Waspi pensions

[Blackpool Rock]

The decision on a report is expected about this today, i've just tried to find out a bit more about the details on this as i'd always thought it was just about women complaining that they now have the same retirement age as men however I can see how / why some women have grounds to be annoyed, from what i've read -

Historically men retired at 65 and women at 60, in these modern times with equality of pay etc to have a higher retirement age for men is clearly discriminatory against men
In 1995 a law was passed to equalise the pension age to 65 however it wouldn't start to be implemented until 2010 so 15 years notice and it would be phased in over 10 years

Part of the waspi women's case is that they weren't given enough notice but most people would agree that 15 years is ample time to plan ahead and this was always the basis for me not having any sympathy for their cause, however.............

It appears that in 2011 which is after the phasing in started it was tinkered with to accelerate the phasing in timescale, what i can't find out is exactly what this tinkering was though i'm sure the information is out there
IMO this does validate concerns that have been raised about women not having had enough advance warning about the change or rather the amendment to the change as it's only right and fair people have fair warning so they can plan effectively whether to stop work; downgrade jobs; go part time etc
Additionally some women are claiming that they had no advance warning and never received any letter etc informing them of the changes though I think some women are claiming they weren't aware of the 1995 decision but IMO that's BS

I do think there is a case to answer for women who weren't given enough advance notice of the 2011 amendments however in the news footage earlier during 1 protest there were also plenty of flags and banners stating something like "Back to 60" so there are quite a few women who still fundamentally don't agree with the pension age equality and I think they detract from the overall cause
In fact that's what i actually thought the entire argument was about until I looked a bit closer, unfortunately sometimes the voice that shouts loudest is the only 1 you hear 

External Link/Members Only

[RedKettle]

The decision on a report is expected about this today, i've just tried to find out a bit more about the details on this as i'd always thought it was just about women complaining that they now have the same retirement age as men however I can see how / why some women have grounds to be annoyed, from what i've read -

Historically men retired at 65 and women at 60, in these modern times with equality of pay etc to have a higher retirement age for men is clearly discriminatory against men
In 1995 a law was passed to equalise the pension age to 65 however it wouldn't start to be implemented until 2010 so 15 years notice and it would be phased in over 10 years

Part of the waspi women's case is that they weren't given enough notice but most people would agree that 15 years is ample time to plan ahead and this was always the basis for me not having any sympathy for their cause, however.............

It appears that in 2011 which is after the phasing in started it was tinkered with to accelerate the phasing in timescale, what i can't find out is exactly what this tinkering was though i'm sure the information is out there
IMO this does validate concerns that have been raised about women not having had enough advance warning about the change or rather the amendment to the change as it's only right and fair people have fair warning so they can plan effectively whether to stop work; downgrade jobs; go part time etc
Additionally some women are claiming that they had no advance warning and never received any letter etc informing them of the changes though I think some women are claiming they weren't aware of the 1995 decision but IMO that's BS

I do think there is a case to answer for women who weren't given enough advance notice of the 2011 amendments however in the news footage earlier during 1 protest there were also plenty of flags and banners stating something like "Back to 60" so there are quite a few women who still fundamentally don't agree with the pension age equality and I think they detract from the overall cause
In fact that's what i actually thought the entire argument was about until I looked a bit closer, unfortunately sometimes the voice that shouts loudest is the only 1 you hear 

External Link/Members Only

I recall (but my memory can be patchy) there was also a claim the government information at the time was misleading, which is perhaps not a massive surprise!

[catweazle]

So, the report is out. Basically the Ombudsman says all affected  women should be compensated, but notes that the DWP have already said they won't comply.

With little Parliamentary time left, nothing  will happen this session, and I rather doubt an incoming Labour administration  will be keen to deal with it  either.

[mh]

The issue is they weren't told anything or were given incorrect information.

Government has form on avoiding paying compensation when they fuck up. Equitable Life - regulator was found to have failed. They paid a fraction of the compensation that was calculated as having been the loss of pension investors. The government pleaded poverty.

