good waspi news

We have to remember that the money we pay into our "pension" doesn't pay out pension it is paying for the pension of the generations before us, our parents and grandparents. If there are not enough people contributing then there isn't enough money to pay anyone.
There will be more people paying in now than there were in previous generations, though. More women work, the population is larger, and the state contributions made to women who weren't working because they had children were cut back so that they can't be claimed after the youngest child is 12. Women with children over 5 are now 'encouraged' back into the workplace. It is simply not true that there are fewer contributions coming in than before, and the amount of money paid out in furlough and other Covid expenses is evidence that there has been enough in the coffers to cover the funds associated with the 'we are living longer' argument.

In any case, if the scheme is not fit for purpose that is the fault of the administrators, not the beneficiaries, and needs to be sorted out without detriment to those who contributed. We have paid our contributions in the belief that we would get a pension, and if that is reneged upon then faith in the State and 'the system' will falter. I don't mean faith in the current government, but something much more fundamental than that. Government in the UK has always relied on consensus, and that has to be a 2-way street.

Ohh I thought it was 5th April 1960 but it all got very confusing reading about all the legislation and changes

The government want people to contract into private pensions so that they can pay less state pension - this is the same for men & women.

I suspect you're on to something there!

I find the whole pension situation quite confusing. I have 49 years NI contributions and have just started to receive my state pension of £159 pw. Not the full rate as I was contracted out into my private work’s pension. Yes, I’m fortunate enough to have paid into a pension scheme but the monthly pension deductions were costly with a young family. Until I received the state pension I wasn’t paying any tax so it isn’t a huge private pension but of course is a help. I was hoodwinked into believing that I would receive the full amount (am just 66) due to my NI contributions. In addition to not paying state pension until women reach 66 the government is also deducting NI contributions from women until they are 66 when it used to stop at 60. This must generate a considerable amount of revenue. The government want people to contract into private pensions so that they can pay less state pension - this is the same for men & women. I feel the most unfair change for women of my age was the additional year from 65 to 66 which has had a huge impact

The information about the original increase for women was started in the 90's I knew about it my daughter knew about it. It was only fair that if men had to retire at 65 so should women as they had started moaning about equal pay. Its really only the women affected by the sudden change in the gradual increase born 1953 -1955 that were shafted. People are living longer and longer now (Covid-19 excepted) so its only fair that they contribute longer.

We have to remember that the money we pay into our "pension" doesn't pay out pension it is paying for the pension of the generations before us, our parents and grandparents. If there are not enough people contributing then there isn't enough money to pay anyone. Which is why I think the 8% should not be paid this year as its a freak year.

Doodledog

The maximum state pension is about £179, not £200, and that's if you get it at 66 instead of 60.

Ah! But the grass always seems greener ...

Doodledog I accept what you're saying, but if you read the endless messages by Waspi women, one of their arguments is that they can't cope financially. (Please don't shoot the messenger.) My point is that many of these women aren't hard up, so that argument falls flat. For those who can't cope, they do have to rely on benefits and they were cut too for the over 60s. Perhaps if the benefits change hadn't happened, those in financial difficulties would have a (very leaky) safety net. I admit the two aren't really connected.

PS. The amount people pay in pension contributions has almost no relationship with the amount people pay in. It's always been a silly system. There are actually two issues - providing a minimum income for those with little pension entitlement and providing a fairer system so that contributions are more aligned with entitlement. The two don't necessarily gel that well.

The maximum state pension is about £179, not £200, and that's if you get it at 66 instead of 60.

I wish I got £200 per week state pension!! I got mine aged 60 years and five months. I knew it would be introduced incrementally. My partner had to wait until he was 66 to receive his state pension and had worked non stop since he was 16! It was a blow to hon not to receive his pension at 65 as promised.
Our state pension scheme is one of the worst in Europe. If you have to survive on that pension alone, you are very unlucky, male or female. Men have missed out as well.
I don’t receive the higher rate which is very annoying.

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.

Not necessarily the case, for example I was born just before the April 1953 cut off date, and my friend just after, we both had to work approximately the same number of years before we got our pensions, me with the old pension and her on the new one. I wouldn't like to say how much difference this mounts up to over a lifetime. This unfairness should also be addressed.

One of the arguments of the Waspi women has been that they're hard up - some are, some aren't.

I'm not being difficult here, but I just don't see the relevance of this. If you save in an endowment scheme your payout is not affected by whether or not you are hard up. In fact, the point of paying into financial schemes is surely to ensure that you won't be? Why does it matter whether a WASPI woman (or anyone else) is skint or not? Their beef is that the rules of the pension scheme into which they had paid were changed without adequate communication, and this is true whether they are rich or poor.

Unless the endgame is that all older people are only 'entitled to' a basic standard of living, surely it is irrelevant what other savings or sources of income people have? A pension is not (yet) a benefit in the sense of a safety net to prevent starvation. It is still supposed to be an income in one's older age after a lifetime of working. That is the basis on which people paid in, and it's not unreasonable or greedy to expect to be able to claim it when the time comes, regardless of whether or not you are on the breadline.

MCPARLIN

Hi Venall, you only need 35 years of contributions to receive the new higher rate pension, which obviously is going up each year at a higher rate. I had 45 years of contributions when I retired in 2015 (I was 62 years and 6months) but still get the lower pension, so a lot of unfairness across the board.

I had 47 years of contributions, but don't receive a full state pension because I was opted out. I did find out about it a few years ago and have paid voluntary contributions which has boosted the amount I receive, but it was till impossible for me to receive the full amount.

