Waspi women

Thanks Callistemon

Yes that's true. I do think though that this current incarnation of Labour care so much more about issues that affect ordinary people than we have seen in a political party for a very very long time and this gives me reason to trust that will keep their promises, given the opportunity.

I also think most people have no idea just how much money is being siphoned upwards and out of this country into offshore bank accounts / tax havens etc that, if actually collected in tax revenues as it always should have been, could be making so much difference!

I recently read about multi-billionaire Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos planning to donate $98.5 million to homeless charities. This sounds amazing until you realise that, based on his net worth, he earns that amount of money in just 11 hours. Yes, 11 hours. I was utterly gobsmacked by this. (It has all been worked out properly). Amazon workers are treated like robots and paid peanuts. Amazon pay barely any tax on their UK profits (same goes for Google, Starbucks, etc, etc of course!) and their business model is contributing to the collapse of so many beloved high street businesses who actually were paying their way.

It's all such a shocking mess! We need a government with a whole new approach - we simply can't carry on the way we are.

(Sorry for the rant - you can probably tell I feel rather strongly about it all!)

Born in 1953. Does it affect me? And won’t in all get buried whoever gets in?

Have just watched JC being interviewed by Andrew Neil. I received my state pension when I was nearly 63. Would I get compensation for not receiving it at 60? I obviously don’t get the new state pension amount as mine paid out earlier.

Thanks MaryMack
However, this was not in the manifesto therefore not costed.

Costings are an estimate and can be variable as is income from taxes too.

As lots of people are wondering where Labour are planning to find the money to keep all their promises, I just thought I'd mention that all the policies are fully costed (it's well worth having a look at their manifesto which can be downloaded from this page) and a huge number of economists have said that they are solid and achievable.

In fact, 163 experts in economic policy signed a letter that was published in the Financial Times yesterday outlining these reasons. They finished the letter by saying: "It seems clear to us that the Labour Party has not only understood the deep problems we face, but has devised serious proposals for dealing with them. We believe it deserves to form the next government." The letter is behind a paywall so not sure if this is allowed but here is a link to a PDF version: HERE

In 1995 I had no TV or radio and I have never bought a regular newspaper. I was busy working and juggling childcare at a time when my husband worked away most of the week. I most certainly did not receive any information that my state pension was not going to be paid when I was sixty. In fact when I did check my pension I was told that I needed thirty five years of contributions to enable me to receive a full pension and then, when it was too late for me to do anything about it they upped that limit, so I don’t receive the full amount!

I do feel very angry at the way this has been mishandled.

It's all very complicated.
I don't get a full State Pension either.

Callistemon, lots of us won’t get the full “new” state pension, because we were opted out at some stage during our working life. My entitlement under the new system is less than £100 whereas I’d have got slightly more than the full amount under the old one, with a bit of SERPS added. I’ve 41 years NI record, but was opted out for 20 of them. Fortunately there are transition arrangements in place, so in 2021 when I hit 66 I’ll get what I was due under the old system. It’s a lot less than the current pension.

Not complaining, just saying.

I did some calculations but, even allowing for the fact that older women would have started receiving their pension at 60, they will always be on the old, lower state pension and will always be on a lower tier whatever age they reach therefore may never receive as much overall.

However, I do know a couple of people who paid NI all their lives and died two weeks before they were due to receive their pensions

It is, of course, not paid into a pot or fund like private pensions which are invested.

Callistemon The extra six years of contributions will, in addition, be worth approximately an extra £30 a week to me. Although I will have 47 years of contributions by the age of 66, some of those years were "opted out", so they won't count. I still won't get the full state pension, so the extra £30 a week will be worth quite a lot to me. It obviously depends how long I live, but I did once work out that, if I have an average life expectancy, I will have received slightly more under the new system, despite having lost my SERPs entitlement.

Yehbutnobut I'm not being obtuse and I apologise if you know exactly how the system works. As I've mentioned above, I was born in April 1955, so I'm one of the first to have my pension date put back to 66 and, if by some miracle Labour do win this election, I'll be one of the ones to receive the most compensation.

When all this kicked off years ago, of course I was interested. I knew about the 1995 change and accepted it, but I was aggrieved by the two subsequent changes and the changes to the conditionality for working tax credit, when it changed to universal credit. As I have a very low income, I have been following the WASPI campaign for ages. I have had to continue working, despite having very painful diabetic neuropathy and having suffered a heart attack. I would have been very grateful for some support.

I very quickly became disillusioned with the campaigners. Those shouting loudest aren't poor and aren't in need. One of them was sacked from a previous post for bullying. They weren't in the slightest interested in helping those genuinely in need, despite the sob stories they publish.

I've followed the WASPI Facebook page and other threads on social media. It's quite obvious they've whipped themselves up into a frenzy of feeling hard done by. Most of the posters really don't seem to understand how NICs work at all and there is a remarkable degree of sheer ignorance. They've been told they're entitled and "robbed" and they believe it. The organisers have been offered compromises, but they're not interested in discussing them. What they want is a generous lump sum, which for many of them will pay for a nice holiday or new car. They're not in the slightest bit interested in those who are really suffering and would benefit from changes to the working-age benefit system, because they themselves wouldn't benefit.

