1950s women "Fight Back Rally"

Very wrong, and an incentive to get a cash in hand job/earner to make sure the little extra you earn in your declining years does not all end up in the grubby hands of the tax man

That's not pleasant, biglouis

The people who work at HMRC are trying to do their jobs - ok sometimes they get it wrong and one or two can be officious.

It's those who are evading tax (possibly £millions) who are the ones to criticise because they are not paying their share towards public services.

As someone on the old state pension I receive *over £45 per week less *than someone who has fewer qualifying years of contributions as me but will be on the new state pension.
I did start receiving it at 60 but how many years differential before those like me are left way behind?

It's swings and roundabouts.

Sure is Calli. I’m in the same boat, over 40 years of full contributions, old pension at 60 (and I didn’t retire then).

Wasn’t there an option though under the old scheme of retiring later than 60, with over 10% added to the old pension for every extra year worked? Wouldn’t that mean that anyone of that age choosing to retire at 66 would be a lot better off than those now retiring at 66, even on the full pension that so many don’t get?

I think there’s still an option under the new scheme of deferring, though the terms are nowhere near as generous.

Google tells me it’s a 5.8% annual increase for deferring now. It was 10.4% pa for anyone on the old scheme.

Germanshepherdsmum

Sure is Calli. I’m in the same boat, over 40 years of full contributions, old pension at 60 (and I didn’t retire then).

I don't have 39 years of contributions because we were moved to the Married Woman's stamp 55 years ago, GSM, a sore point as we were missold. I paid the full stamp later but don't get the full pension.
However, I would get a full pension under the new scheme with the number of years contributions that I made.

Perhaps we should start a protest movement.

A full pension at a much higher rate, I should have said, under the new scheme.

The difference is substantial to make up for the fact that the pension age is now later.

I was informed by letter whilst I was still working that I would receive my state pension at 61 (I think it was 61) but was not informed at all that I would then not receive my state pension until I was 63. I found out by doing a search on my pension benefits. I was never at any stage told that because I contracted out that I would receive a reduced state pension. It isn’t because I worked fewer years as one poster upthread suggested, it was because I contracted out. I didn’t choose to contract out, it just happened and I didn’t know it was happening because at no was it time explained to me by anyone. I then missed out on the new, higher state pension by three weeks. Not as suggested because I worked fewer years but by virtue of my birth date.
The whole debacle has been a mess. I’m sure it could have been done more fairly, but it wasn’t and it’s left many people feeling short changed.

Callistemon21

A full pension at a much higher rate, I should have said, under the new scheme.

The difference is substantial to make up for the fact that the pension age is now later.

New state pension is for those who retired after April 2016, and is £2k pa more. Those born in the early 1950s had already retired by then, but had worked to 62.5 (63?) missing out on several years of state pension.
Nowhere near the misery of those born in 1953 or those having to work to 66/67, but it could gave been seamless, and wasn't.

LaCrepescule

I just don’t understand this. I’m a Waspi and I knew well in advance that the pension age was being raised. What are these women after? I think it makes them look ridiculous.

Do you now what WASPI* stands for? How can you both ‘be one’ and think that ‘these women’ look ridiculous?

*Women Against State Pension Inequality

We woz robbed, Calli.

The new state pension is for those who retired after April 2016 and is £2k pa more.

This is correct, thank you Chardy. I was born in March 1953, but state pension age is decided by birth date, and as a result I missed out on the new state pension by three weeks. My husband is a year older than me, but as he only received his state pension when he was 65, he received the new pension. We both contracted out, and so he received received £10 a week more than I did (this purely because he is on the new pension, no other reason) and now receives £12 a week more than I do. We both receive our professional pensions too, but I fail to see how giving some pensioners more than others based on date of birth/retirement is either equitable or fair. It is not based on how long individual people worked as suggested upthread. Add to this the fact that those WASPI women born before April 1953 both waited longer for their pension and received a lower pension, and I think it’s a disgrace.

Germanshepherdsmum

We woz robbed, Calli.

We woz, Germanshepherdsmum

like the Civil Service "Marriage Gratuity", another cheat.

Add to this the fact that those WASPI women born before April 1953 both waited longer for their pension and received a lower pension, and I think it’s a disgrace.

You woz robbed twice over maddyone.

I will be there with my hubby. 💐

I feel bad enough for me. that I have to work as a careworker/Reablement Worker until I am 66 (27 months and counting) driving in the dark, coping with all sorts of emergencies.. but the ones I feel more sorry for are our Children and GC..
The proposals (taken from the GOV Pension Website..
Under the current law, the State Pension age is due to increase to 68 between 2044 and 2046.

Following a recent review, the government has announced plans to bring this timetable forward. The State Pension age would therefore increase to 68 between 2037 and 2039.

The change in pension was for women born between 1950 and 1955. Your pension was delayed by the number of years and months that you were born after March 1955 . We were given at least 7 years notice that this was happening , maybe more . I was born in May 1953 so I was expecting to retire at 63 years and 2 months and had sufficient notice that this was the case .
A few years before I retired I was informed that further changes had been implemented and I would not retire until I was 63 years and 6 months . All this information was available to me well before I retired so I don’t know why people are saying that the weren’t informed .
Though saying that , my SIL is 10 months younger than me and I had to work out for her when she would be retiring .

Gabrielle56

Dizzyribs

I read the papers and always have. I agree with equalising the pension age between genders. This should follow a working life of equality. You may have forgotten, but women born before 1959 DID NOT experience equality in their working lives.

