Forum Home» Money Saving Polls

MSE Poll: Should 1950s WASPI women be compensated? - Page 6

New Post Advanced Search
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?

edited 30 November -1 at 12:00AM in Money Saving Polls
98 replies 10.1K views
1468910

Replies

  • Paul_HerringPaul_Herring Forumite
    7.5K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    These women were given NO notice

    Now you're just being silly. It's been pointed out numerous times in this thread and numerous others, that they were in fact given notice - up to 25 years for one of the changes.

    The fact that they either ignored that notice, didn't realise what it meant (despite "when you retire at 65" should have been something to set off alarm bells) or have conveniently selective amnesia shouldn't give them a free pass.

    Yes, some - a small minority, may have been adversely affected; something a directed application of state aid for those in penury would sort out.

    But the whole 1950's-born cohort of females? No. Now you're being silly.
    Conjugating the verb 'to be":
    -o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries
  • PollycatPollycat Forumite
    29.6K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Savvy Shopper!
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Geri~O wrote: »
    In my situation I spent my working life being paid less than men doing the same job, will equality mean I get backdated salary for all those years, no ~ so how can sudden equality in pensions be fair?
    People seem to forget equalisation cannot start without looking at past inequality. I have paid NI for 47 years and am not due to get my pension for another 3 years.......50 years of paying in and probably not live long enough to get anything out, but I think that is the general idea.....hope we all die fighting this!
    Can you define 'sudden' please.

    The first change was announced in 1995, the second in 2011.

    Is that really the definition of 'sudden'?
    Senjo wrote: »
    I am a 66yr old female. My retirement age was moved 3times and I eventually retired last year. I don't understand how some say they are worse off. By working longer you are earning more and adding to your pension pot.

    In addition it is a hang-over from a bygone era that women should retire earlier than men, especially as women live longer on average. And as average life expectancy has risen it is only natural that the retirement age should rise for both sexes.
    I too am a 66 year old female.
    My retirement age (or more accurately 'state pension age' as anyone can retire at any time) was moved twice.
    In 1995 I was aware that my state pension age would be 63 years and 6 months.
    In January 2012 (as a result of the 2011 changes) I was advised by letter that my state pension age had been put back to 64 years and 9 months.
    I didn't have a 3rd change.
    Can you please explain where your 3rd change has come from?
  • Paul_HerringPaul_Herring Forumite
    7.5K posts
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    Pollycat wrote: »
    I didn't have a 3rd change.
    Can you please explain where your 3rd change has come from?

    Possibly this?: http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_history.htm

    First:
    1995 - women's state pension age to be equalised
    Following pressure from Europe, the Conservative Government was forced to announce plans to equalise state pension age for men and women. The timetable was the most relaxed possible and would raise pension age for women to 65 slowly from April 2010 to April 2020.
    Second:
    2007 - further rises in pension age to 66, 67, and then 68 introduced
    The Labour Government passed a new law to raise state pension age to 66 between April 2024 and April 2026, then to 67 between April 2034 and April 2036 and to 68 between April 2044 and April 2046.
    Third:
    May 2010 - further change promised
    In opposition the Conservative Party had announced it would raise pension age for men and women more quickly than existing plans. After it came to power with the Liberal Democrats in May 2010 this pledge was repeated in the programme for government set out in the Coalition Agreement.

    "We will...hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women."

    October 2010 - revised changes
    The commitment in the Coalition Agreement fell foul of EU equality laws which allowed the government to equalise state pension ages as late as April 2020 but would not allow further discrimination between men and women during that process. So in the Spending Review of October 2010 the plans were revised. Women's state pension age would now be raised more quickly to reach 65 in 2018 and then both men and women's pension age would rise to 66 by 2020. Critics pointed out that plan breached the Coalition Agreement promise of 'no sooner than...2020 for women'.
    Conjugating the verb 'to be":
    -o I am humble -o You are attention seeking -o She is Nadine Dorries
  • PollycatPollycat Forumite
    29.6K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Savvy Shopper!
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    Now you're just being silly. It's been pointed out numerous times in this thread and numerous others, that they were in fact given notice - up to 25 years for one of the changes.

    The fact that they either ignored that notice, didn't realise what it meant (despite "when you retire at 65" should have been something to set off alarm bells) or have conveniently selective amnesia shouldn't give them a free pass.

    Yes, some - a small minority, may have been adversely affected; something a directed application of state aid for those in penury would sort out.

    But the whole 1950's-born cohort of females? No. Now you're being silly.
    +1 to this.

    I think it's more accurate to say that a lot of these women say they didn't know.
    I certainly knew.
    Pollycat wrote: »
    In 1995 I was aware that my state pension age would be 63 years and 6 months.
    In January 2012 (as a result of the 2011 changes) I was advised by letter that my state pension age had been put back to 64 years and 9 months.
    @happyinflorida

    I don't know why some women were unaware of the earlier change - which wasn't communicated to them personally.

    But Hey! It was 15 years before any woman would be affected so unless you were in the habit of taking notice of things that would impact on you in the future, maybe some women did miss the discussions at work, in the hairdressers, in the media etc.

    I don't know why some women didn't get a personal letter about the second change.
    As above, I did. I still have it where it was carefully filed.
    Incidentally, my husband (whose pension age was put back to age 66) also received a letter in February 2012 advising him of this.
    That letter is still where it was carefully filed.

    I'm the eldest in my group of friends and I'll tell you now - that letter generated heck of a lot of discussion between us which spread outwards to other groups.
    It was also widely covered in the media.


    But are you aware that one of the 'claimants' who was key in the Backto60 court case who said she wasn't aware of the changes actually produced 2 letters from her occupational pension provider in 2006 and 2011 that stated that the DWP had assumed that her State Retirement pension will be payable when she reaches the age of 65 Years?