Infected blood scandal. Windrush scandal. Post Office Scandal. Waspi scandal. Government fucks up, don't expect to be reimbursed.

[Adoniron]

There was nothing wrong in principle with the decision to equalise pension ages for men and women. However the government knew the decision wouldn't be popular so basically kept quiet about it. They should have written to everyone affected. If the women concerned had been told about the change in 1995 they would have had 15 years to plan for it. The coalition made it worse in 2010 by accelerating the change.

[standardpostage]

Women Against State Pension Inequality.

Had to google it 

[jackdaw]

Baffled at idea that change was kept secret.

There is a case…of course…for making women retire later than men (as women live longer), but suspect men will have to soldier on a few decades longer before that happens.

[southcoastpunter]

15 years notice sounds like a long time but in you plan your retirement stuff in your 20's or 30's which we are advised to do, as a women you get to mid or late 40's and expect top get your pension in say 15 years but find its actually another 21 years - ie an additional 6 years for some (because it had moved to age 66 by then) which has made things more difficult for some women as well as some couples!

[m4rmite]

Baffled at idea that change was kept secret.

There is a case…of course…for making women retire later than men (as women live longer), but suspect men will have to soldier on a few decades longer before that happens.

Can't be having women work longer than men, as that would be sexist no doubt.

[timsussex]

It was never a kept secret - I knew about it and wanted men to retire 2 years earlier then women - to help make equal years of retirement given men die earlier 

However the government didnt write to all women - and thats the basis of the report - despite it being in the press

[jackdaw]

It was never a kept secret - I knew about it and wanted men to retire 2 years earlier then women - to help make equal years of retirement given men die earlier 

However the government didnt write to all women - and thats the basis of the report - despite it being in the press

On same basis all people with tooth decay problems could qualify for compo on basis Government didn’t write to them individually to use fluoridated toothpaste and brush teeth a couple of times a day…

It really does feel like compo culture has got totally out of control, another example is expectation that people who signed up for high interest car loans should be compensated, although it ought to be obvious no one forced them to buy a new car, or stopped them from getting a cheaper loan from bank or building society.

I know I’m getting old and grouchy, but am I in the minority in thinking UK society needs to toughen up?

[Blackpool Rock]

On same basis all people with tooth decay problems could qualify for compo on basis Government didn’t write to them individually to use fluoridated toothpaste and brush teeth a couple of times a day…

It really does feel like compo culture has got totally out of control, another example is expectation that people who signed up for high interest car loans should be compensated, although it ought to be obvious no one forced them to buy a new car, or stopped them from getting a cheaper loan from bank or building society.

I know I’m getting old and grouchy, but am I in the minority in thinking UK society needs to toughen up?

Yeah I agree and it reminds me of a few years back when people suddenly got compo for having been overdrawn etc at the bank, the feckless wankers couldn't manage their money properly and knew going overdrawn came with a penalty etc but still did it but then 10 or 20 years later got compo for it.
End result my authorised overdraft rate went from under 20% to about 40% which is basically loan shark rates, I cancelled the fucker as it was cheaper to use a credit card FFS 

[timsussex]

Women Against State Pension Inequality.

Had to google it 

Surely should be WASPE

Women Against State Pension Equality.

[Colston36]

The decision on a report is expected about this today, i've just tried to find out a bit more about the details on this as i'd always thought it was just about women complaining that they now have the same retirement age as men however I can see how / why some women have grounds to be annoyed, from what i've read -

Historically men retired at 65 and women at 60, in these modern times with equality of pay etc to have a higher retirement age for men is clearly discriminatory against men
In 1995 a law was passed to equalise the pension age to 65 however it wouldn't start to be implemented until 2010 so 15 years notice and it would be phased in over 10 years

Part of the waspi women's case is that they weren't given enough notice but most people would agree that 15 years is ample time to plan ahead and this was always the basis for me not having any sympathy for their cause, however.............

