waspi- are they fighting for you?

Well, I'm very sorry, but I really can't support Waspi. I was born in April 1955, so I'm one of the first who will be affected by the rise in the state pension age to 66. I can't exactly say I'm thrilled, but I understand why it's being done. I really don't understand how women didn't know back in the 1990s that their pension age was being increased to 65. It was all over the news at the time. I appreciate some weren't working at the time, but I remember receiving leaflets with my payslip for months. I don't understand where you got the idea that you could retire at 55. AFAIK the state pension age has never been 55. The rise to 66 will affect men and women.

I think Waspi would have been better advised to concentrate on concessions for those affected, such as keeping the age for receiving a bus pass at 60 and keeping the number of worked hours lower for those claiming working tax credit. These would have been relatively cheap and affordable.

Congratulations on getting your pension, Pamela! I've joined WASPI, and am going to the demo (on a red-eye Megabus costing £6 return). Not so much for me - I'm fortunate, I have a husband, small occupational pension and some savings, so can manage - but for others I know who are really suffering badly from losing six years pension, particularly those single and in poor health. The stories are theirs, and not mine to put on a public forum, but not everyone is as lucky as I am.

I did know about the change, because in my line of work I checked the finance news online and I spotted it there. But I have no reason at all to disbelieve those who say they didn't know. There certainly weren't any leaflets in my payslips!

Which of the WASPI aims would you favour? A small bridging pension until SPA? Taking the retirement age back to the 1995 timescale (I think I could get my pension at 64 under that one)? I must admit I'm starting to think the only one the government would ever consider agreeing to is the cost-neutral WASPI Voice proposal of choosing to take your pension early, but losing around 6% for each year that you do. I'd go for that, personally, as even though you'll be on the reduced pension for the rest of your life, my family history doesn't inspire me with confidence that I'll make old bones. My German friends told me that this option is open to anyone over there. I realise it wouldn't suit everyone though.

I was working in the 90s and I certainly don't remember being told I wouldn't get my pension until later. I had a pension forecast when I was about 55 and was told I would get my Stated pension at 60. As it happens I was quite lucky and got mine at 61 years and 10 months. I have friends two years younger than me who were told their State pension age would be 65 which s bad enough, only to be told subsequently that their State pension age would be 67. My husband, born the year after me will be one of the last men to get his pension at 65.
The main issue for me is that my friends already had to wait until 65 and then suddenly have another two years to wait. I think most people agree that the ages at which men and women get their pensions should be the same. The issue is the way in which it was done.

Pigglywiggly, I can't quite work out the dates of your friends' births, but I think they're wrong.

The state pension age is increasing to 67 for people born after 1960.

My SPA is 66 and I was born in April 1955. If your SPA is 61 years 10 months, you must have been born before 1955. Even if your friends were born in 1957, their SPA will still be 66.

No, the dates don't quite add up. A woman born 1 March 1952 would have retired at 61 and 10 months. The latest retirement date for a woman born March 1954 would be 65 and 4 months. Mine is "only" 66 and I was born in January 1955.

The younger woman still loses three and a half years pension for being just two years younger. Other countries have managed to equalise their pensions over a much longer period.

It seems that longevity has increased over the last 50-100 years. Why in the world would boredom in retirement under 66+ suit anyone?

Ddill,
waspi aren't disputing the new pension age , just the way it was introduced.
I remember thinking "old news" one morning when I heard a discussion about dates for retirement. The presenter said something that made me scurry to the computer to discover that my dates had just changed again.
I, personally, don't think I would have prepared for my pension any differently but I've been self employed for years and have access to people who are more clued up than me. Some women aren't so fortunate.

I guess we're all different. I'm the kind of person who listens to budget announcements and then reads the small print. I remember having many discussions with other women when the rise to 65 was announced. We weren't happy, but it was considered fair. I'm more miffed about the rise to 66, which is an issue for men as well as women, but it was quite clearly stated in the budget. IMHO the timetable was too short.

