National News WASPI Women

[Peterdev]

It looks like there might be a resolution at last to those women born in the fifties whom missed out on payments because of the raise in pension ages to 66.
For those looking forward to retirement at 60, the qualification was lifted quickly, meaning many, including my wife missing out on much needed income.
Are many on the forum affected by the change? There always seemed to be money for other projects like HS2, so I just hope this injustice is resolved finally

 

[LowerSouth]

Feel for those who were relying on there pension to arrive at 60-it must have caused real hardship and trauma to some .

 

[Mojofilter]

It will have been a nuisance but it is absurd to call it a trauma. I also will say that sixty is an absurdly generous retirement age

 

[holdsteady]

It will have been a nuisance but it is absurd to call it a trauma. I also will say that sixty is an absurdly generous retirement age

Mens was 65 wasn't it? What was the reason given for the 5 year disparity?

 

[werthersoriginal]

Mens was 65 wasn't it? What was the reason given for the 5 year disparity?

I was never sure why that was, especially as women tend to live longer.

However the change seemed to have been brought in with little warning and will have upset a lot of people's plans.

 

[holdsteady]

I was never sure why that was, especially as women tend to live longer.

However the change seemed to have been brought in with little warning and will have upset a lot of people's plans.

It changed ages ago didn't it? You can hardly have a load of laws about equality and then have half the population retire 5 years earlier just because they don't have willys, could they not have just worked the extra 5 years, not the easiest thing for those of us who are probably going to have to work till we 70 to sympathise with.

 

[Wandering Yellow]

It will have been a nuisance but it is absurd to call it a trauma. I also will say that sixty is an absurdly generous retirement age

One thing I would say this (and I say this as a relatively young person, below 30) for all society goes on about isms. One I see more than any other is ageism, and I hear from elderly people they feel discriminated against in the job market.

I accept your point about it seeming a generous age though mate, just something I'd add.

 

[Mojofilter]

Mens was 65 wasn't it? What was the reason given for the 5 year disparity?

Men tending to marry women a few years younger than themselves, so they'd retire at similar ages?

Or just to give the women a bit of peace before their poxy husbands are lumbering up the place post-retirement?

 

[38yearsofpain]

It changed ages ago didn't it? You can hardly have a load of laws about equality and then have half the population retire 5 years earlier just because they don't have willys, could they not have just worked the extra 5 years, not the easiest thing for those of us who are probably going to have to work till we 70 to sympathise with.

The retirement age of 60 for women was set in 1948. It was a completely different world then, married women primarily brought up their children. Those that worked, worked for considerably less than men for the same job. There was no equality. Women's work was for pin money and not considered the family bread winner. Move on sixty years the world changed, equality of pay and opportunity. The logic for a similar retirement age was obvious.
The WASPI claim is based around the fact that DWP failed to give adequate information and those affected were obviously financially disadvantaged because of not being adequately informed and not be able to make adequate financial provision in a limited timeframe.

 

[holdsteady]

The retirement age of 60 for women was set in 1948. It was a completely different world then, married women primarily brought up their children. Those that worked, worked for considerably less than men for the same job. There was no equality. Women's work was for pin money and not considered the family bread winner. Move on sixty years the world changed, equality of pay and opportunity. The logic for a similar retirement age was obvious.
The WASPI claim is based around the fact that DWP failed to give adequate information and those affected were obviously financially disadvantaged because of not being adequately informed and not be able to make adequate financial provision in a limited timeframe.

Cheers for the explanation.

 

[Cotswolds Cowboy]

My Mrs is one of those in the group, turning 66 this year as is my sister-in-law who is 68
Both left their jobs voluntarily before they were 60 as they decided they didn't want to work any more
My wife seems quite sanguine about it but my sister in law is gung-ho for a payout

 

[Peterdev]

My wife is 66 going on 67, so is one of the WASPI women. Not long before she finished work at 65, having worked in the care industry for forty years. She was looking forward to retirement but then had a cavernoma…similar to a stroke ten days after finishing work. For a year she had to rely on my support, having been cheated out of a promised retirement at 60. Now she is unable to drive.
We now find out that despite the ombudsman finding in favour of WASPI, the DWP may refuse to pay out a recommended paltry sum of £1000-£3000.
It would seem that money can be found for other vainglorious projects without a problem.
The Conservatives and Labour parties are of course vocal in their silence

 

[tonyw]

The retirement age of 60 for women was set in 1948. It was a completely different world then, married women primarily brought up their children. Those that worked, worked for considerably less than men for the same job. There was no equality. Women's work was for pin money and not considered the family bread winner. Move on sixty years the world changed, equality of pay and opportunity. The logic for a similar retirement age was obvious.
The WASPI claim is based around the fact that DWP failed to give adequate information and those affected were obviously financially disadvantaged because of not being adequately informed and not be able to make adequate financial provision in a limited timeframe.

It's also worth noting that when the basic state pension was introduced in 1948, the average life expectancy in the country was 65. So the median man wouldn't have received a pension at all.

In 2024, the average life expectancy in the UK is 81, with the pension age being 66. So the median person will get 15 years worth of state pension.

Not hard to see why funding the pension scheme is becoming financially challenging as time goes by!

The pension age should have been going up for years at a much faster rate than it has been.

