1950s women "Fight Back Rally"

Probably nothing, kjmpde, but it might draw attention to their plight, and maybe get through to people that just because they knew about the changes, not everyone did. That might just stop future governments from doing something similar - who knows?

I am one of the women affected by the pension changes. A friend 6 months older than me got her pension about 9 months before I did.

I knew about the planned changes to the state pension age from the news but later on found a letter from DWP who notified me. I am still at the same address since 1986 so DWP knew where to write to me. I wonder whether DWP were unable to find addresses for women who moved more frequently than I and /or who maybe had stopped working when notification letters had been sent?
My other question is whether women who suddenly learned that they could not claim state pension at 60 and had to wait till 64 or 66 would have been eligible for state benefits if they had stopped working at 60 and had no other source of income? I suppose the ones in poor health might have been able to claim benefits but what about the other women who chose not to carry on, perhaps because of having to look after elderly parents?My funal question is rally for GSM and doodledog about contracting out.
This was never explained to me when I was first contracted out and I am not aware of the Government adding extra to my civil service pension because of it. I thought the way that civil service pensions are calculated (no. of years service times annual pensionable pay divided by 80) has been the same for many years. Can you explain what the Government added please? TIA.

The gist of it is that when people were contracted out, some of their pension contribution went to their occupational pension instead of the state one, so they were 'out' of the state one but paying more into the occupational one. So you would get a higher occ pension but a lower state one. On the whole, this left people better off, but as with the extra years, not everyone knew or understood, and assumed that they would get a full state pension because they had always paid NI contributions (it was only the pension bit of NI that was 'opted out'.

Those people (men and women) planned their retirement on the assumption that they would get a full pension as well as their occupational one, which was a double whammy for those who were not aware of the added years either. People may not have lost actual money by contracting out (most, if not all, were better off), but they lost what they thought they would get, so their plans were based on inflated figures.

Doodledog Until the 2011 changes, people who had "opted out" didn't have reduced state pensions. It was written in the small print of the 2011 changes, along with other changes such as the eligibility criteria for claiming unemployment benefit (universal credit), but people didn't take much notice of that either. (sigh)

Maybe it will be a lesson to people to take more notice of changes which government makes, rather than ignoring them unless they're directly affected in the very near future.

How easy to say women should work full time until they are 66 or 67.

Yes if you're sitting behind a desk all day. Not if you're in one of many other manual jobs which are incredibly tiring.

Ramblingrose The government hasn't added anything to your state pension, but the civil service pension scheme has. Yes, you paid for it and you paid less NICs as a result.

These days, those paying into occupational pension schemes don't pay a reduced rate of NICs, so they will receive their full state pension with occupational pension as an addition.

Millie22

How easy to say women should work full time until they are 66 or 67.

Yes if you're sitting behind a desk all day. Not if you're in one of many other manual jobs which are incredibly tiring.

Why just women? What about men?

I will be there.

eazybee

There was plenty of notification about the raising of the pension age for many years before it was implemented.

I think the main grievance is that the coalition government speeded up the changes, so a lot of women weren’t given the amount of notice recommended - between 10 and 15 years.

Millie22

How easy to say women should work full time until they are 66 or 67.

Yes if you're sitting behind a desk all day. Not if you're in one of many other manual jobs which are incredibly tiring.

People who were contracted out will see on their pension forecast that their years have been reduced by that number of years. You can click through from there to see how many years, and what the impact has been - it is often quite a lot.

As I said, but maybe wasn't clear enough, the money will have been added to your occupational pension, and you will probably be better off, but if you thought you would get a full state pension on top of the occupational one, you will be mistaken. Your SP will be significantly reduced unless you can afford to buy back the years, at a current cost of about £800 a year (slightly more, I think). You can pay in instalments, or wait until your pension is due, but the price rises every year.

Sorry Millie - I quoted you by mistake. I agree with you though

growstuff

Maybe it will be a lesson to people to take more notice of changes which government makes, rather than ignoring them unless they're directly affected in the very near future.

Depends on how well it’s publicised. The original pensions act was implemented in 1995 but notifications didn’t start to be issued until 2009, and were sporadic. And the coalition government speeded up the changes which were supposed to take place between 2010 and 2020, and were actually implemented by 2018.

Honestly, Pammie you are wasting your breath .

I chose to retire at 60 as I had a decent workplace pension that I could take and after working full time for 45 years thought I’d have more than enough national insurance contributions for my state pension. I then applied for my state pension back in July 2022 in readiness for my 66th birthday in Sept. I had 45 years full National insurance contributions, but because I chose to retire at 60, I lost out on the new state pension, and my state pension is about £130 less as according to the DWP, I am 6 years short on my contributions. You only need 35 years, I have 45 so how does that work out 🤔.
However my friend who never worked full time from the age of 21, then only went part time for the last 20 years gets the full new state pension. A gross unfairness in my opinion to all of us who had to work full time to pay mortgages etc.
To add insult to injury, I also pay tax on my pension…….

It is deeply unfair, but often how it works, I'm afraid 😡. As you are not yet retirement age, it might be worth ringing the pensions helpline and asking if you can pay additional contributions, if you can afford them? They will be able to tell you the figures, so you'll know if it's worth it.

