Gransnet forums

News & politics

good waspi news

(113 Posts)
humptydumpty Tue 20-Jul-21 12:06:22

This doesn't affect me, but I think there are some GNers who will be pleased:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-57900320

Blossoming Tue 20-Jul-21 12:14:54

It affects me, but unfortunately all this does is confirm the shabby treatment. Still no compensation.

Spinnaker Tue 20-Jul-21 13:17:00

Thanks humptydumpty for this - fingers crossed it has a positive result 🤞

Poppyred Tue 20-Jul-21 13:26:19

A step in the right direction for sure.

Millie22 Tue 20-Jul-21 13:31:20

Every time I read about this I feel the same ...let down. I can't see anything changing but it would be great if all the campaigning resulted in a positive outcome.

timetogo2016 Tue 20-Jul-21 13:32:33

Fingers,legs and eyes crossed in this house.

Visgir1 Tue 20-Jul-21 14:06:58

It effected me, but not a hope in hell of any compensation.

Callistemon Tue 20-Jul-21 14:14:07

I know this will be unpopular but when those affected do receive their pensions it will average about £50+ per week more than the full rate for those who retired under the old scheme.
Those on the old scheme will remain in the old rate so will be receiving over £2,500 less per annum than more recent retirees.

Ellianne Tue 20-Jul-21 14:14:21

I doubt whether it will change anything, but thanks anyway.

Ellianne Tue 20-Jul-21 14:15:43

Yes, that's a good thing Callistemon, it does keep increasing for us.

vena11 Tue 20-Jul-21 14:59:26

Yes Callistemon that is very true but all those people that now receive the larger payment have had to work 5 to 6 years more to get it and payed taxes and national insurance in those years.

Callistemon Tue 20-Jul-21 15:15:34

If you received compensation for the missed years from 60 to eg 67 at the lower rate of pension and continued on the lower rate would you be happy with that?

ie receiving backpay of £137.60 pw (based on 39 years contributions) then continue on that rate for life plus % increases?

Or

Receive £179.60 pw based on 35 years contributions for life plus % increases?

Or do you want compensation and the higher rate?

In which case, why can't we all go on to the higher rate, particularly men who had to wait until 65 and then received and will continue to receive the lower rate?

Callistemon Tue 20-Jul-21 15:17:14

vena11

Yes Callistemon that is very true but all those people that now receive the larger payment have had to work 5 to 6 years more to get it and payed taxes and national insurance in those years.

Men had to wait until 65 to receive the lower rate which they will continue to receive for life.

Is that sex discrimination?

Callistemon Tue 20-Jul-21 15:19:03

and payed taxes and national insurance in those years.

Men had to pay 42 years of contributions and women 39 years.
The new, full higher rate is paid after 35 years of contributions.

Doodledog Tue 20-Jul-21 15:36:51

The old state pension required 30 years of contributions and the new one 35 years.

It would be fairer to put everyone who has paid the required contributions (at the time that they retired) onto the new rate, IMO. People couldn't have been expected to know that if they'd retired a few years later they would have got more, and some may well have decided to hang on until they qualified.

Life-changing changes like this should always be communicated to all, clearly, with enough warning for people to make achievable plans for the rest of their lives.

vena11 Tue 20-Jul-21 15:41:11

I think its right that men and women should work until 65/66. No matter how well you calculate it all us waspi women will never ever ever get compensation for these lost years. As like most compensation claims the government eventually pay out we will probably all be dead before we get anything. People that got to retire at 60 have received more than £25,000 more than we have.

Callistemon Tue 20-Jul-21 15:50:13

Life-changing changes like this should always be communicated to all, clearly, with enough warning for people to make achievable plans for the rest of their lives

I agree but it seems ludicrous to have two separate schemes running.

Perhaps it might be a good idea to give those who lost out their due compensation then move us all on to the higher rate of state pension.

After all, we receive one of the lowest state pensions in Europe.

To get a full state pension under the old scheme, women needed to have paid in 39 years of contributions and men 42 years.

Any fewer and the pension was reduced accordingly as was mine.
Many women were persuaded into paying a Married Women's Contribution too so do not receive a pension in their own right.
A blatant case of miss-selling.