I didn't know that the age had equalised "decades ago". I did not receive any letter or see it advertised. I have a print out from the pension agency, dated 2016 saying my pension will be paid on my 60th birthday.
The financial ombudsman has found that I am one of many thousands of women who were not informed. It was NOT well known.
When I started work (1974) women were not allowed to join the company pension scheme. It was legal to pay us a different rate for the same job. Not all jobs were available to us, it was perfectly legal to refuse a woman a job on the basis of being female. Most jobs had a "women's rate" and were lower paid. It's just the way it was. But we were promised that we would have a state pension earlier than men, at 60.
If I had had sufficient notice, I would have made different arrangements for my financial future.
If I had sufficient notice, I wouldn't have given up work to care for sick elderly parents, using my savings in the belief that I would get a pension at 60.
I'd happily go back to work, if someone would employ me Obviously social services would need to take over the over the caring role that I currently do full time. I'd have to live with that, but guilt over such things is fairly normal for women.
I'd rather work outside of the home and contribute to getting a full pension. Obviously, I haven't enough contributions as I have not been employed since I left a well paid professional role at 58.
Getting work in your 50s is hard, it's almost impossible in your 60s. No-one wants older workers, especially ones with caring responsibilities. And I have tried!
Waspi women do not want the pension age changing. They do want compensation for fact that they were not informed in time to make preparations for their financial future.

Why haven't you got enough contributions? Did you take an extended break for family? I took 8 years,' break but I didn't pay the ' reduced contributions ' and maintained the full stamp as it was known despite pressure from employers to make me accept the lesser rate which would have virtually slashed my pension in half now! I know many who did fall for that one to their utter despair now. Also many many dreadful employers were not paying the stamp when they should unbeknown to the women concerned.

I always paid the full contribution. I have 39 full years. I was contracted out for the latter half of my working life but knew I'd get a lower pension because of that. My retirement age is now 66.
I took two maternity leaves, at 8 months each. Does that count as extended leave?
I also went back to education and did three years degree then teacher training. The time spent on the degree etc meant 4 years without contributions.
Each of the maternity leaves fell between two tax years, so, unbeknownst to me that meant another 4 years of incomplete contributions. I'm sure you all know that the contributory years are binary - you either have full contributions and the year counts or not enough and it doesn't count at all (one day short and it's not counted)
As I stopped work at 58 to care for my parents I haven't any NI contributions from aged 58 to 66. I don't get carers allowance and I'm not entitled to any credits for those years.
So 8 years in which I "should" have contributions. Plus these last 8 years that I will have been "voluntarily unemployed" and not entitled to credits. (16 years in all) But they say I should be paying NI until I am 66 anyway. I have 36 years contributions
I'm currently fighting the 4 years loss from on maternity leave as technically I should have been credited but apparently its too late. It wasn't done automatically as I had quite a lot of contributions for each of the tax years and there was some sort of clerical error ... that they just "can't correct this far on".
I don't have enough savings now to pay the £800 for missing years.

That should read 36 full years. Sorry for repeating myself and getting my 9's and 6's confused.

I feel that as so many different versions of what actually happened have been discussed on this forum is the reason for the rally and protests. We are not complaining about the rising of the retirement age but the speed in which the law changed, not enabling those really effected time to adjust.

The lack of clarity and clear information about the changes not just for those women of 60, born after April 1953, but their employers too. It was criminal leaving many women like myself , who had to retire because they were 60, without an income with no recourse to find alternative employment, to tied them over until they could get their pension.

I was lucky I had my husband's pension to support me but not everyone is so fortunate. We did struggle and was relieved when I finally got my pension but once again I was not independent of a man, even though I worked my ticket for 30 years. So where is the equality?

Callistemon21

^Add to this the fact that those WASPI women born before April 1953 both waited longer for their pension and received a lower pension, and I think it’s a disgrace.^

You woz robbed twice over maddyone.

I won indeed Callistemon but no use being upset about it even though it’s disgraceful because I can’t do anything about it. It is, as my son would say, what it is.

VioletSky

I think we need to remember women weren't even allowed to open their own bank accounts till 1975

It's not supposing to me that pensionable age women aren't as aware of their rights and expectations...

It's also probably why the divorce rate is so much bigger

Really! I opened my bank account in 1969 when I went to teacher training college. My mum also had one before 1969, my dad didn't have one.

I probably should have said some women, because some women indeed could not and did nit have the legal right to till 1975

I think it must have been largely ignored VioletSky. I never knew it wasn't legal. Which women weren't allowed accounts?

Even in 1967 I can remember having a Barclays account because sums of money were being deposited into my account each month (not my salary). The money came from overseas and today I might be investigated for money laundering.
It turned out to be a woman with a similar name who was transferring money prior to returning home from Africa. Barclays Bank put it into my account by mistake but I was honest and told them.
We only got bank statements every six months so I had a tidy sum

We all had bank accounts with cheque books - our salaries were paid into them.

I had a Barclaycard as well, they used to give points and I was saving them for a dinner service but they devalued them and I never got my dinner service.

I can't imagine why 'some' women would be subject to different laws from others. Individual banks could possibly have imposed rules before the Sex Discrimination Act, made it illegal, but why would they do so?

I have known women (mostly of my mum's age) who could not get a mortgage or credit card without a male guarantor, but this was before 1975, which is when the Sex Discrimination Act came into force. At one time, men were legally responsible for any debt that their wives accrued, so needed to sign for any credit they wanted; but this did not include a bank account, as a current account would not necessarily have an overdraft facility.