    Do you class that as being given 'no notice'?
    Because I don't.
    I class that as ignoring a very important piece of information that - if you didn't know what it meant - should have had anyone rushing off to investigate further.

    I'm willing to accept that there may be some women who really were totally unaware of these changes until they reached their 60th birthday and wondered where their state pension was.
    But I think that number would be pretty small.
    And if those women are in financial difficulties because of this, they should be helped financially by the Government.


    But not this wide-spread 'compensation' payment nonsense that Labour are proposing.
  • PollycatPollycat Forumite
    29.6K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper Savvy Shopper!
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    But did all those 3 changes affect a woman who is aged 66 years now?
    I've been 66 years old for 7 weeks.
    I hit state pension age at 64 years 8 months and 26 days.
    Even if Senjo was 66 yesterday (when she posted) her state pension age would have been 6th November 2018 - aged 64 years 11 months and 20 days.

    The 1995 act affected me.
    The 2011 Act affected me.
    My pension age was never going to be 66 upwards so the 2nd (2007) change didn't affect me.
    I can't see how it affected Senjo either (unless I'm missing something).
  • Important update! We have recently reviewed and updated our Forum Rules and FAQs. Please take the time to familiarise yourself with the latest version.
  • minty777minty777 Forumite
    374 posts
    Sixth Anniversary 100 Posts Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭
    Waspi and all the other named groups walked round in blind folds and ear plugs for many years.
    o:)
  • edited 2 December 2019 at 8:00PM
    jamesdjamesd Forumite
    24.1K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 2 December 2019 at 8:00PM
    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?
    You already are going to suffer. Under the old state pension rules a lifelong low earner could expect more than £190 a week in state pension. The new rules that you are subject to have the lower cap applied because there is no longer the earnings-related part.

    The 2016 rules changes cut the payments to those with a long work record to boost them to those with less working. The effect was higher payments to most women and lower payments eventually to most men and women with long work histories. Eventually is because transitional protection rules mean people keep any higher amounts they had accrued before 2016.

    The key injustice here is men having had to wait five years longer than women since the discrimination was introduced in the 1940s. That's a lot of men to compensate for their missing five years.
  • edited 28 November 2019 at 4:12PM
    jamesdjamesd Forumite
    24.1K posts
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited 28 November 2019 at 4:12PM
    These women were given NO notice
    That's not true. There was the law change and massive publicity, as usual. Then followup letters eventually sent to last known addresses, and work pension schemes telling people independently of the DWP. Even one of the two women in the recent high court case who claimed she hadn't been told later provided the court with personal pension letters giving her new state pension age.

    As that woman demonstrated, telling people still requires them to pay attention to what they have been told and one of them proved that she hadn't.

    It is clear that some women didn't find out until way later than they should have. The working age benefits system protects them, if necessary. And it does it whether they were told and didn't notice or remember it or not.
    They're not allowed any pension or any other benefits to live on
    That's not true. Those who are of working age are entitled to exactly the same working age benefits as men of their age. I'm happy with that, it's right for means tested benefits to be provided to working age individuals who are seeking work but can't find it, or who are unable to work.

    If someone of working age - like me or some of them - chooses not to seek work it's right that they should not receive the means tested benefits for those seeking work or unable to work. If this was to leave them with no money then it's obvious that they should start to seek work or demonstrate inability so they can get the benefits they'd be entitled to.
  • edited 28 November 2019 at 11:44AM
    SilvertabbySilvertabby Forumite
    6K posts
    1,000 Posts Fourth Anniversary Name Dropper Photogenic
    ✭✭✭✭
    edited 28 November 2019 at 11:44AM
    @happyinflorida

    I'm with Pollycat and jamesd on this one.

    We 1950s women fall into one of three categories:

    1. Those of us who have been well aware of the proposed changes since 1995 and who made our long term retirement plans accordingly.

    2. Those who have known about the changes since 1995 - but ignored them. Possibly because they weren't in a position to make/increase any alternative pension provisions, but I can see no reason why they didn't factor in having to work until they received their State pensions.

    3. A few (very few) who, for whatever reason chose to ignore all bad news/current affairs etc.

    Of course I'm not without sympathy for those women who now find themselves in financial dire straights - but this is a welfare state, and those who are too sick to work/those who genuinely can't find work have access to means tested benefits. Unfortunately, the WASPE campaign - led by women who only want/need their State pension to pay for luxuries - has soured things for those who really are struggling.
  • edited 28 November 2019 at 12:22PM
    tgroom57tgroom57 Forumite
    1.4K posts
    Tenth Anniversary 1,000 Posts Name Dropper
    ✭✭✭
    edited 28 November 2019 at 12:22PM
    I am of the age affected by this. I haven't voted because the choices are too stark. I was fully aware when the age rose from 60 to 63, and had planned for that. But the extra rise from 63 to 66 came suddenly and distinctly unexpected- since the age had already changed once, I didn't expect it to change again (so soon!)

    I am in favour of the original 63 years being honored, which is why I couldn't vote for any choices listed.

    The pension for 6 years comes to in the region of £36,000 plus there are other benefits that are only open to ppl reaching State Retirement Age (Pension Credit, Winter Payments.) I can only hope the bus passes don't follow suit.

    I am urging all my family to choose pension schemes that payout at a given age, and not linked in any way to the State Retirement Age. But someone finding themselves unemployed at 55+ can expect to be made to draw their
    pension arrangements and come off the unemployed list.

    I'm not interested in Labour "promises"- they can't be trusted with money.
    And they certainly can't buy my vote.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Quick links

Essential Money | Who & Where are you? | Work & Benefits | Household and travel | Shopping & Freebies | About MSE | The MoneySavers Arms | Covid-19 & Coronavirus Support