Know what a WASPI is? It's ladies of a certain age (again) against pension inequality. The inequality is that they have been put equal to men and have to retire at 65. It doesn't make sense. What they're really against is equality. For all the many, many years that women packed in at 60 and men had to go on another half decade, even though women live longer than men, even though men often have more physically exhausting jobs, you NEVER heard men bleating about the pensions inequality and far less forming groups to whinge and moan about it on Radio 4. The women didn't know about the changes they said. They are the same ones who didn't know the storm was coming. It was all over the news of course and maybe they ought to have written to them sooner when they first decided it 20 years or so ago. But that does not mean we ought to give a 10 point something billion pound gift to these uninformed ladies. And they ought to appreciate that the way things are with the finances currently, the hospitals and schools etc are far more deserving of cash than they are. I hope this is not a 'farmers' or 'winter fuel' thing that will run and run for weeks of whinge.
Doubt it warrants a separate thread, tbh. You’re still totally missing the point on the storm, though.
Wasn't this a 'major' campaign issue during Labour's 2019 GE campaign - you know the one the Tories won with a 40+ seat majority...
When in oppo Labour saying they had a case and would sort it when in power, now Rach says we can't afford to help.
Labour have sorted it. They've apologised and 'learned lessons'. I'm not sure the Tories would even have done that. I don't understand why sorting it equates to working people bunging a massive amount of money (collectively, as for most of the individuals it would be insignificant) to a cohort who have largely done well out of their adult lives in a way which current and upcoming generations are unlikely to be able to match. And arguably the government can't afford it having also been left with the compensation bills for the Post Office and infected blood scandals - that's in the order of £12bn. Both of those groups were far harder done by.
I absolutely agree but can't see how it applies here. This comes down to some people didn't get a letter, which was one piece of a much bigger picture and certainly not the only way for them to find out. And would likely have been binned by most of them on receipt anyway.
All woman should be demanding that they should get what the Waspi woman were expecting . As for wanting equality I totally agree . Howabout everyone fights to be paid the state pension at 60 as opposed to demanding that we all get it at 67 or whatever age it will be put back to in future ? Hence my comment "race to the bottom" because , let's face it , we are never told how many hospitals are going to be built because of this . Lastly , there are a lot of assumptions over people of a certain age , that they all live in £500k plus houses, mortgage paid , on easy street , well that's not everyone and the vast majority of those people are not responsible for the broken system . That is on the politicians . So , please don't fall for the divide and rule ploy, back in the day there was a song called "If the kids are united" some kids didn't listen .
I don't see how it would be remotely affordable to have a state pension payable at 60 when the average life expectancy now is above 80 (unless you want it to pay out about £1,000 per year). I know that isn't the case all across the UK and so there might be an argument for some regions to get it sooner. Overall I think it would be fairest to link it explicitly to life expectancy. We have a tendency to put idealistic motives on these types of things but the reality is in 1946 was a set up to pay a modest amount to a modest amount of people for a modest amount of time. The bean counters ensured it was affordable by setting the eligibility date a handful of years before the average person carks it. It's only a relatively recent invention that we put the state pension on a pedestal as some sort of 'super benefit' with by linking it to wage growth through the ridiculous triple lock. I also don't agree people can blame the politicians alone for the outcomes their generation oversaw. It doesn't work like that. People need to own what they collectively voted for. What I do believe is there's no good reason why the private sector shouldn't be able to provide occupational pension schemes broadly in line with the currently open schemes in the public sector. The withdrawal of private businesses from providing proper pensions at all, even while it's fair to say final salary schemes aren't affordable, is a complete abdication. There's more money than ever there but where has it gone?
So people should take the blame for something they didn’t vote for because others did so at the same time? On that basis you should take the blame for Brexit.
We collectively vote wrong every single time ? But in 20\30 years time everything will be fine because the younger generation will vote the right way ? I'm not so sure . Maybe it's the lousy political options that are the problem ?
It's their own fault. It would be like me getting compensation for my own pension start date being put back 2 years because nobody told me it was not automatic at 65 any more. What have they lost out on anyway? The pension is only £10k ish. Can they not work in Tescos or the local caff to make it up?
Yes, absolutely. I think it's something we'll have to apologise to our children and maybe even grandchildren for. I can say I didn't vote for it but that doesn't absolve me.
But with most private pensions it can be accessed early although you lose 5% per year . You cannot access the S.P. early as far as I know . If you are fortuous enough to be in a position to say "it's only 10k" then you should not assume that everyone else is .
Sorry but the public get the politics they deserve. The general public as a collective are short-sighted and hyper short-termist, bigoted, selfish, pretty thick and struggle with basic comprehension. Is it any wonder there's little incentive for politicians or political parties to strive to achieve a grand work of political art rather than just fart out whatever populist policies give them the best chance of clinging to power the next time the great unwashed have a say?
