1950s women "Fight Back Rally"

I had heard of a proposed rise in the pension age but had had no official notification.
Of course I support the equalisation of the pension age but I supported it better when men's pension age was reduced to match women's.

When I entered my last job at 55, I expected to retire at 60. I had enough contributions in. A few years later it was 65, then 66.

"Fortunately" (irony) after sudden medical issues, I was given early retirement on health grounds at 59 years and 10 months. Still didn't get my SP for 6 years but with my smallish occupational pension and by using every bit of its lump sum, I made it to SP age.

I support the equalisation of the pension age.
I think it should be lower for everybody.
I object to the speed with which it was implemented.
I don't think the rally will do any good.
I think it gives people a "well, they Wanted equality" stick to beat women with.

Chardy That is your experience and you are wrong to generalise by saying "most women". That is not my experience or anyone I have ever come across. There are very sadly men and women born in every decade not just the 1950's who for a variety of sad reasons are losing their health and others who may be in dire financial situations. The reason for that is not due to the change of the state pension age. I like you was responsible for my 2 children and worked full time and can remember being disappointed on hearing in the Budget and on tv news programmes that I would be affected by the change in State Penssion Age. My friends and/or colleagues discussed it many times over the next 3 decades. Laws change and we have to adapt to them, this one didn't affect us in the short term (like the seat belt law for example) but gave us a long term to plan for retirement. Regarding men making the decision in 1940 about women's state pension age, thank goodness we are part of the generation who achieved a more equal country, where gender must not be an issue in the workplace etc.

Well said, Chardy.

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

👏👏👏

Just to clarify my position and why I should have strong views opposing the few women born in the 1950's who think they are entitled to some sort of compensation. I retired aged 65 having worked full time from aged 16. I had maternity leave twice but continued working full time and balancing childcare etc. As did many of my friends and colleagues born in the 1950's. We aren't as I have seen elsewhere, a rare breed of "I'm alright Jacks" but ordinary, mature women who kept ourselves informed.

"They didn't have women retire at 60 for womens benefit. It was because men generally married women a few years younger and it was thought that a retired man would need his wife at home to look after him". That is utter nonsense, from 1925 a contribution based pension came in. It was paid from age 65 and wasn't means tested. A married couple's rate of pension was paid if both spouses were aged 65 or more. Because many men had younger wives it meant that couples had to wait some years before they got the higher rate. In 1940 pension age for women was cut to 60 to try to ensure for most couples that the married rate would be paid as soon as the husband reached 65.

I have kept every letter from the Pension Service.

The last one informed me I had enough years to claim full state pension when I became 60..in fact more than enough as the qualifying years decreased by 5.

I was vaguely aware of changes to the state pension, but naively thought I would be personally informed, by letter, as in the past, if affected me..

I've personally lost out on 30k+, if I live long enough on the new higher state pension, all well and good, but I would rather have retired at 60, the extra 6 years of manual work has physically taken its toll on me.

Norah

notgran I detest all this stuff where women are trying to turn the clock back to the time when there was no equalty. Who these women who are protesting, think they are kidding, gets me. State Pension age was changed decades ago, by law. I can't believe they didn't know. It all smacks of people thinking they will get some sort of compensation if they say they didn't know. Who would be paying for this compensation? Our children and their children, which can't be right.

Indeed Fair for gander and goose.

So your justification for not compensating someone who has been treated badly is who will pay. How is that conducive to justice?

Would have loved. To get my pension at 60. Shattered and battered and 63!

Assume everyone knows there are two different state pension rates running concurrently.
Those who retired after April 2016 get the new rate which is over £40 per week more than those of us who retired before 2016 who receive the ‘old’ rate which is a difference of about £150 per month.

I have no idea why this isn’t being amalgamated even gradually. It doesn’t seem fair.
Maybe someone will enlighten me.

👏👏👏

notgran I detest all this stuff where women are trying to turn the clock back to the time when there was no equalty. Who these women who are protesting, think they are kidding, gets me. State Pension age was changed decades ago, by law. I can't believe they didn't know. It all smacks of people thinking they will get some sort of compensation if they say they didn't know. Who would be paying for this compensation? Our children and their children, which can't be right.

Indeed Fair for gander and goose.

Will be interesting to see if he mentions anything in his "Pension related" programme tonight and is still supportive.

Martin Lewis supports the last Waspi rally
www.waspi.co.uk/2017/03/08/martin-lewis-encourages-waspi/

Until 2010 state pension age was 60 for women, 65 for men. Never heard women complaining about that when they demanded equality, even though statistically a man’s lifespan is shorter than a woman’s.

No one is seeking to turn the clock back. Waspis are seeking equal treatment. Women the same age have been given their pension at different times. Some women had two "hits" receiving one date when pensions were first changed then another in 2011.
Please read the Waspi link. There is no indication that equality isn't welcomed.

So the pension age was 65 for quite some time?

That's what I always thought but assumed a more recent change

Norah

Why wouldn't women want to be equal with men?

I quote: Through the National Insurance Act a State Pension for everybody was implemented on a contributory basis. Taking effect from 1948, men were eligible at 65, while women could receive it from 60.

Seems as if that was unfair, to me.

Exactly. I detest all this stuff where women are trying to turn the clock back to the time when there was no equalty. Who these women who are protesting, think they are kidding, gets me. State Pension age was changed decades ago, by law. I can't believe they didn't know. It all smacks of people thinking they will get some sort of compensation if they say they didn't know. Who would be paying for this compensation? Our children and their children, which can't be right.

Some women report that they were never told. Some women were told when they were 59 that the age would be 66. As far as equality goes all men were informed that their pension age would increase by 1 year. to 66 so where's the equality there?
www.waspi.co.uk/background-information/

Ilovecheese

They didn't have women retire at 60 for womens benefit. It was because men generally married women a few years younger and it was thought that a retired man would need his wife at home to look after him

And your evidence for that is ..?

I can't imagine how it must feel to have 6 years of work added when you were nearing retirement

Awful really

I thought it was 65 and a year seems a lot

Why wouldn't women want to be equal with men?

I quote: Through the National Insurance Act a State Pension for everybody was implemented on a contributory basis. Taking effect from 1948, men were eligible at 65, while women could receive it from 60.

Seems as if that was unfair, to me.

They didn't have women retire at 60 for womens benefit. It was because men generally married women a few years younger and it was thought that a retired man would need his wife at home to look after him

I knew as well.. I saw it change from 60. Then 63 then 66.. I was told each time. Didn't like it but I was told. Originally it should have been paid at same time as my NHS pension at 60.