I was 54 when they changed my retirement age to 63 then at 58 it went up to 66. I’ve never received official notification, I found out by checking the government website.
Luckily for me I had an office job and can fund myself for 3 years. Many have been caused real hardship by these changes, especially those with manual jobs or health problems.
WASPI will probably never win but good on them for fighting on our behalf.

Doodlebug. I have two smallish work pensions. I was compulsory opted out of Serps in both jobs. When I began to collect these pensions I discovered one is non incremental. I know I benefitted at the time, but can't help feeling in the long run, particularly with the non incremental pension, that I have lost out. Especially as being opted out means I don't get the full state pension despite having above the required number of years.

Most women saw little equality (in pay and/or promotion) for 40+ years of their working life, but apparently equalizing pension ages at the end of their working lives is equality. Many women of the 1950s generation were not allowed to join works pension schemes before 1975
The notion that women would not be informed by letter about a 6 year change, while men were personally informed is beyond parody
It breaks my heart to hear of women losing their health and possibly their homes, while some of the sisterhood say 'Well I knew all about it'. Personally in the mid-90s I never read a paper or regularly watched The News, as I was responsible for 2 kids and had a demanding full-time job
Lastly it was men who encouraged women's retirement age being reduced in 1940
www.web40571.clarahost.co.uk/statepensionage/SPA_history.htm

Agree - and you can add to that the denial of promotion to so many women who had equal or even superior qualifications to the men.

The so called '6 year warning' was grossly unfair as people cannot suddenly change significant retirement planning provision at such short notice. It would be like paying into an insurance scheme all your life to support you in ill health and old age only to find out the terms you signed up to and paid for decades previously suddenly changed - and your medical needs were no longer covered.

It's unjust and unfair.

I don't mind the pension age increasing but what I object to is the fact that it wasn't brought in gradually. A sudden 5 year hike was always bound to upset people.

When I first started work and contributing to my pension it was on the understanding that at the age of 60, I could retire and reap the benefit. Moving the goalposts a little, I could live with, but 5 years in 1 go is just too much.

If there was a class action to sue the government for breach of contract, I would happily join in, but a rally? No thank you! I don't think a rally will bring about any changes other than, as someone said earlier, annoying ordinary people in the area who just want to get to/from work!

There are quite a few articles around which highlight the gender inequality in pensions, which is still far from being addressed.
Many women are main care givers and take breaks from work or work part-time due to childcare responsibilities. Many women did not know about being able to get NI credits while raising children ( and the child benefit book had to be in their name as far as I know) and that there can also be credits for grandparents looking after grandchildren.

There are many articles about this. here are a couple.
www.pensionsage.com/pa/Retiring-women-139-000-worse-off-tha-n-male-counterparts.php
www.unbiased.co.uk/news/financial-adviser/women-have-30-per-cent-less-workplace-pension
One other comment - There are clearly many jobs which are physically exhausting and both men and women would struggle to continue doing them into their mid to late sixties. I was in a job, however, which was not physically demanding but was very mentally tiring. I could not put in the hours of concentrating, analysing complex issues, preparing reports, and responding to complaints which I did before I retired. I do not have the mental stamina any more. I've been a voluntary treasurer and coordinator for things since I retired, but that is quite different.
It is not right that people should be forced to try to work full time in exhausting jobs in their late sixties or even into their seventies, simply to make ends meet. It also leaves very little energy for family life, hobbies and generally looking after our own wellbeing.

I agree with you Elaine. However, WASPI chose to focus on a relatively small group of women and there has been so much misinformation spouted. If they had ever opted to campaign for fairer pensions for all, I could have supported them

janipans

I don't mind the pension age increasing but what I object to is the fact that it wasn't brought in gradually. A sudden 5 year hike was always bound to upset people.

When I first started work and contributing to my pension it was on the understanding that at the age of 60, I could retire and reap the benefit. Moving the goalposts a little, I could live with, but 5 years in 1 go is just too much.

If there was a class action to sue the government for breach of contract, I would happily join in, but a rally? No thank you! I don't think a rally will bring about any changes other than, as someone said earlier, annoying ordinary people in the area who just want to get to/from work!

But there wasn't a sudden 5 year hike.

Germanshepherdsmum

The retirement age had to be raised given the increasing size of the ageing population and dwindling birth rate. I always thought it inequitable that a woman could retire at 60 but a man, with a shorter expected lifespan, had to wait until 65.

Female life expectancy in the most deprived ten per cent of areas has actually been falling since 2011-13. lt, Between 2019 and 2020, life expectancy for men and women in the North West fell by 1.6 and 1.2 years, respectively. This compares with a reduction in life expectancy of 1.3 years for men and 0.9 years for women across the country as a whole.

ageing-better.org.uk

I agree totally with Doodledog and Stoneof Destiny and I am shocked to read the 'I knew, so everyone knew' attitudes of some. I know so many people both men and women who never reached pensionable age and I hope if the WASPI women ever get their compensation, the women who don't think they deserve it, will donate their payout to their less well off 'sisters'. By the way nobody mentions the toll that childbirth has had on some women's bodies, mine included, where is the equality there? It's no wonder that some of the younger generation think all baby boomers are over privileged. I would tend to agree if I was one of them reading this thread.