50s women

It doesn't affect me but it affects a lot of women I know, including my two sisters. It's disgraceful.

It does affect me, and you have every right to feel incensed at today's ruling. It is a great injustice and I wonder if it will ever be righted.

It will never be righted because women are still seen as second class in a of cases and their argument is that we had an advantage over the men by receiving the pension at 60 instead of 65 like them. I'm 64 and have to wait until January 2021 for my pension by which time I will have paid 50 years of contributions, I'm a full time carer for my disabled husband and live off carer's allowance and his state pension. I'm not sick enough to claim PIP or eligible for Universal Credit or ESA, so unless I go back to work full-time (who is going to take me on at 64) and pay for carers for my husband I'm stuck until I reach pension age.

Can someone please tell me if there is a safety net for these UK women?

If you are too sick or cannot work to pension age, is there another benefit you can claim?

Surely even in the UK they don't let you starve and lose your home?

I have an extra six years to work, to be honest, I would have worked them anyway, but I know for many women this has caused real hardship,

Gingergirl, you are right, some women are in a terrible position, I don’t have a problem with the age limit going up, but more gradually, and with more information!

This is a shameful mess, and as Happiyogi said, it will never be put right.

All I can say to those women who've been fleeced is to claim whatever you can and get the shortfall back that way. I would !

I only had to wait until I was 63 before I received my state pension, and I was lucky as I already had my professional pension, which I was able to take at 60. I received one letter telling me what my state pension would be and that would be able to claim it at 61 or 62, I forget which now. The age I was able to claim it turned out to be 63. I was not informed of this change at all, I found out by going on the Pension Website. I feel very sorry for these women who now have to wait until 66, it is unfair as it was introduced so quickly. Blair’s government introduced the first changes, Cameron’s government introduced the second changes. All governments are complicit in this. Many of these women have paid their stamps for 50 years or more. I realise that the pension ages for both genders needed to be aligned, but first the women should have been brought up more slowly to the same age as men, 65. Then both genders could move, slowly, to 66. There are people who live on benefits all their lives, I know this as I used to work in a ‘deprived’ area. Many women had families, often with different fathers, who lived as single parents all their lives, claiming benefits. This is allowed to happen, whilst hard working women are penalised, and need to work over 50 years in many cases before they they can claim their legitimate pension.

Assuming the goal posts are not moved again and assuming I live long enough I will have worked 51 years before I get my state pension. I seriously doubt I will make it.

I agree with what maddyone says . I know men and women who have hardly done a legal days work in their lives and they will get their full state pension without any problems.

I am all for being corrected on this : is it 30yrs of contributions at the higher rate for ladies to qualify for their full pension ? if this is so why are some ladies paying this contribution for up to 40/50 yrs surely those extra years payments will make no difference to the final amount due.
After I retired officially at 60yrs 6mths I went back to work full time 2 yrs later and contributions where deducted for NI and it wasn't until I was talking to a Tax Officer that he informed me I was not liable for this payment anymore as my pension was being drawn I had over 2 yrs contributions refunded and never paid it again,it was a case of always find out what you are entitled to and claim it.

Before anyone jumps down my throat I appreciate there are those who have been unable to work for medical reasons and don't begrudge them a single penny.

As an aside, many years ago I was diagnosed with a serious medical condition. It has no cure. I was advised at the time that I should probably go on permanent sick which I probably could have. I was advised to claim various allowances which I probably could have. Did I want that for myself ? No. However as I have got older my health has deteriorated (not massively but significantly) and I find it much harder to do the things I used to do as the fatigue is so debilitating . Hand on heart I really can't see myself coping in work for another 10 years.

The 30 years is/was a minimum qualification. It does not mean that once you have reached this point you qualify an no longer have to make contributions.

This is so difficult for the women having worked all their lives and relying on the State Pension. The state pension funds are getting so low that the governments need constant adjustments due to life expectancy increasing and benefits being too generous at times, therefore draining the kitty among other things. All the wealthy countries in EU have now similar problems. BUT they should have warned us years in advance of this sorry state of affair, surely they must have had pension data predictions. I'm afraid we have been treated with great contempt by our governments.

Agree gillybob, I certainly do not begrudge a single penny to people who can’t work for medical/disability reasons. In fact, I think they should receive a more generous allowance. I was talking about women who made a life style choice, in other words they choose to live on benefits. Often as their youngest child went to school, they became pregnant again, presumably in order to carry on living at home on benefits. I saw this happen many times. No one ever saw the fathers. WASPI women should not have to work to 66 so that others can carry on living on benefits.

I realise that some will slate me for this opinion, but I don’t care. I know it happens.

Quite right nanou.

I am with gillybob on this one.I kept working as long as I could even though like gilly I was advised not to work on medical grounds.I too hold out little hope of getting my state pension,I have made the required years of contributions but as the goalposts keep moving the chances of claiming it recede.

Not fair gillybob and I agree with you .

The judges rule that they have given women equality with men. So that’s OK then. Let me know when men are going to have babies....

That's a load of rubbish mrsmopp and they know it. I have just posted on another thread that we women are doing more than we ever did looking after our own children, grandchildren, husbands and elderly parents . There has never been a greater need for me not to work beyond 60.

I’m quoting the judges! It’s not my view,

Its 35 qualifying years for full state pension. If someone has never worked they would get pension credit.

Devastated but not surprised by this verdict,I was a civil servant for 36 years and because I was (contracted out)I will not get the full state pension I have received my forecast and I will receive £40 a week less that one of my friends who only worked for 5 years but her husband paid her stamp! So whilst I was up every morning at 6 taking my daughter to my mother in laws not getting home until 6.30 I am penalised not happy in the injustice of it all.

At 61, I feel cheated. Paid in, being told "you will get your pension at 60" . Then the Government decide to change that, whilst still hanging on to "my"money.

We are expected to work for longer, but where? I'm luckier than many as I do have a job, but following redundancy I really struggled to find one.

Although I am 73 so does not affect me and I worked until I was 67 it is so unfair that people who have paid in have to wait. Not everyone is capable of working after 60.

Oh I know that mrsmopp stupid bloody judges . None of whom will be affected of course !