It appears that in 2011 which is after the phasing in started it was tinkered with to accelerate the phasing in timescale, what i can't find out is exactly what this tinkering was though i'm sure the information is out there
IMO this does validate concerns that have been raised about women not having had enough advance warning about the change or rather the amendment to the change as it's only right and fair people have fair warning so they can plan effectively whether to stop work; downgrade jobs; go part time etc
Additionally some women are claiming that they had no advance warning and never received any letter etc informing them of the changes though I think some women are claiming they weren't aware of the 1995 decision but IMO that's BS

I do think there is a case to answer for women who weren't given enough advance notice of the 2011 amendments however in the news footage earlier during 1 protest there were also plenty of flags and banners stating something like "Back to 60" so there are quite a few women who still fundamentally don't agree with the pension age equality and I think they detract from the overall cause
In fact that's what i actually thought the entire argument was about until I looked a bit closer, unfortunately sometimes the voice that shouts loudest is the only 1 you hear 

External Link/Members Only

Since women live longer than men their case seems unreaonable

[WASA38]

Women Against State Pension Inequality.

Had to google it 

To follow theme of enlightenment, compo = compensation.  Antipodean slang.

[standardpostage]

To follow theme of enlightenment, compo = compensation.  Antipodean slang.

I thought it was a mans name, from Last Of The Summer Wine 

[David1970]

I thought it was a mans name, from Last Of The Summer Wine 

Males should get a higher pension than females, due to life expectancy.
Men in England live on average to 78.8 years while woman live on average to 82.8 years.
If the retirement age is 66 then men only get a pension for 12.8 years on average while woman get a pension for 16.8 years.
Men should get a pension roughly a third high than woman to get equality in pension pay out over a life span.

[Blackpool Rock]

Males should get a higher pension than females, due to life expectancy.
Men in England live on average to 78.8 years while woman live on average to 82.8 years.
If the retirement age is 66 then men only get a pension for 12.8 years on average while woman get a pension for 16.8 years.
Men should get a pension roughly a third high than woman to get equality in pension pay out over a life span.

It's never going to happen, I mean can you imagine the outcry about unfairness and male dominance / privilege etc 
Of course women never complained when they got the pension 5 years earlier in addition to having a longer life span which years ago was an even bigger gap, and all that despite many not paying in anything much during their lifetime, but hey everything is all geared towards men 

I think we need to bear in mind however that when these systems were originally put in place our society was a very different setup, traditionally women didn't work once they got married and had children, their "job" was considered being a home maker etc and that role in wider society was probably appreciated more
There was a need to ensure women had pensions and were supported by the state as on average men died earlier often due to long term problems and illnesses from their workplaces such as breathing in dust / fumes / chemicals way before H&S was taken seriously

Society has changed so it's only right that the pension start date is now the same but personally i'd not argue for men to get more as they don't live as long and we all know it's never going to happen, equally it could be argued that people who pay more into the system should get a higher pension or those with poor lifestyle choices such as excessive drinking or smokers should get more as they will on average die younger

Blackpool has one of the lowest average life expectancies so should I get a bigger state pension or would they need to establish that i didn't qualify due to eating and drinking sensibly; not smoking and going to the gym regularly 
Just too many questions and variables   

[David1970]

Thanks for the agree with me, and you are correct there would be an outcry if it was suggested men get what they are due.

As for the argument about people from Blackpool should get higher pensions because of their low life expectancy, that is caused by their life choices. So they are not due higher pension rate.

[Doc Holliday]

Gents, this isn't about whether men or women should have the same retirement age. That is a separate and valid discussion. The decision to level this up to 65 was taken politically in 1995 and a further subsequent increase to 67. That decision was never going to be to lower the male age and meet in the middle etc.

This is about how this transition was subsequently communicated by DWP. Had it got its act together in contacting all those affected at the appropriate time etc, this would never have got to where we are now and we wouldn't be facing another potential dipping into the public coffers to compensate people.

