needs funds so borrows out of the pension pot and then finds that it can't pay it back. So, it lengthens the retirement age but doesn't tell us. In court, the government has actually confirmed this fact. Their get out has been that legally they didn't have to advise us of the change. So, we haven't been able to prepare for the increased pension age because we didn't know about it and not only that, they did it 3 times.
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.

Momus01

rafbase wrote: »

So sad that this is called compensation it is the repayment of a loan.

No, it isn't. NI is for all intents and purposes a tax.

rafbase wrote: »

The fact is that we 50's women paid into a pension pot to receive our state pension at the age of 60.

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?

rafbase wrote: »

However, the government decides that it needs funds so borrows out of the pension pot and then finds that it can't pay it back.

Pure fantasy.

rafbase wrote: »

So, it lengthens the retirement age but doesn't tell us. In court, the government has actually confirmed this fact.

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?

rafbase wrote: »

So, we haven't been able to prepare for the increased pension age because we didn't know about it and not only that, they did it 3 times.

The vast majority of 1950s women have had two increases at most to their state pension age (1995 and 2011).

rafbase wrote: »

We are not against age equality

All logic and reason would point to the contrary.

rafbase wrote: »

And, if they can do this to us - then what else can they do to others? Think about it.

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.

rafbase wrote: »

It is not a benefit,

Yes, it is. As defined in law and as confirmed in the Judicial Review.

shzl400

I am a woman now aged 56. When I started work, I expected to collect my pension at 60. It's now 67. That feels like a loooong way off now. I wouldn't have minded if it had been two or three years, but seven is huge.



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.

bugslett

prowla wrote: »

I have no idea when or if I will get a state pension; all I know is that I pay money in and don't get a lot in return.

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.

alanchippy wrote: »

Let's look at it from a different angle. Men need compensating for retiring 5 years after women usually having worked longer than women and living less years than women. Never did understand why women received the pension early and men had to wait another 5 years. It is men who should be compensated.

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.

MarkCarnage

Astonishing financial illiteracy and pig headedness being displayed by so many who 'voted' in this.

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.