Should 1950s WASPI women be compensated?

Pollycat

Seabee42 wrote: »

This is kind of the point, if it was we will spend say even 5billion helping the poorest women affected it would have been much better received.

But...but...but that would mean that all those champagne-swilling, first class travelling WASPI women wouldn't get their 'dues'. :think:

JoeCrystal

Pollycat wrote: »

But...but...but that would mean that all those champagne-swilling, first-class travelling WASPI women wouldn't get their 'dues'. :think:

IF Labour gets into power and if they do decide a form of compensation for these women, it would be hilarious if they only compensated the poorest affected instead. Let's say only the ones who are on Pension Credit for example.

Silvertabby

Pollycat wrote: »

Some say they didn't know.

Maybe they did know but didn't take it in as their state pension date was years in the future.

One woman claimant who represented the Backto60 court case said she didn't know about the 1995 changes but then 'with engaging honesty' produced two letters she received from her occupational pension provider, dated 4 August 2006 and 28 April 2011. In each case the letters advise her: “The DWP has assumed that your State Retirement pension will be payable when you reach the age of 65 Years."

Not taking in important information about your financial future does not mean you didn't know.

Of course they knew - they just preferred to ignore it. In the case of the LGPS, normal retirement age - for both men and women - has always been 65. All the scheme literature/claim forms/letters stated that fact but, presumably because most LGPS women retired at 60 at a time when their SPA was 60, many women just happily 'assumed' that their LGPS retirement age was also 60.

Unless they met the Rule of 85 at 60 (very few women did - one if the reasons for scrapping it) their pensions would be reduced for early payment. This was clearly explained in the payment letters, which would state the actual pension/lump sum to be paid and the percentage/amount of the early payment reductions. I strongly suspect that most women just read the payment amounts and didn't bother going any further. Very few rang to query the reductions (but I'm 60... I'm a woman).

I also suspect that if DWP had written to each and every 1950s born woman in 1995 then the majority of these letters would have been ignored on the grounds 'nothing to do with me - it's only for pensioners'.

pafpcg

JoeCrystal wrote: »

IF Labour gets into power and if they do decide a form of compensation for these women, it would be hilarious if they only compensated the poorest affected instead. Let's say only the ones who are on Pension Credit for example.

Oh dear, I see that someone's blabbed about the crafty wheeze dreamt up in Millbank House. Since pension credit is available only to those above State Pension Age (SPA), the compensation bill for these women (and of course any men who might claim under equalities legislation) who were, by definition, under SPA at the time, will be zero!

Pollycat

Silvertabby wrote: »

Of course they knew - they just preferred to ignore it. In the case of the LGPS, normal retirement age - for both men and women - has always been 65. All the scheme literature/claim forms/letters stated that fact but, presumably because most LGPS women retired at 60 at a time when their SPA was 60, many women just happily 'assumed' that their LGPS retirement age was also 60.

Unless they met the Rule of 85 at 60 (very few women did - one if the reasons for scrapping it) their pensions would be reduced for early payment. This was clearly explained in the payment letters, which would state the actual pension/lump sum to be paid and the percentage/amount of the early payment reductions. I strongly suspect that most women just read the payment amounts and didn't bother going any further. Very few rang to query the reductions (but I'm 60... I'm a woman).

I also suspect that if DWP had written to each and every 1950s born woman in 1995 then the majority of these letters would have been ignored on the grounds 'nothing to do with me - it's only for pensioners'.

Re not being aware:
Well, I have to admit that I've personally not met any women in the 'affected' group who wasn't aware of the 1995 change - and it's been something we've talked about on-and-off for some time.

Re the 2011 change, I'm the oldest in our circle and I brought the subject up after receiving my letter in January 2012 so again, we were all aware (and very disgruntled).

I too tend to think that some women 'shut off' because it was years away and some women didn't read anything that looked 'too heavy' or 'too boring'.
Maybe they consider that as not being told...

silverwhistle

I'm female, 64, and I can't say I recall receiving any specific letter but it was just common knowledge to the extent of jokes going around about the pension age being 75 (or whatever) when we were finally eligible.


With a small company pension and some savings I've regarded the state pension as a bit of a bonus when I finally get it: if it were something I'd had to rely on heavily a lot more serious planning would have been in order and I'd have made it my business to have the facts at my fingertips.



That said I've always been single and perhaps some of the obtuseness displayed has been due to the attitudes of those years amongst women and their partners?

colsten

in_my_wellies wrote: »

I really don't need to explain my circumstances but was making the point that the change from 30 to 35 years was made AFTER I had followed the advice to get a pension forecast and after I had left work thinking I had enough years. I had no notice at all.
I'm aware of the rest of your post but didn't want to explain all that and take the thread off topic

You are totally missing the point. Everybody gets the better of the old or the new rules. It is therefore entirely irrelevant what your personal circumstances are, and it's also totally irrelevant when the change was announced/implemented. For the avoidance of doubt, "everybody" includes yourself.

Thrugelmir

In terms of equality. Why should men who have already reached their maximum state pension level. Continue to have to work and pay National Insurance contributions for some years yet. In order that others can receive "compensation".

Says much about the state of the community and culture in the UK. When the news is dominated by select minority protest groups. Society is in a serious decline.

Malthusian

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Says much about the state of the community and culture in the UK. When the news is dominated by select minority protest groups. Society is in a serious decline.

When was this halcyon era when minority protest groups didn't get on the news?

Protest is a sign of an advancing and prosperous society. People only protest because there is money available. Nobody organises a protest in an agrarian society with no money because there's no point. Even if you succeed in persuading the entire population, you're not going to get anything out of it.

Thrugelmir

Malthusian wrote: »

When was this halcyon era when minority protest groups didn't get on the news?

Protest is a sign of an advancing and prosperous society. People only protest because there is money available. Nobody organises a protest in an agrarian society with no money because there's no point. Even if you succeed in persuading the entire population, you're not going to get anything out of it.

I used the word dominated. Not didn't.