[timsussex]

So despite it being heavily reported in the press - the DWP should have sent them a letter.
Now I remember the original announcement and the change - had a "spirited discussion" with a couple of my female colleagues at the time about equality and the cost of being able to vote 

However some of the changes weren't reported as widely e.g If you decided to defer your pension you can get an enhanced pension later. 10.4% for each year you defer and I planned to work 3 years post and thus get nearly 1/3 extra pension when I finally retired. However when I reached 65 I found out the enhancement had been reduced to 5% for any born after April 5th 1951. So I was born a few months too late.
I never received ANY notice  of this or various other changes which affected everyone.

[RedKettle]

Thanks for the agree with me, and you are correct there would be an outcry if it was suggested men get what they are due.

As for the argument about people from Blackpool should get higher pensions because of their low life expectancy, that is caused by their life choices. So they are not due higher pension rate.

Apparently being a man or a woman is also a life choice!

[RedKettle]

Gents, this isn't about whether men or women should have the same retirement age. That is a separate and valid discussion. The decision to level this up to 65 was taken politically in 1995 and a further subsequent increase to 67. That decision was never going to be to lower the male age and meet in the middle etc.

This is about how this transition was subsequently communicated by DWP. Had it got its act together in contacting all those affected at the appropriate time etc, this would never have got to where we are now and we wouldn't be facing another potential dipping into the public coffers to compensate people.

Agreed and I am puzzled why it took a 5 year review to decide if the comms were good enough.   

[Pillowtalk]

Gents, this isn't about whether men or women should have the same retirement age. That is a separate and valid discussion. The decision to level this up to 65 was taken politically in 1995 and a further subsequent increase to 67. That decision was never going to be to lower the male age and meet in the middle etc.

This is about how this transition was subsequently communicated by DWP. Had it got its act together in contacting all those affected at the appropriate time etc, this would never have got to where we are now and we wouldn't be facing another potential dipping into the public coffers to compensate people.

My understanding is the decision to level up was taken as a result of a court case (not a political decision) in which a female bank employee argued she should be allowed to retire at the same time as her male colleagues. The court agreed, and so all private and state pensions were equalised. Of course, the government could have split the difference between 60 and 65 and said everyone could draw their pension at 62 1/2, but the changes co-incided with increased longevity hence the need to increase retirement ages generally.
The situation we have now is there is no effective default retirement age either from employment or for the state pension. You can apply for your state pension at the appropriate age (66 or 67 depending on your age) and as far as employment goes if you decide to 'retire' you are effectively resigning your employment. That is, age is no longer a reason to force people out of employment.

[JontyR]

If the pension and financial investment industry took a kicking for not being totally honest about risk and alterations to and misselling of policies then the government has to do the same.

I have a great deal of sympathy for those that were responsible and made significant plans relating to when they would be able to retire and factored in job and house moves based on this information only to have it ripped from underneath them.

Thing is, like anything else, where there is blame there is a claim and there could well be plenty jumping on the bandwagon when they actually wouldn't have acted any differently anyway.

[Doc Holliday]

My understanding is the decision to level up was taken as a result of a court case (not a political decision) in which a female bank employee argued she should be allowed to retire at the same time as her male colleagues. The court agreed, and so all private and state pensions were equalised. Of course, the government could have split the difference between 60 and 65 and said everyone could draw their pension at 62 1/2, but the changes co-incided with increased longevity hence the need to increase retirement ages generally.

Yes the Government decision was a reaction to pressure to achieve equality including the court action you mention. 

My NHS pension (for my generation) was always set to retire at 60 for both sexes. There could be no further contributions into to the scheme beyond age 60, though you could carry on working. At the time if you wished to claim your pension at 60, but wished to carry on working you could resign/retire for a month then restart.

This retirement age of 60 was subsequently upped to 65 and I understand then again to match the applicable State Pension age. Has always been equal for both sexes though.