WASPI Compensation

Wyllow3

Yes, for "improving buildings, kit and technology". 👏

Yeah, if anyone believes that.

Yes, for "improving buildings, kit and technology". 👏

theworriedwell

So each hospice on average will get half a million and that will help to cover the increase in NI. How much must they be paying now?

There will be increases in energy costs as they will not receive discounts now.

The government is likely to offer a financial lifeline to the hospice sector amid fears end-of-life care providers are at risk of closure due to the double blow of the employers’ national insurance rise and higher wage bills, the Guardian understands.

Officials have been looking at the options for providing more funding to hospices and other end-of-life care through the NHS partly to offset the impact of the national insurance rise, which the sector believes could cost it £30m a year.

Hospices were already struggling with higher wage bills to match the 5.5% pay rise given to public medical workers, with the sector overall estimating an additional shortfall of about £60m.
10/11/24

So the £10m remaining would probably cover increased fuel costs.

What about promised help with investment?

Just looked one hospice up and they say the NI increase will cost them £80k so there will be a bit left over if they get £500k.

So each hospice on average will get half a million and that will help to cover the increase in NI. How much must they be paying now?

Mollygo

^I will just say that poor old Wes Streeting tried to ameliorate the devastation caused by his colleague Reeves by promising £100 million to hospices. Poor chap thought that would help with improving buildings, kit and technology.^
There are 200 hospices in the UK.
That sum might help fund the increase in NI so will go back to the government anyway.
Sorry, you’re not supposed to have realised that.

Oh, sorry, I'm a not-so-gullible OAP!

Try to address the shocking mess left by the previous government.

I'm well aware of that.

This government is trying to fill the black hole 🤔 they claim is left by targeting food producers, the old, the dying and children who need hospice support.

That is truly despicable.

I shan't be voting for this lot again.

I will just say that poor old Wes Streeting tried to ameliorate the devastation caused by his colleague Reeves by promising £100 million to hospices. Poor chap thought that would help with improving buildings, kit and technology.
There are 200 hospices in the UK.
That sum might help fund the increase in NI so will go back to the government anyway.
Sorry, you’re not supposed to have realised that.

Iam64

It’s a theme on gransnet, that Keir Starmer is some kind of duplicitous bad guy, who enjoys upsetting pensioners, particularly women as he’s a misogynist. It’s just nonsense - I’m back to concluding the only possible response is Keir Starmer ate my hamster.

Many furious anti Starmer posters are relieved they didn’t vote Labour because they knew this would happen. What would happen? That they’d invest in Hospice support, work to improve the NHS and other public services. Try to address the shocking mess left by the previous government.

That they’d invest in Hospice support

Well that would have been good but instead they have given hospices another headache in funding and, quite honestly, that is disgraceful. It makes me so angry that perhaps I should not post about it.

I will just say that poor old Wes Streeting tried to ameliorate the devastation caused by his colleague Reeves by promising £100 million to hospices. Poor chap thought that would help with improving buildings, kit and technology.
There are 200 hospices in the UK.
That sum might help fund the increase in NI so will go back to the government anyway.

I voted for them. I did not vote for that.
Reeves is clueless.

Doodledog you said 15 years wasn't long enough to prepare for the 6 year delay but 15 years notice was for people who got their pension a few weeks or at most a few months late. It was announced in 1995 and started in 2010 so 15 years notice is correct but no women who reached 60 in 2010 had to wait till 66 to get their state pension.

theworriedwell

Women who had a 15 year gap to prepare for the change didn't have 6 years to make up. I was born late 53 and got my pension just before I was 65 so I had nearly ,19 years to prepare for less than 5 years.

As it happens I worked till 70 so wasn't an issue.

I'm not sure what point you are making here. Women born after you didn't (or won't) get a pension until they were/are 66 (moving to 67 soon), and if they were told at all about the changes they weren't told any earlier than you.

Good post, Iam.

Petal53 you missed my point. No one had 15 years to cover 6 gap. Someone who was 60 in 2010 had a few weeks to make up.

I delayed my pension for a couple of years and then we both retired and lived off my pension and savings as it did not seem fair for me to sit around enjoying myself while my partner struggled to go to work.

I completely disagree with you Politics too many were not aware. The ombudsmen agreed there was a problem.
You cannot talk for millions of pensioners and I would not be arrogant enough to do so.
I find your comments about millions of pensioners condescending.

It’s a theme on gransnet, that Keir Starmer is some kind of duplicitous bad guy, who enjoys upsetting pensioners, particularly women as he’s a misogynist. It’s just nonsense - I’m back to concluding the only possible response is Keir Starmer ate my hamster.