There have been two surveys about whether women knew about the 1995 changes. One showed that the majority of women did; the other showed that just under half did. It is also a fact that on average people over 60 are wealthier than those of working age. Yes, I know there is poverty, so that should be addressed, not throwing thousands of pounds at some very rich women, especially when there are so many other sectors of the population who need the money more.

FFS ...change the tune ??

I think they've just said it to win votes. There are a lot of Waspi women. Feeling desperate?

growstuff you know perfectly well why I meant. Stop splitting hair and being so obtuse.

But I only feel sorry for the hard-up Waspi women.

Ok. The means testing thing was rubbish.

Under the new scheme I would be receiving about £35 per week more pension.

How long would it take for a WASPI woman to catch up with what I have received over the years and perhaps overtake me at a rate of £1,800 pa?

What Gracesgran says is right too - those of who received our State Pensions from age 60 are on a much lower rate than those retiring from, was it 2016?

So, in fact, those retiring earlier than that are losing out by quite a lot per annum and will continue to do so.

The number of years of contributions required for a full State Pension also went down as I think it used to be 39 and is now 35.
I would be receiving probably £25 - £30 per week more but had to wait longer for my pension.

It does take some thinking about to decide what is fair.
It does seem to be swings and roundabouts the more you think about it.

I agree that any compensation couldn't be means tested. That would just lead to further legal challenges by the women who had not been compensated, as well as allegations that women who had been lucky enough to be able to "plan for their own future" were being penalised for doing so. Do we really want to go down the route of means testing the state pension? What a can of worms that would open!

Anyone who gets compensation (yes, I know it's not likely, but as a hypothesis) and doesn't agree that they should have it, could donate it to whatever worthy cause they choose, or help out younger relatives if they think they're struggling.

I was able to retire at 60 and help the younger generation out by way of childcare as planned and promised, simply because I worked in jobs and at a level of income that allowed me to access my work pension at 60. I'm also not on my own. That was my good fortune, and nothing to feel superior about. Many women are reliant on the state pension because of their circumstances and shouldn't be blamed for not having anything else to fall back on.

Good post, Chewbacca.

I did get my pension at 60 but it is not a full one as I needed 39 years for that and mine, due to being given false information re the Married Woman's stamp, were much lower than that.

I can understand why you and others are aggrieved Chewbacca.

It is specious to suggest that, just because some other groups may need the money more (who is to decide that?), those who have been deceived about their pensions should receive nothing.

I don't think it can be means-tested. It would have to be legal. It could be the case that, if compensated for earlier years they will be deemed to have joined the old pension scheme and that would mean their payments in subsequent years would be less than under the new pension. I can't see how they would get both. The missing pensions from 60 to whatever age they now get it at were factored in to give pensioners a higher basic rate. It is certainly very complicated.

I'm a WASPI (1954) and I have no issue with SR age being equalised with men. What I do have issue with was the way in which SR age done. In my case, I received a letter, when I was 58, telling me that my SR age would be 62. I'd never been in a position to have a private pension, I'd never earned enough to be able to afford to and I am divorced, so no help from a husband's pension either.
6 months before I was due to claim my pension, I was told that my SR age would be 64.5 years. I never heard from DWP again and it was only by sheer chance that I discovered that, for a 3rd time, my SR age was deferred to 65. On the eve of my 65th birthday, I saw that my SR age had been deferred, for a 4th time, to 65.5.

Because I was given 4 separate deferred dates, some with as little as a few months notice, I haven't been able to plan ahead because the goal posts kept moving and I wasn't properly informed. Had I been told, at the age of 58 that I would have to work for another 8 years, I could have planned accordingly. I've worked full time, paying full NI contributions, for over 50 years. I also paid SERPS for many years but I've been told that that hasn't enhanced my pension by very much.

Do I feel aggrieved? Damned right I do. If you were lucky enough to get your pension when you were 60, good luck to you; you got it because you happened to be born a few months before me. Not because you were more informed. Or more savvy. Or worked harder. I'm not being greedy or grasping in wanting the same that you got. I just want equality.

Yehbutnobut there has never been a contract between the number/amount of NICs and the date/amount of state pension. The number of contributions has been changed at least twice that I can remember. Various changes have been made to how the system operates, such as the introduction of Home Responsibility Protection and SERPs, the increase in contributions and, of course, the change from the old to the new system. The state pension has never been related to a minimum number of contributions once that minimum has been reached. Consent to any changes has never been sought, in the same way changes to any taxes are never approved. The level of support paid out to pensioners as a combination of pension/pension credit has always been a combination of the number (not amount) of contributions and pension credit, so it has always been means-tested. If you earn less, you pay in less; if you receive less, you get a top up.

Any government could afford to make the pay outs, but it would be at the expense of others who need it more and mean that younger people carry on seeing increases in their taxes and NICs to pay for benefits which they will never receive.

I am still fence sitting ybnb.
Normally I vote Lib Dem but our candidate has changed from the usual person to someone unknown but she looks promising. Swinson is offputting.