Doodledog Tue 20-Jul-21 16:04:46

I agree that those on the old scheme should be on the same rate as the new.

The link in my last post confirms what I thought however, which is that under the old scheme women had to pay in for 30 years, not 39.

I doubt that most women paid anything like 30 years' of contributions, though - many didn't work whilst their children were at school, and back then their 'contributions' were paid by the state until the youngest child was 16, so with a large family that could easily be 25 years. When the new scheme came in, this was cut to when the youngest is 12, which added to the number of years that needed to be paid, along with the increase to 35 years.

Nevertheless, we all live with the same living costs, so there is no reason why older people should receive less - it's not like they get discounts on food or rent.

Chakotay Tue 20-Jul-21 18:12:49

Callistemon

I know this will be unpopular but when those affected do receive their pensions it will average about £50+ per week more than the full rate for those who retired under the old scheme.
Those on the old scheme will remain in the old rate so will be receiving over £2,500 less per annum than more recent retirees.

Sorry that's not the case for everyone my husband got his pension under the old rules he gets £237 a week, I get mine under the new rules, because by April 6th 2016 I had accrued more than the new basic pension any NICs I paid after that date up until March 2021 didn't increase my pension, even though I opted out for a few years I still get more than the basic pension plus the private pension I get for the years I opted out, its more than £200 a week but still less than he gets and I worked for 6 more years than he did best part of 51 years for me 45 for him

Surely a single pensioner on the old rate can claim pension credit anyway which is only a couple of £s less than the new basic.

But this is going to be the case isn't it, a sniff of compensation (which I doubt we will get) for those of us who had to work the extra years and those who didn't have to work start poking their head above the parapet saying where's mine.

Shandy57 Tue 20-Jul-21 18:19:25

I am just so glad that it has been publically acknowledged that it was wrong that we were not informed in time to adjust our budgets and plans accordingly.

nanaK54 Tue 20-Jul-21 18:40:45

Thank you humptydumpty we will watch and wait

Callistemon Tue 20-Jul-21 18:47:34

The link in my last post confirms what I thought however, which is that under the old scheme women had to pay in for 30 years, not 39.

Their pension would be reduced accordingly and they would not receive the full rate.

Every year less than the full 39 years meant a proportionate drop in final pension.

I know, I am one who only managed to get in years less than the 39 years of contributions so my pension is lower than the £137.60 pw.

Callistemon Tue 20-Jul-21 18:50:09

Sorry that's not the case for everyone my husband got his pension under the old rules he gets £237 a week

I think that must have been because he was in a firm's pension scheme and GMP has been applied.,

Only those on just the basic state pension can claim pension credits.
I do have another pension too.

Hippie20 Tue 20-Jul-21 21:20:47

I am still working and will be 66 in September. I have paid nearly 50 years national insurance but because I was contracted out the most sp I can get is £166. How is this fair when you only need 35 years ni. Total scam. Waspi woman born 1955.

Doodledog Tue 20-Jul-21 21:35:42

Callistemon

^The link in my last post confirms what I thought however, which is that under the old scheme women had to pay in for 30 years, not 39.^

Their pension would be reduced accordingly and they would not receive the full rate.

Every year less than the full 39 years meant a proportionate drop in final pension.

I know, I am one who only managed to get in years less than the 39 years of contributions so my pension is lower than the £137.60 pw.

This is what Age Concern say about the old pension. They also have details of the new one.

*Basic State Pension (before 2016)

You can claim the full Basic State Pension if:

you reached State Pension age on or before 5 April 2016 (see above for full details)
you have 30 years of National Insurance contributions. This includes contributions that you made when you were working, and contributions that were credited to you if you were unable to work - for example, if you were caring for a child or disabled person, or claiming certain benefits.
If you have fewer than 30 years of contributions, you’ll get 1/30 of the full State Pension amount for each year of contributions.

If you’re eligible to claim a Basic State Pension, you may also be able to claim an Additional State Pension. How much you get will depend:

your earnings
whether you claimed certain benefits.*

It does not mention 39 years, and specifically says that your pension will be reduced for every year less than 30 that you have contributed.