Many furious anti Starmer posters are relieved they didn’t vote Labour because they knew this would happen. What would happen? That they’d invest in Hospice support, work to improve the NHS and other public services. Try to address the shocking mess left by the previous government.

Well done you.
But everyone is not you, and not in your circumstances.
Many people (women and men) simply cannot work until 65, let alone 70. They are simply not fit enough, usually suffering from age related conditions. People who have no age related conditions at age 70 are very lucky indeed.

Women who had a 15 year gap to prepare for the change didn't have 6 years to make up. I was born late 53 and got my pension just before I was 65 so I had nearly ,19 years to prepare for less than 5 years.

As it happens I worked till 70 so wasn't an issue.

Women affected by the pension age changes were born in the 50s or later. Restrictions on married women working were surely gone by the time they started work?

PoliticsNerd

rafichagran

I did not vote Labour, and I hope they do not get in next time. Politicnerd how do you keep the emotion out of this? People are upset and feel they have been misled. I for one are very angry

"People" are upset because they have mislead themselves into believing that they've paid in so they should get their money back. That it's their money.

That's not how pensions work. When you pay your taxes and your National Insurance you are not contributing to your individual pension pot as you would with a private pension. You are paying for the generations ahead of you, older than you.

That generation, our generation, were significantly less generous to the people whose pensions they were paying because pensions were lower because there was no triple lock and also because people didn't live as long. So the amount of money needed to fund the state pension at that age at that point in time was significantly less money than it is now.

Those of you who are "upset" are asking the today's workers to fund a group of individuals who didn't think to check what the state pension age was going to be for them.

Up to a point I agree about not expecting younger generations to fund compensation in today's economic climate. As I've said on this and other threads I think there was injustice, and I do think that in an ideal world there should be compensation, but I also think that priorities have to be considered, and the country is in a mess after 14 years of misrule, so IMO it is not hypocritical to say that it can't be afforded just now. I would have liked to see a pledge to revisit the subject when things improve, but I don't think it would be fair to ask young people with huge housing and childcare costs, student loans and similarly high fuel bills to pay for it when they will be lucky to get a state pension at all. We were told that tough decisions would have to be made across the board - it was part of the Labour mantra for ages before the election as well as during the campaign.

But I do not think that people don't understand the pension system and how it works, and find the constant reiteration of 'there is no pot' tiresome and condescening.

We know. We have known all along. We are not misleading ourselves. What people are saying is not that we think there is a 'pot', but that there was an unspoken deal that if we paid in, a future government would pay out in the form of a pension when the time came, and that time, we were told, would be when we were 60.

Yes, things can, do, and sometimes should change, but 15 years is not long enough to plug a six year gap (or not for a lot of low paid or part-time workers), and anyway, the changes were plural and it has been admitted that there was not enough notice and that many people were not informed.

I'm in my 70s, 4 kids and always worked as did all my friends and family. The number of years women need for full pension has varied, don't know about men as I'm not one so concentrated on my own pension. If it was 42 years most men would have that by 60.

theworriedwell

So men over 60 didn't get a pension till 65? Not the same as women then even if they got ni credits, they probably already had enough for their pension anyway.

Men needed more NI credits than women for a full SP, 42 years I think, compared to 39 for women.

The problem is that years ago women were supposed to give up work to care for children In fact, even when they got married, as married women were not allowed to continue in some careers and a question often asked of married women at interview was "Do you intend to start a family?".

It may seem that men were disadvantaged but not as much as women.

I don't think our daughters or many younger Gransnetters understand what the prevailing inequalities were loke before Women's Liberation and a movement towards feminism.

I agree with your post (19-Dec-24 19:12:44) eazybee with one small addition. I do think the benefits available, to those who moved to a later retirement but could not work, where/are very challenging.

So men over 60 didn't get a pension till 65? Not the same as women then even if they got ni credits, they probably already had enough for their pension anyway.

Doodledog

Jackiest

I tend to look at it the other way round. The retirement age was equalised because was against Article 4 of the Social Security Directive which prohibits discrimination on the ground of sex. So for the 20 years until it was equalised the government knew it was acting illegally. So all the men that were illegally forced to work longer than women before they got their pension should sue the government.

They weren't forced to work. Men between the ages of 60 and 65 who did not work, or who did work but earned too little to pay NI, were credited with NI contributions so that their pensions were unaffected.

This was phased out as women's pension age rose.

But they did not receive any pension where as women did. The government knew that that was illegal. So their claim for compensation is probably far stronger than the women who are claiming they did not know about the change.

Doodledog Thu 19-Dec-24 18:58:41

I totally agree that it was a harsh change Doodledog. They have happened before and will happen again. But that cannot mean compensation paid for by our children and grandchildren.