(which is not to suggest that the WASPI women were treated fairly - because I know some of them received 12 month's notice that their pension age was going up by 6 years, and that is just nonsense.......)

 

[Oxford57]

My wife is in this group, and quite rightly feels that she has been hard done by, what really annoys me is that any government writers on about budgets,and how the country can't afford it, yet millions can be wasted on vanity projects, and the costs of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan never seem to be considered, money just gets found yet this case gets swept under the carpet

 

[Essexyellows]

Sister is a WASPI - got very short notice and was disadvantaged as a result.

The usual thing will happen when people, who have paid into the system all their lives, have a need/right for recompense.

The Government(s) will keep kicking the can down the road until there are barely any left to pay out too.

 

[MarkG]

It's also worth noting that when the basic state pension was introduced in 1948, the average life expectancy in the country was 65. So the median man wouldn't have received a pension at all.

In 2024, the average life expectancy in the UK is 81, with the pension age being 66. So the median person will get 15 years worth of state pension.

Not hard to see why funding the pension scheme is becoming financially challenging as time goes by!

The pension age should have been going up for years at a much faster rate than it has been.

(which is not to suggest that the WASPI women were treated fairly - because I know some of them received 12 month's notice that their pension age was going up by 6 years, and that is just nonsense.......)

It’s only going to get worse.
How many people are in private rented accommodation who are going to retire on the state pension which even with top ups is going to leave them penniless as the scum BTL landlords lick their lips as they put the rent up every year to pay for their own cushy retirements.

The lucky boomers may have got gold plated final salary schemes and will be expected to live much longer. Moreover they have inherited unearned wealth from their parent’s properties.

People these days with parents in their 60s may be waiting decades to inherit as their pension, and then find it’s been used up by care home fees.

 

[LowerSouth]

It’s only going to get worse.
How many people are in private rented accommodation who are going to retire on the state pension which even with top ups is going to leave them penniless as the scum BTL landlords lick their lips as they put the rent up every year to pay for their own cushy retirements.

The lucky boomers may have got gold plated final salary schemes and will be expected to live much longer. Moreover they have inherited unearned wealth from their parent’s properties.

People these days with parents in their 60s may be waiting decades to inherit as their pension, and then find it’s been used up by care home fees.

Sorry slightly off topic :
That’s such a stereotypical group of words.
I don’t see housing associations being castigated for increasing costs annually.
I’m a landlord since 2005.
I’m not from Swindon .
I have long standing tenants.
There rents have been frozen for 3 years.
They are going up in April by 5.5%.
I’m not licking my lips.
I’m already retired .
I’m a working class “boomer”, from a very modest background in Manchester.
I started work age 11( Saturday job, as a barrow boy on Stockport Fruit & Veg Market).
I bought my first house jointly in 1973 aged 22.
(We went to look at renting and ended up buying)
I started my first business in 1980,selling my next home for £18000 and borrowed £5000.
I then lived above the premises .
I continued to work my socks off ,growing the business, taking financial risks for the next 27years, before selling up (after receiving an offer I couldn’t refuse)
I’m worth it
Rant over.

 

[Osei Yaw]

Sorry slightly off topic :
That’s such a stereotypical group of words.
I don’t see housing associations being castigated for increasing costs annually.
I’m a landlord since 2005.
I’m not from Swindon .
I have long standing tenants.
There rents have been frozen for 3 years.
They are going up in April by 5.5%.
I’m not licking my lips.
I’m already retired .
I’m a working class “boomer”, from a very modest background in Manchester.
I started work age 11( Saturday job, as a barrow boy on Stockport Fruit & Veg Market).
I bought my first house jointly in 1973 aged 22.
(We went to look at renting and ended up buying)
I started my first business in 1987, selling my next home for £18000 and borrowed £5000.
I then lived above the premises .
I continued to work my socks off ,growing the business, taking financial risks for the next 27years, before selling up (after receiving an offer I couldn’t refuse)
I’m worth it
Rant over.

I don't think anyone would criticise you for clearly working hard or taking risks to build up a business.

But in your own timeline, this started 14 years after you were able to buy your first home at the age of 22. Some things are more affordable (and accessible) in 2024 than 1973. Housing is not one of them - quite the opposite. The average age for a first time buyer in 1973 was 25. The average age for a first time buyer now is about 10 years on from that.

If you were a 22 year old in 2024 rather than 1973, then on average, you'd be waiting almost another 14 years just to buy your house, nevermind start a business.

 

[LowerSouth]

I don't think anyone would criticise you for clearly working hard or taking risks to build up a business.

But in your own timeline, this started 14 years after you were able to buy your first home at the age of 22. Some things are more affordable (and accessible) in 2024 than 1973. Housing is not one of them - quite the opposite. The average age for a first time buyer in 1973 was 25. The average age for a first time buyer now is about 10 years on from that.

If you were a 22 year old in 2024 rather than 1973, then on average, you'd be waiting almost another 14 years just to buy your house, nevermind start a business.

I’ve edited my post.
1987 should have been March 1980 age 28.
I agree that many areas around home ownership and obtaining finance were less stringent/ more straightforward.

 

[m]

I agree that many areas around home ownership and obtaining finance were less stringent/ more straightforward.

...and of course the average earnings: average property price ratio was way different!