I completely disagree. I’ve voted Labour all my life, I don’t see how in any sense it is my fault that Thatcher, Major, Cameron, Johnson et al have ****ed the country up. I’m willing to take it on the chin for Starmer.
They do "have a case" for compensation as the communication does appear to have been bodged (although I think they should take some responsibility for not doing their "own research"). But I agree with the government on this occasion. With the perilous state of public finances and our crumbling infrastructure, we simply have far more pressing and worthy causes to spend £10bn+ on.
My "it's only £10k" was not a reflection on the value or need of that £10k. It was to say "okay, you didn't know you wouldn't be getting a pension, but you have options to replace that money quite easily, so can you tell us why the rest of us should fund you sitting on your arse for the next 5 years?" What has accessing private pensions got to do with anything? Go and work on a till at Tesco instead.
The pension age is going up to 67 for those born after April 1960 and up to 68 for those born after April 1977 (although there's a review to see whether that should be changed to people born after April 1978). These increases have been on the books for years. This issue has highlighted the breakdown in the societal contract for many people. The relationship between work and earnings is completely broken, with so many low-paid jobs, bad contracts and insecurity. Too many people can't afford to live in the here and now let alone save for their retirement. Look at the howls from businesses at being told to contribute more to employee NI. If anyone dare suggest company contributions to employee pensions the usual suspects would scream blue murder that companies would fold. And in some cases they'd have a point. One problem is the nature of the discussion around work and wages is completely dysfunctional. Companies make 'record profits' but there's no money for workers. The answer? Not sure, other than to educate children to become private enterprises from an early age – save or preferably invest as soon as you start earning. (I wish I'd understood the benefits of investing over saving when I was in my 20s). All in all, a headlong rush into an American way of life where you are on your own to look after yourself. Any state support is contested, resented and, eventually, unavailable. Pay for your future. Pay for your health insurance. Pay, pay, pay. It's a great system as long as the corporations want to share their wealth with the workers. As we've seen from some enormous companies that make massive profits, they often don't want to do that.
Throughout their lives a lot of them will have had the opportunity for free university, housing only 3x salary, the option of 110% mortgages during mass deregulation, maximum 10-20% tax rates, free council housing, right to buy. Who cares? Water canon them.
This brings to mind The Thick of It episode where Malcolm Tucker eviscerates Nicola Murray saying: 'Now, please, just **** off back to your home, you headless frump, and prepare for your column in Grazia' and Dan Miller deadpans: 'Steady on, Malcolm, that's a bit strong.'
These changes were first announced in 1996, I believe an announcement was made in 2010 that it was to be brought forward by few years from 2020 to 2017; HMRC wrote to those who were going to be affected, either directly or via employers from 2010. The vast majority of those affected obviously read the material and dealt with it, no doubt with the odd grumble here and there. These WASPI types are a collection of those who obviously didn't bother reading and dealing with it when it was announced.
The Ombudsman has determined that there was some maladministration, so it's not as straightforward as this.
Well yes to an extent but the underlying issue is that there was plenty of time from the announcement in 2010 to the implementation in 2017 or 2018, in fact the people it affected could have worked for extra years and earned more; I suspect the underlying motivation for the wealthier ones is that they couldn't go and sit on a beach in the Maldives as early as they would have liked.
One good thing that might come out of this is that political parties won't just jump on any bandwagon that might discomfort their opponents because they will have to deal with it when they get elected. Doubt it though.
Also they might think twice when trying to extract more cheap money by screwing pensions. Hell may freeze over also.
So let those people actually involved seek legal redress for the actual damage they have suffered. The number who are actively impacted and didn't contribute to their own situation will be vanishingly small.
All I am saying is that it can't be as simple as 'the women didn't bother to read it' as, if so, there would have been no maladministration. The finding means that government could have done better than it did. For the avoidance of doubt, I don't personally think they should be compensated.
Good god no. What's that's going to cost in lawyers to defend. Unless we have a government populated with lawyers who like to furnish their friends pockets and have no idea about financial consequences that will never happen. Oh.....
I don't think there is any potential legal action here anyway. Maladministration isn't in itself a legal cause of action. The Ombusman isn't supposed to be used where legal action could take place, so that avenue should already have been explored.
My wife’s pension start date was pushed back a little by this, but not by as much as some of her friends’. The amount of micky-taking and ‘faux anger’ that was expended between them all seemed to indicate they were all well aware of what was happening. And I’m not sure any had to wait any longer than most men. I’ve always found it a bit of a strange issue to have attracted so much attention.
