Waspi women

What about the men who have been affected?

At the age of 60 unemployed men (or those on a low income) could choose to receive working age benefits or Pension Credit in line with women of the same age. Pension Credit is worth about twice as much as working age benefits, so naturally most of them opted for Pension Credit.

The increase in the female state pension age has meant these men have lost out too. Will they be compensated under Labour plans?

Well did the men organise themselves? Did they campaign? Or did they sit back and watch the women work hard for some compensation and will they now jump on the bandwagon after watching the Waspi women do all the work.

Are you claiming that only those who shout loudest deserve justice?

Sorry, but the Waspi organisers are money-grabbers. They're not even poor themselves.

I beg your pardon growstuff. What on earth are you talking about

Ignore her Iam64
*Callistemon*- I fully agree ?

We don’t want a ‘sensible’ aka ‘more of the same’ manifesto. We want big thinking, our country to flourish again, our NHS to work, our children to thrive in good schools, our police force to protect us and our old folks to live our their winter with dignity.

Isn’t that worth paying for!

With a new leader and a sensible, affordable manifesto, they would stand a good chance of being elected.

I'd be really interested to know, Callistemon, what you would think a sensible way to grow the economy?

We do need the economy to grow because that would increase the tax take that you think pays for government expenditure. So how is it going to be achieved?

Because if you insist on believing that the government only has a finite amount of money we'll have to find some other way of 'affording' things, won't we? Or do we just not bother to afford anything at all?

Women's pensions have been paid for already. By the women who paid NI all their working lives, despite getting paid less than men, juggling childcare and unsympathetic employers.

The money was plundered to pay the National Debt. I am 100% in agreement with the Labour Party that it should be given back. It is simply unjust to add on 6 years to the working lives of women who have made plans based on the pension age they were led to expect.

I have no idea what this has to do with men on pension credit, which is a means-tested benefit for those men and women who have not paid enough into the system. Are you really suggesting that women who have paid in for decades should get less so that men who have not paid in can get more?

Sorry - my last paragraph was directed at growstuff.

That's not what I'm suggesting at all, but if there is to be so-called justice for one group, surely there should be justice for all. Men are also affected by the increase in women's state pension age.

No, women's pensions haven't already been paid for. The state pension fund does not work like a private pension pot and it's nonsense to claim that money was plundered to pay the national debt. Where did you get that idea from?

Women were told in 1995 that their pension age would be equalised with men and there were notices in all the national newspapers and on radio and TV. They can be found in archives. The government does not inform individuals of every change to legislation and people really do need to make an effort to find out about major issues such as when they will receive a pension. If they don't, I really wonder how much they know about issues which don't directly affect them and about which they vote.

It is simply not true that all women have paid NI for all their lives. There is very little correlation with the amount paid into NI and the amount received.

The focus on the 1995 Act has ignored the 2011 Act, which really was unfair because it accelerated the timetable for older pension ages for men and women with very little notice.

The WASPI women have been offered various compromises, but they're not interested in transitional arrangements, including those which would target the least well off through means-testing. They're only interested in revoking the 1995 Act for 1950s born women only, which would mean that somebody born on 1 January 1960 would retire six years later than somebody born just a day earlier.

They're not interested in compensating the relatively small group of women born in late 1953/1954, who have been worst affected by the accelerated changes. There is also a small group of women whose pension age has been raised, but they're still on the old state pension, which is worth less than the new one. They're not interested in making changes to the conditionality of working-age benefits, which would help those genuinely suffering hardship. They're not interested in the men who have had their pension ages raised. They're not interested in the younger people, who are already paying higher NIs. The APPG on pensions made various recommendations to alleviate the worst hardship, but they're not interested.

In my opinion, the Labour Party has jumped down a rabbit hole which causes more injustice and unintended consequences than simply giving in to WASPI demands.

If you don’t know where I got the information about the national debt from, how do you know it’s rubbish?

You can easily find it with a quick google, and if you look it up in Fullfact you can check the validity of the claim. I struggle with links on this phone.

I do understand how the State Pension works, and yes, there are people who have not contributed. IMO, if this was by choice, they should get a reduced pension, but that is a whole other argument. Those paying the maximum contribution basically subsidise those on lower incomes, which is, to me anyway, as it should be. People are paying in now, just as previous generations paid for those older than them, so again, there is no reason to move the age forward other than because the money has been plundered.

In the past, when fewer women paid anything at all, the contributions of workers were enough to pay pensions to women at 60, but now that most women work and contribute there is not enough? There was not the baby boom here that there was in the US - the maths don’t add up.

Traditionally, women were (and still are) paid less than men- look at the gender pay gaps in the major of companies. They have also done the bulk of the childcare and were given fewer opportunities back in the day, when those wanting to retire now were young. This is why it makes no sense to compare their situation with that of men. Women had different pension arrangements in the same way that they had different experience of life and work. All of that is changing, but for many women born in the 50s, the clock can’t be turned back.

Finally, it is the job of governments to be aware of demographics and plan accordingly. Cutting the government contribution to the pension fund was plain stupid, and if that has caused a shortfall it needs to be remedied in a way that does not discriminate against those who have paid decades of NI.

