Injustice of Women’s pension age increasing by 6 years

I am also a 1954 birthday and won’t receive my state pension until May 2019. So I am one of those who have borne the brunt of the changes with not written notification. I saw a figure of £42,000 mentioned as the amount of pension we will have lost out on due to the change from 60 to 66. It is so unfair.

To those who say that WASPI women were well aware of the deferred pension age..... this one (born in 1954) most certainly was not. When I was 58 I received the one and only letter from Pensions Agency, advising me that my pension age had been deferred from 60 to 62. I never heard form them, or anyone else in an official capacity, again. The only way I knew about my SPA being deferred, twice more, was by being told by a colleague and on social media. On the last occassion that I checked the gov website, my SPA had been extended again, almost overnight, by another 18 months, to 65.5. Just how were the 500,000 women affected by this change supposed to organise their finances, when their SPAs were deferred in 18 months stages, without notifying them or giving them time to make adequate financial arrangements? I have no problem at all with the SPA being extended and being the same as a man's SPA; but this was rushed through so quickly, and with virtually no information given to those affected first, that 1950s women have borne the brunt of it.

I never saw my DF sitting down or relaxing if my mother was doing anything domestic. He would be with her assisting. He dusted and hoovered, for example, while she prepared meals. He also cooked. He was the breakfast chef at weekends, but fed us well when she was in hospital when my youngest sister was born. My mother certainly did not work from dusk to dawn, even when she was working.

My memories of evenings in my childhood is of them sitting down together listening to the radio, chatting and doing crosswords. I used to lie in bed and found the muffled sound of radio and voices coming through the floor comforting and relaxing. The sound of security.

I must be a real slacker, because housework has never been a 7 day occupation for me either and even with young children and later older people to care for, I managed to find plenty of time to follow my own interests and hobbies, as well as working. Obviously there were sometimes pinch points, but those arrive even if you are single and childless.

I have never done GC care, I live too far away, but DS and DDiL, even with the other grandmother nearby, tried not to ask her to do much care because she was nearly 80 and juggled the care themselves.

We always intended to retire the same week, Cherrytree, as DH turned 65 a four days after I turned 60. Well, we did retire from the workplace together, but until I get my pension on my 66th birthday we'll have to draw on the savings we'd set by for our retirement. I was never going to carry on working when I'd promised my DC that I would help out with childcare - we'd two baby DGS by then and we now have four. I count myself very lucky that I've been able to look after them - there are plenty of other women who are much worse off.

While men were toiling in the garden or on the allotment who was cleaning and cooking at home? I still feel that women have tended to be working 24/7 with never a holiday! There is no end of the day for childcare or looking after elderly relatives, house work is a non stop 7 day a week task and then there is the paid work on top! I accept there are many hard working men but I remember my own father who after he arrived home from his office would potter in the shed (To no discernible effect) and who would do the washing up after the meal which had been cooked by my mother who was also working! He wasn’t the worse by a long way! he would if specifically asked run the hoover around and hang washing out or bring it in, however any task had to be specifically allocated he would not independently think of it! He sometimes picked up a forgotten item of shopping on the way home from the station and once a week when my mother went to play bridge he would cook a very basic supper! This had nothing to do with any traditionalist views as he always encouraged me to believe that I could do anything any male could do and hugely supported me in everything. It was more to do with the expectations of his generation who assumed that certain tasks would fall to their wives! If asked to do one of these tasks he would cheerfully do it but I believe that he worked less hard than my mother who seemed never to stop! Her day was getting the pack lunch for my father on rising, and my breakfast then dropping me off at school to drive to work, after work it was homework, dinner prep,clearing kitchen, a quick bit of housework, bath for me and bed; then sitting to do mending or ironing,then bed and repeat ! whereas father had time to potter and read the papers and shout at the radio!

