MSE Poll: Should 1950s WASPI women be compensated?

donny_jim

fkcigclrc wrote: »

We have all had our state pension age moved since we started work. Mine is now age 67 and I was born in 1962, ( I am female). Where does the 'compensation' end? It was some of these women that wanted equality so why should men work longer, especially as they don't take time off to have children.

That is not the point, my wife was born in 54, we new she would not get her state pension till she was 64. But then in 2011 it was increased to 65yrs 6 months. And also stopped them claiming off spouses N.I. At 57 would you want to get a job in order to get what you thought you were already entitled to. I think the original 64 yr retirement should be re enstated

thepurplepixie

fudgecat wrote: »

Started work at 14. Worked full time continuously including through the birth and raising of two children (minimal maternity leave - enough to give birth and recover, then back to work). Paid full stamp all my working life. Worked, raised kids, kept house, did voluntary work in evening around school PTA, etc, cared for relatives, etc. Was paid either less than male equivalents, or held back from promotion because I was the one who had to take annual leave if the kids were ill at little notice- or take unpaid leave. You are therefore deemed either unreliable or lacking commitment compared to male colleagues who have children and a wife to deal with them. All childcare was paid from taxable income in those days - we calculated I could have bought a house for the childcare fees. No relatives to help out - ever. Expected to retire at 60. Women of my age and experience have been poorly treated.

Don't mean to be rude but if you left school at 14, I assume you did if you were working full time, you would be 90 so I don't think the changes would affect you.

thepurplepixie

primley47 wrote: »

It would appear men and younger generations believe we shouldn’t be compensated but what they fail to consider/ know/understand is that some of these women left school to work@ 14 then 15 whereas now all children stay @ school until 18. Childcare funding/nursery care were on brought in in the 1990s when these women were already in their 30s and had to take lesser jobs/part time jobs to facilitate childcare during holidays. Same women were discriminated by businesses paying women of same experience less and promoting men for better jobs. What about the women whose are divorced by their men wanting a newer, younger model who are then left looking after the children thus no options for savings/ promotions/ good pay scales/ good occupational pensions. What about the long hours mothers would work without the labour saving devices of nowadays and the health issues that women experience in their middle years. So, no, women will never be equal to men because society and business and men still do not give all of us the same pay, same opportunities as their male counterparts. Yes, things are better but still have a long way to go as illustrated by the pay scales of men and women doing the same job at the BBC. Many Waspie women have medical conditions that force them to take lesser jobs and were looking forward to retiring @ 60 so are really struggling. Finding work in your 40s/50s/60s is hard. So, every young woman in their teens/20s now needs to think carefully about children because, though we love them, they can be so detrimental to your financial life especially if you are their sole provider/carer and that can also affect your physical health.

The school leaving age was raised to 15 in 1944 so women who left school at 14 did get their SRP at 60. It changed to 16 in 1972 so some of the 1950s women had to stay at school until they were 16, obviously some stayed on till 18.

thepurplepixie

tgroom57 wrote: »

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.

You might not trust Labour but wasn't it Conservative govts that changed the SRP age for women, or at least Conservative for the first one and Conservative as the bigger party in the coalition for the second one.

badmemory

thepurplepixie wrote: »

You might not trust Labour but wasn't it Conservative govts that changed the SRP age for women, or at least Conservative for the first one and Conservative as the bigger party in the coalition for the second one.

Unfortunately many people do not let the truth get in the way of a convenient lie!

thepurplepixie

badmemory wrote: »

Unfortunately many people do not let the truth get in the way of a convenient lie!

Thanks for that, raised a smile on a cold morning.

tinkerbel*79

The money should come from fining all politicians and their parties who make promises they never planned on keeping and outright lying about and no they cant make an expenses claim for their fine.

MarkCarnage

limetree wrote: »

The money should come from the pot of money STOLEN from these ladies.
The politicians have no problems using OUR money for expenses.

Factually wrong on the first part. The belief that there is some earmarked 'pot' for State Pensions is a persistent but incorrect one. No money has been 'stolen' from a pot, because the pot doesn't exist.

MarkCarnage

Pollycat wrote: »

Me too.
I think this whole 'issue' has been a political bandwagon that various parties and MPs have jumped on and continue to jump on.

My local MP has a prominent display of support for WASPI on his election fliers. He is a Nat in Scotland.

I emailed him to ask him some questions on this, to test out his understanding of it, no reply so far. No surprise there.

atush

I'm female and am affected.

I say NO to compensation. If anyone bothered to read or watch news, they should have known and prepared. Like I did.