Because it is rubbish! Nobody has raided any pension pot of National Insurance because no such thing exists.

Many people who don't receive a full state pension receive pension credit, so they receive the same as somebody who has made full contributions.

I was born in the 1950s and the vast majority of girls I went to school with worked. We weren't the same as the generation before us and I find it patronising to suggest that we were.

What cut did the government make to the "pension fund"? There is and never has been a "pension fund". You appear to be confusing this with Gordon Brown's abolition of ACT for pension funds, but that affected private pensions, not the state pension.

Finally, it is the job of individuals to plan for their own future and make an effort, at the very least, to find out when their state pension will be paid.

Doodledog Your maths don't add up. There were actually two post WW2 baby booms in the UK. One happened immediately post war and the other lasted from approximately 1955 for 10 years.

Secondly, life expectancy in the UK has risen by about 10 years since 1970, which has doubled the length of time on average that people spend in retirement.

Thirdly, NICs have never been intended solely for pensions, but a whole range of benefits. The government has never had a ring-fenced fund for pensions or NICs and invested the money in the same way a private or occupational pension fund does.

The cost of servicing the government's debt is approximately 5% of government income, but this comes from all sources, so it's impossible to calculate who's losing out. The UK has had a national debt for hundreds of years and, compared with other countries, is low.

So you got your pension at 60 then growstuff. Nice for you.

Ha ha ha! No Jane10! You couldn't be more wrong. I was born in April 1955 and would be due for the maximum amount of £31.2k under the Labour proposals. So go and suck a bitter lemon!

I just happen to think it's wrong that a group of grasping, greedy women should take money from those who deserve it more. I would have no problem with actually compensating those who are really suffering hardship as a result of the changes. The solution would be to upgrade working age benefits, but they're in it for themselves and don't really care about the least well off.

Oh growstuff Sorry, but the Waspi organisers are money-grabbers. They're not even poor themselves

I was born August 1954. I am one of the worst hit.

I’ve personally ‘lost’ £32,000. I never received any letters in the post about the changes. My biggest gripe isn’t about the whole sum I’ve had removed. It’s because of the unfair ACCELERATION of the new proposals. (Clegg). That pulled the rug from under my feet.

I’d be more than happy with an offer. Any offer of some retribution!

I don’t think it’s going to happen though.

Whether or not there is what you call a pension pot, contributions were used to pay the national debt- an FOI request confirmed this a while ago. It might not fit with your view of the situation, but there we are.

Your comments about individuals fending for themselves are very telling, as is your use of terms like ‘rubbish’. This is dismissive and disrespectful, and this, coupled with the fact that you say that wanting a pension you have paid for is ‘greedy’ and ‘grasping’ confirms your arrogance.

How do you know the circumstances of 1950s born women, and who ‘deserves’ a pension, if not those who have paid for it? It is not a moral issue, but a contractual one, and benefits such as pension credit are not the same as a state pension that has been paid for in contributions over decades - they are two separate issues.

Your attitude that men who have not contributed are somehow more entitled than women who have is telling, but luckily that anachronistic thinking won’t matter if the Labour Party wins the election. If they don’t win, the fight for pension justice will continue. If or when women are compensated for their losses, and you feel that it would be ‘greedy’ and ‘grasping’ to accept it, you may, of course, donate your payout to the ‘deserving’.

Well, who knew the WASPIs were such a generic group of old hags, none of whom cares a jot for anyone but themselves? And their money-grabbing, wealthy organisers - presumably you know them personally and have access to their bank accounts?

They're only interested in revoking the 1995 Act for 1950s born women. I doubt you could give any evidence of this, seeing as WASPI have always stated categorically that they do not want to revoke the Act, but want transitional payments for the women most affected by it.

go and suck a bitter lemon! Do grow up.

When it was first announced it came over as an out and out vote buyer. But I suppose most of these offers are, and very few ever come to fruition.

I’m confused though as to the vast amounts on offer. When I Googled WASPI I read that the main loss was through a tax office fiddle which amounts to £64 pa. And that was for a maximum of 18 months. Apparently. Where does the rest come from? Is it the full amount of pension which would have been paid? And if so why the cut off at 1960? Is there a link for simpletons to read up please?

So Urmstongran under a Labour Government there is a chance you might get some compensation while under the Tories there is none at all.

Your choice.

I'm not a WASPI but I do know what it feels like to be diddled out of years of State pension growstuff.
I don't think it is wrong to equalise pension age with men and women, but due notice should be clear so that preparations could be made.

Your post is just plain wrong. Many of the WASPI women are not well off even if the organisers may look well-heeled.

You cannot make such sweeping statements about a whole group of people.
Presumably you yourself are wealthy enough not to desperately need this money, others may not be so fortunate, may not have partners.
I think you're the one who has been sucking lemons.

I was born before the 1950s growstuff and find it patronising that you suggest that you and your generation were the only women who worked.

I worked. My friends worked.

It would cost us an awful lot to recompense all of the women. I think it should be means tested. Some could have afforded to set up their own private pension schemes.