Ditto ,Justalaugh I no longer work as I look after grandchildren and I he!p with my
Mil (93) care
My husband is retired and instead of retiring next year we will either have to down size or use savings until I get my state pension at 66 +

I was born in 1959, so I'll need to work until I'm 66 - another 7 years. I can't say I relish the thought of that.

Many men do unpaid work alongside employment, especially nowadays. In the past - and now - men looked after and maintained their homes, did repairs to household contents from toys to furniture. In the past many had allotments or large gardens where they grew much of the households fruit and veg to supplement the food which many households struggled to buy. Many did hard manual labour in their gardens after after long punishing days of hard labour in factories, docks and mining.

I find all these you did, we did, arguments about who suffered most or is most hard done by a waste of time . When evening up a situation, someone will lose out in the short term. If there is to be an even playing field then both sides have to give.

However I do think the evening up process has been badly organised, badly done over far too short a period and that those affected by it have not been treated fairly, however the actual adjustment of retirement ages was a necessary step.

I am not a WASPI lady but still feel angry?
when we started work we expected to retire at 60 and this was not introduced gradually! Also people speak of equalising with men, but don’t take into account the unpaid work women do along side or instead of paid employment which men rarely have to do,such as looking after young children, or caring for elderly relatives.in a fair world this would have more credited contributions attached to it (I know there are some credited for staying with children,and in certain circumstances carers contributions) but certainly these are capped, and don’t take into account looking after a child you aren’t getting child benefit for, such as a grandchild. The carers credits have very tight and specific qualifying conditions.
So many people will miss out especially if you don’t have good private pensions which so many of us don’t have.

I'd no notification from the DWP either about my SPA going up to 64, and then jumping again to 66. Even if I'd had a letter, I'd still be angry about the way equalisation has been implemented in the UK. In other countries the slide to an equal pension age has been much more gradual, and spread out over many years, so no one loses out to the extent that we have. To add insult to injury, some of us in England don't receive our free bus passes until state pension age, whereas I believe those in the other countries of the UK, in London and in many other local authority areas still get theirs at 60.

Also, many people think we'll at least get the higher state pension brought in last year, when in fact very few people who ever opted out will be entitled to this.

When I married in 1970, my mother told me in no way to consider the ‘Married woman’s stamp”. She had and bitterly regretted it as she would not get a pension in her own right, but would need to wait until my father retired which would be when she was 68. As it was she carried on working until she was 77 because she enjoyed her job.
I agree that those of us who were fortunate enough to be paid our pension at 60 should be more supportive of those who are not. Without wishing to rub it in, I carried on teaching until I was 63, but was able to claim the pension I would have been paid as a lump sum or an increased pension when I finally did claim it.

The lower rate option for married women ended in 1977.

I do not remember ever having any official advice from anyone. It was just women talking in the office. We ranged from copy typists to women like me with degrees who were part of the management team and the subject was always hotly debated whenever someone got married. Mostly the decision was in favour of keeping paying full stamp.

The deciding points for me were firstly, one of the things you lost if you went on to MWS was maternity benefits so I was determined to keep paying for the benefits that would accrue there. Secondly, I wanted to have a pension in my own right and not as an appendage to my husband. I never had any intention of being a stay at home mother for longer than absolutely necessary, so knew I would be back at work and making pension contributions within a decade.

I do not recall being offered a married women's reduced contribution when I married in 1979, had it ceased by then?
I don't know, it was in about 1968 when we were 'told' that this would be what would be happening unless we 'opted out' - which was pointless, apparently.

I paid full contributions when I went back to work.

I am also one of those women who did not receive any notification about the changes to my state pension retirement age, born in 1956 so now getting it at age 66. I do not recall being offered a married women's reduced contribution when I married in 1979, had it ceased by then? Anyway, I paid full contributions so did not benefit from a little extra cash when we really needed it to save for our first house.

When I divorced in 2002, I did get a share of my husbands CTV of his pension but we factored in my supposed earlier retirement age. However, as I have worked for many years, I am lucky enough to have a decent work pension so am not having to continue working while I wait for my state pension. Who knows what will happen to it before 2020!