DaisyDog, it might suit someone with caring responsibilities, someone who has health issues, someone who has worked in a physically or mentally exhausting job for 47 years and has simply had enough, someone who knows their particular life span isn't going to be anywhere near the new average, someone who has been pushed out of work and is currently being bullied into applying for five unsuitable minimum wage jobs a day two hours away from where they live?

You could, if you were interested, find all these reasons and more on the Waspi website and Facebook page.

Your last reason is the one which resonates most with me. By far the biggest group of teachers pushed out are women in their fifties, who no longer have access to early redundancy packages.

When Universal Credit is rolled out completely, people up to the age of SPA will be treated just like everybody else. At the moment, people over 60 (both sexes) only have to look for work for 16 hours. Their tax credits will also be affected.

I would far rather WASPI focussed on the changes to benefits and lobbied for fairer treatment of part-time workers, especially those with two jobs, who aren't eligible to sign up for workplace pension schemes. I would like to see the government trying to encourage more employers to take on older workers - and not just in menial jobs.

I hope this is a lesson to younger people to be more aware of pension responsibilities, especially listening to the news and budgets, etc.

I was extremely lucky and received my pension at age 60 - I took it straight away, retired completely from my self-employment and my OH and I enjoyed several years of enjoyable retirement before our health went down the drain.

I understand the logic of raising the pension age, but the problems that could ensue do not seem to have been factored in: loss of carers (for aged parents and GC), unemployment among those 60+ (that will cost a lot in benefits), deteriorating health among those 60+ leading to unreliable work patterns, safety of older workers both for themselves and for their service recipients etc.

I feel very sorry for those among my friends who planned their retirement and then found those plans shattered - and also for those whose pension age has crept up - some were told one new date only to have that moved on again.

I am grateful for my pension and the fact that this has given me the opportunity to play a greater role in the lives of my family and community. I count myself very lucky.

Unemployment amongst over 60s doesn't cost a lot in benefits - and the government knows that!

JSA is half the guaranteed Pension Credit and the work programme for unemployed people of working age costs more than pensions in admin costs.

Not only that, but many people in their late 50s and 60s aren't eligible for benefits anyway, if they have any savings. Those restrictions don't apply to receiving the state pension.

People of working age aren't eligible for bus passes or winter fuel allowance, even if they're poorer than pensioners.

I honestly feel that the pension age is a lost cause and that WASPI should be concentrating on restoring some of the benefits over 60s have lost and encouraging employers to take on older workers, part-time if necessary.

I suppose if we had the option to take a reduced state pension before SPA, the government would hope to save some of the cost of over-60s benefits. Though those eligible for the benefits would be less likely to opt for the smaller pension. I still think the government might go for it, if they can make it cost-neutral. It would have to be open to men as well of course.

I doubt they'd allow other pensioner benefits before the official SPA, but a bus pass would make a huge difference to my life. It's frustrating that people in so many areas of the UK can still have free travel at 60. It costs me nearly £6 for the return trip to my nearest town. Lucky I'm still fit enough to walk it.

still get a bus pass in Scotland at 60 ,I didn't apply for one as I never use buses

Can I have yours, paddyann? I once read that the senior bus pass puts more into the economy than it costs, ie those that use them to get out more spend while they're out, instead of sitting at home saving their pennies. From my experience of friends who head off regularly to meet others in town for coffee and/or lunch, shopping or a film, this seems to be true. And there must surely be social benefits.

Free bus pass in Wales over 60 as well. Poor old England does seem to be losing out!

Londoners 60 and over get Oyster cards for £20 too. :-(

Free bus travel in Northern Ireland at 60 too. And a lot of local arrangements in various parts of England. I can categorically say not in West Yorkshire though.

Yes daphnedill I'm going to be spoilt going to work for six years on the tube for free! So glad the mayor is keeping this in place.
I really don't see why people are complaining about working longer if the government deems it necessary. It's hardly life shattering when our generation has enjoyed many comfortable, safe and stable decades.

Oh I do wish we had a 'snort' emoji!

Why?

Spot on, Lillie.