WASPI Women

[Macski]

No doubt there is a thread on this some place, however as usual I can't find it

I came across this on term on Andrew Marr this morning and the panel thought these women were very badly treated and if it was any other group they would be treated differently.

I don't get what the issue is? So the age of retirement for these women was altered, surely that is equality and with equality you take the benefits with the disadvantages.

Maybe men should be compensated for having to work until they were 65 when women retired at 60

[Hoofy]

"Women Against State Pension Inequality is a voluntary UK-based organisation founded in 2015 that campaigns against the way in which the state pension age for men and women was equalised."

What? Women For State Pension Inequality, surely?
WASP-E?

[dxg]

What does it matter when there's a 15k payoff from the state in the offing? Principles be dammed.

Votes being bought?

[HRL]

These the women that were told in 1995 that the retirement age would increase by 5 years, 20 years before it did?

[Stay in Bed Instead]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Don't women looking after children get a NI credit for the State Basic pension?

[andy43]

My aunt was one of those affected. It was very unfair - they'd planned financially for retirement then the rulebook was ripped up at the last minute.
Edited - I was told it was 'last minute'. Having looked on wiki it was announced in 1995, and phased in from 2010, 15 years later.

I think it's going to cost 58 billion to give 3.6 million people an average of £15,000 each. No way of paying for this 58bn seems to have been thought up - just add it to the bottom line and pay interest on the loan.
Votes being bought? Damn right. Very clever.
46 million voters, and about 8% of them have just been promised up to £31,000 if they vote Labour.

Edited by andy43 on Monday 25th November 08:00

[amusingduck]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

What difference does that make?

Before, they had 15 years to provide for their pension after childraising via low skilled, low paid work.
After, they have 20 years to provide for their pension after childraising via low skilled, low paid work.

What's unfair about that?

[amusingduck]

andy43 said:

My aunt was one of those affected. It was very unfair - they'd planned financially for retirement then the rulebook was ripped up at the last minute.

1995?

[andy43]

amusingduck said:

andy43 said:

My aunt was one of those affected. It was very unfair - they'd planned financially for retirement then the rulebook was ripped up at the last minute.

1995?

I wasn't aware of that - just repeating what I was told - I apologise. Now I have googled and edited original post

Edited by andy43 on Monday 25th November 08:01

[pavarotti1980]

How have they lost out financially?

Surely if you discover that your state pension is going to be a bit later, then you would carry on in work up until that point? The women arguing are saying that they had to bridge the gap between retiring and state pension age.

Its seems a pretty stupid thing to do to give up work knowing you had to wait another 5 years for your state pension. Its not like they were given any notice from 1995 onwards or anything

[crofty1984]

andy43 said:

amusingduck said:

andy43 said:

My aunt was one of those affected. It was very unfair - they'd planned financially for retirement then the rulebook was ripped up at the last minute.

1995?

I wasn't aware of that - just repeating what I was told - I apologise. Now I have googled and edited original post

Edited by andy43 on Monday 25th November 08:01

I don't think you quite understand how the interenet works, Andy. Holding an opinion, then changing that opinion once new information comes to light isn't allowed.

[rxe]

I’ve had a look at Mumsnet to see if there’s any more to this. There isn’t much.

The WASPI argument seems to be “I’m too old/weak/ill/small to carry on working”, and 5 years of retirement have been stolen from me.

Reality is that they were told about 65 in 1995, and that some have been handed an extra 18 months with 5 - 7 years notice.

I’m really struggling to find sympathy for them. I suspect my retirement age will be 70+ (currently 50...)

[JagLover]

rxe said:

I’m really struggling to find sympathy for them. I suspect my retirement age will be 70+ (currently 50...)

I imagine most outside the public sector, and the few remaining private sector final salary schemes, are planning to keep working, at least, part time well past the age these women are complaining about their not receiving a state pension at.

[CambsBill]

Interesting history to this - originally stated under Major after pressure from the EU, most of the actual enactment was done by the Labour government but, as usual, they're forgetting to mention that part in their current spoutings.

The EU stuck their oar in again during the coalition government to speed up the equalisation process.

http://www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionag...

"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.

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.

6 April 2010 - women's state pension age begins to rise
The first women are affected by the equalisation changes. Women born 6 April 1950 to 5 May 1950 have to wait until 6 May 2010 to reach state pension age, a delay of up to one month.

Entitlement to Pension Credit for men and women is now linked to women's state pension age rather than the age of 60. A similar change restricts entitlement in England only to free bus travel. Entitlement to Winter Fuel Payment is also linked to women's state pension age and the qualifying date for the payment in winter 2010/11 moves to 5 July 2010. It will rise by six months each year.

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'."

[98elise]

rxe said:

I’ve had a look at Mumsnet to see if there’s any more to this. There isn’t much.

The WASPI argument seems to be “I’m too old/weak/ill/small to carry on working”, and 5 years of retirement have been stolen from me.

Reality is that they were told about 65 in 1995, and that some have been handed an extra 18 months with 5 - 7 years notice.

I’m really struggling to find sympathy for them. I suspect my retirement age will be 70+ (currently 50...)

Same here. Men tend to do more physically demanding work, and die earlier yet Women had an earlier retirement age?

The state pension age should be equal. That is fair. 20 years notice is fair as well.

The only unfairness I currently see is that people on benefits get full credits towards their pensions, but people on low wages don't and have to buy any years they didn't earn enough for.

[Hoofy]

98elise said:

Same here. Men tend to do more physically demanding work, and die earlier yet Women had an earlier retirement age?

I wondered that. I worked in a care home for a bit a few years ago and 90% of the residents were female.

Edited by Hoofy on Monday 25th November 12:56

[Sheepshanks]

JagLover said:

I imagine most outside the public sector, and the few remaining private sector final salary schemes, are planning to keep working, at least, part time well past the age these women are complaining about their not receiving a state pension at.

Not sure what public sector has got to do with this issue? Their pensions have changed considerably over the last few years.

One of the women reports highlight as being badly affected had been a nurse since she was 16.

[kev1974]

McDonnell only seemed to announce this this weekend, AFTER someone asked a question to Boris about it on the Question Time special on Friday evening.

Before that question came up I don't belive anyone from Labour had mentioned it.

Didn't men get their retirement age increased by a year as well anyway, on similar notice, or did I imagine that? If so, while not quite as big a change as for the women, what about the men?

[JagLover]

kev1974 said:

McDonnell only seemed to announce this this weekend, AFTER someone asked a question to Boris about it on the Question Time special on Friday evening.

Before that question came up I don't belive anyone from Labour had mentioned it.

Rather makes a nonsense of the claim the Labour manifesto had been fully costed when they can casually throw in an extra £12bn a year spending commitment when they spot an opportunity to buy some more votes.

[JagLover]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You might say the same of many people in professional jobs. It is unlikely that they will be able to do a stressful job full time in their mid sixties.

Most people will need to plan to ease back into a less stressful and, probably, part time role.