Doodledog I think you've misunderstood me. I objected to the cut in benefits, but the pension hasn't been cut. I know they're not really connected, but it just so happened that both changes happened at about the same time. One of the arguments of the Waspi women has been that they're hard up - some are, some aren't. My fault for linking the two. I guess my point was that the changes in benefits affected the same group of people.

I do suspect 'they' thought/hoped 'the ladies' would not kick up a fuss... Shysters the lot of 'em. Absolute scandal the way women's work and benefits were handled. - Still, not long since we were allowed to have souls. Never forget the Handmaids Tale (and I don't mean that made into entertainment for the masses).

Hi Venall, you only need 35 years of contributions to receive the new higher rate pension, which obviously is going up each year at a higher rate. I had 45 years of contributions when I retired in 2015 (I was 62 years and 6months) but still get the lower pension, so a lot of unfairness across the board.

I will get a full pension in 2022. I have no quarrel about the equalisation of men and women, but I am pissed off about the communication of changes; I knew nothing of it until I received my first letter in 2010 saying that my pension age would be 64.5 - I then got another about a year later saying no, actually, 66. Rubbish service from DWP.

Meantime I am working full time, paying tax and NI, and know that I will have to go on working until I am 68 because I have a child at uni. And frankly, I'm exhausted!

*Callistemon I have just received my latest projection and need to make 46 years contributions to receive full pension which will be reduced as I paid into a company pension the additional earnings related contributions are now lost. I wish I could get full pension for 35 years contributions but it is not the case.

Thanks humptydumpty. Interesting article. I’m not holding my breath for any back payments!
We can but live in hope.

So_ a Government found to have treated women shabbily but not keen to redress the wrong....... where have I seen this before??????

I agree that it should have been made clear that 'opting out' would reduce entitlements to a pension. The choice of phrase makes it sound like a voluntary activity, but many people didn't know it had happened, much less that it would affect their state pensions. Communication over the whole issue of pensions has been deplorable.

It don't support cuts in other benefits either, but would never allow one injustice to reduce my opposition to another. The fact that Tax Credits/UC were cut does not mean that it is ok to cut pensions, which seems to be what you are saying? I object to both, and see no inconsistency in that.

I'm sorry you have lost out too, Callistemon. It seems that every generation is being shafted one way or another, yet we seem to be being set against one another more and more when we should be joining forces.

Chardy

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.

The new pension did not start until April 2016. Women born between 1950 and early 1953 had been made to work longer for their pension, but had already retired on the old, lower rate.
Personally I never received a letter about SPA changes, and I knew nothing about how the extra pension income would affect me had I postponed retirement until 2016.

That's even worse, Chardy!

Perhaps it's time for protest marches!!

When you look at the whole picture of women of all ages and their pensions, it is a complete shambles.

I am one of the women affected by this and have been up to London twice to demonstrate.
Yesterdays ruling was a positive result as it proved that we have had a case all along.
When I first went to discuss this with my MP back in November 2015 he said he could understand I was was a bit upset by the pensions changes, but people are living longer and the problem has to be addressed.
But the issue was not about age, it was about communication (or lack of) regarding incoming changes.
This was the first time in my life I felt assertive enough to even have a meeting with an MP.
So six years on, some High Court Cases have happened and then yesterday this report.
The Government will say because of the pandemic they now have dire finances and can't compensate.
But older women in our society today come a long way down the pecking order and are in lots of ways unseen by politicians.
When the Autumn Budget comes along we will hear about how the much applauded Triple Lock will be adjusted, so unless 1950's women keep reminding government of their losses, we will end up losing again.

When you think about it, if women who retired at 60 had to have nearly 40 years' of contributions, hardly any of them would be getting a full pension. It would rule out all graduates for a start, as well as anyone who took time out to have children or had career breaks for any reason.

Doodledog I asked for a forecast before I retired and have in fact double checked not that long ago too because the information is quite confusing but all is apparently absolutely correct.

Yes, starting work later then getting married and being persuaded by employers that our pensions would be paid on our husbands' contributions: "Sign here!", then Home Responsibilities Protection not being introduced until 1978 meant a whole group of women have missed out on a full State Pension.

Doodledog

*I agree with you. That's one of the reasons, I've never supported Waspi. I also don't like the fact that they dismissed people who were born after 1 January 1960, whose pension age is even higher.*

I think they had to have a cut-off to define their campaign. I am not a WASPI supporter either, and really don't like the way that the term is used as shorthand for all women whose pension age was increased.

I am one of the oldest women to have been affected by the changes. Of course I cursed a lot when I found it, which I did twice, first in the 1990s and again in 2011.

However, what annoyed me more was the change to claiming entitlement to low income benefits which accompanied the 2011 change. Before that, people (not just women) over the age of 60 could claim working tax credit (which became Universal Credit) if they worked for 16 hours a week. That means that people over 60 could slow down a bit and work part-time. That changed, so people over 60 were expected to work 30 hours a week and couldn't claim a top up if they were on a low income. It wasn't made clear either that people would not be entitled to full state pension for the years they had opted out and paid occupational pension.

The Waspi campaigners ruled out campaigning for any scheme which would have helped people (men and women) over 60, who were experiencing real difficulties. Reverting to the old benefits eligibility would also have helped people born in 1960 and later. If Waspi had included those people, I might have been supportive.

I agree with you. That's one of the reasons, I've never supported Waspi. I also don't like the fact that they dismissed people who were born after 1 January 1960, whose pension age is even higher.

I think they had to have a cut-off to define their campaign. I am not a WASPI supporter either, and really don't like the way that the term is used as shorthand for all women whose pension age was increased.