Whoopeee . You are right MamaCaz I can now retire at 67 ( although this is under review apparently) . Still 7 years later than DH and I hoped and planned and he will still have to work until 77 !

They relied on women not making a fuss. They were right. I would think that it would not hurt to show some support now. Many women have been denied £000s of pounds by the way this change has been introduced.

I remember the Government announcing that pension age would go up around 20 years ago. For early 50s women like me we had to work an extra couple of years. For this a little younger, the Government changed the rules only recently so my mid 50s born SIL would have retired at 63 but now 66. This last minute change is what is most unfair. I also think they should not have increased the age until all those who left school at 15 retired - some mid 50s women will work 51 years.

I realise that we should have gone into it more thoroughly M0nica but it was presented to us in such a way that it sounded as if it made economic sense.
That was an Area Health Authority btw!
And, of course, the Civil Service used to return women's pension contributions to them when they got married as if it was a gift!

No lack of solidarity, from someone who had a truncated career and lost years of contributions through not working when my children are young, I am returned to work in January 1979 so only got one year credited to my pension for domestic responsibilities. However, I do think there should be some balance in the discussion. Not every man got a full pension for all kinds of reasons.

Everyone, male or female, has had a different life pattern and made differential contributions to their pension and I do believe that those born in the 1950s have been badly treated, but I think we should remember why.

I do not think the married women's contribution was quite the way you say it Jalima, In the 1950s, one of my aunts made a clear decision not to pay the married women's stamp so many women were aware of the choice and thought about it and I can remember in the 1960s the discussions that used to go on at work every time someone got married, whether to continue paying full stamp or change to the cheaper married women's stamp.

gillybob I know I have said this before, but it's worth repeating: if you haven't done it already, you really need to query DWP about your pension forecast. All the onfo I can find online says that the pension age will not start to rise to 68 until 2044. I even used the official pension age checker, putting in the details for someone born at the end of 1962, and it gave 67, not 68.
With a bit of luck, you might discover that they have made a mistake, and you will 'gain' a year's retirement. Small consolation, I know, but as someone whose circumstances are similar to your own, I understand how much every extra year ( in fact, just the thought of it) impacts on your life. Good luck.

You can send for a forecast, which I did as I was worried because I had missed out on several years' worth of contributions due to paying the 'Married Women's Stamp', having been 'told' to do so by my then employer.

Yes, what has happened is very wrong - there needed to be some changes to bring about equality as the system was unfair to men before but it has been badly organised and handled.

The 'privileges' were offset by many women losing contributory years by child-rearing, part-time work, parent care; plus lower salaries.
Women who were 'child-rearing' should have had their stamp paid from, I think, 1977 under the Home Responsibilities rule.
Lower salaries shouldn't have made a difference to the number of NI contributions made towards a pension - even when working part-time I was still paying a 'full stamp'.

There is, of course, the inequality suffered by many women who were persuaded years ago to pay the lower 'Married Women's Contribution' on the grounds that their pension would be paid from their husbands' contributions - that was untrue as they would not receive a state pension in their own right.
Another mis-selling scandal.

I was also born in 1954, received no notification about the changes the first time around, but I knew about it because I took an interest in politics, this sort of thing should be a lesson to us all to take more notice of what goes on in politics, because changes like this can affect us so much.

The reason that women had a lower retirement age than men was not to do us women any favours, it was because men usually marry a woman a few years younger than themselves and it was thought that when a man retired at 65 he would need a woman at home to look after him.

I was born in '54 and also received no notification - I'm still working but that will finish at Christmas - my state pension comes in next May, I have paid all my NI and more. My friend who is 2 years older has had her pension from 60. There are those of us affected by this who gave up their jobs to become carers expecting to have an income at 60 only to find they are now in dire financial straits or who took early retirement on that expectation. Whilst I agree women want equal rights to men so should expect their pension age to rise alongside those of us with no warnings have had little or no time to prepare for it.