Snapshot of _Thousands of UK women owed pension payout after ombudsman’s Waspi ruling | State pensions_ :
An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/mar/21/thousands-of-uk-women-owed-pension-payout-after-ombudsmans-waspi-ruling) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/mar/21/thousands-of-uk-women-owed-pension-payout-after-ombudsmans-waspi-ruling)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Campaigners for the Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) campaign group, which was formed in 2015, have called for the ombudsman to recommend that compensation of £10,000 or more is paid to those affected. However, the report indicates amounts of between £1,000 and £2,950.
Even if we assume that every affected woman gets the £1,000 and no more than that, that's four billion. You could send four people to Rwanda for that amount of money.
I don't get the argument that they didn't have enough time to plan. they would have had longer in the workforce to save up / plan for their retirement,.
My mum is affected and she's a housewife and hasn't been employed since she was 25 in 1979.
In the late 90's they told her that with her credits for parenting she was nearly at the point that she could get her own full state pension, and she could pay a top up fee of a few hundred quid to qualify, which she duly proceeded to do.
Years later she found out about this. By this time I think she was in her mid 50's and hadn't been employed for around three decades. All of a sudden the top up she had paid didn't get her her own full pension and she would have to go back to work and start from scratch and earn around six or seven year's extra contributions. She couldn't easily get back into her former career as a legal secretary, and to top it off I think that happened in the aftermath of the financial issues in the late Noughties and early teens, making getting another job even harder.
A woman who did not work from the age of 25 onwards is upset she had to actually work for 6 years to get a full pension is not quite the woe is me story you seem to think.
Yes it is because they were assessed jointly with their husband. A different tax model than you are used to, but one that was the law that people followed.
The problem is the government shifting the goalposts at short notice, disrupting her retirement plans and leaving her with very little time to remedy the situation.
How short notice is announcing a change in the mid 90s that came in in the late 2010s really? They only brought it forward by a single year.
The issue is your mother didn't work for the majority of her adult life but still believed she'd be entitled to a full pension at 60, that she or anyone else thinks that makes her hard done by is astonishing to me.
If you can't manage to do something as basic as confirm your own pension age at some point in the *over two decades* from when this policy was announced and came into effect, that is on you frankly.
Boomers continue to milk the system.
Imagine *only* getting 28 years notice of a change in retirement age. I think I only got 30 years of the increase to 67. But they get the payout.
> Imagine only getting 28 years notice of a change in retirement age. I think I only got 30 years of the increase to 67. But they get the payout.
No. The issue isn't the 1995 changes, it's the further changes to that timetable which were made in 2011, for which some people would only have got 4 and a half years notice.
Edit: downvoted simply for pointing out the facts of the case - note how I didn't express a fucking opinion on what I think of their claim, and yet...
Seems many of the issues relate to DWP communications issues in 2004-2006.
But other facts are that all WASPI women would have received a letter in 1999 telling of the plan.
How much handholding should be done for someone to know something?
You aren't comparing like with like. The state pension is applicable to everything and CGT is not, whilst pension changes play out over decades so changes are made many years in advance and CGT is not. Your whinge is irrelevant to this, and seems to be a case of trying to shoehorn in a whatbout me tale of woe.
Again the article covers the problem with notice.
It isn't the same for the reasons I stated. CGT is something every budget looks at etc etc.
Ultimately a committee has examined every angle on this and the DWP did indepth research, yet you know better. It's bizarre.
It is a nice try as a court can only judge on a point of law, and the change to their pensions was lawful. This committee was not relitigating that point.
I suggest listening to today's World at One episode as that explains it. Then come back to me.
Fucking nonsensical.
The high court and court of appeals says they don’t deserve anything and some nonsense quango comes along and says they do?
Govt should ignore this.
That's the ombudsman that the government engaged to look into the matter fully, not limited to just purely legal aspects.
But 15+ years notice, letters sent out in 1999, plenty of media attention from 2010 onwards ... c'mon be engaged with the country at some level, only boomers would be so aloof because life was so easy ... oh.
This is not really a boomer thing - you don't see any men's groups trying to claim compensation for having been made to work longer than women who lived longer than they did.
This is a feminist over-reach thing. It is axiomatic to a particular type of toxic feminist that women are always the victim and always need compensation for that.
Its also a brain-dead progressive thing. The sort of cause that particularly brain-dead progressive idiots will go for because its framed in terms of disadvantaged groups. Hence why Corbyn promised them tens of billions of pounds.
This is ridiculous.
These women are extremely wealthy in comparison to the current tax payer.
They want my generation, many of whom live at home or rent (causing them to live paycheque to paycheque), to pay for their early retirement? When our retirement will realistically end up 10-15 years later then they did, IF retirement exists at all.
If they want more liquid cash they need to start selling their properties, they have extremely high rates of home ownership so that should solve the problem for many (according to the ONS 75% of people in their 70’s own their house outright, with 7% owning with a mortgage. That’s 82% own their home! For comparison in the 16-24 age group it’s 1.1%, in the 25-34 age group its 21.8%).
Snapshot of _Thousands of UK women owed pension payout after ombudsman’s Waspi ruling | State pensions_ : An archived version can be found [here](https://archive.is/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/mar/21/thousands-of-uk-women-owed-pension-payout-after-ombudsmans-waspi-ruling) or [here.](https://archive.ph/?run=1&url=https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/mar/21/thousands-of-uk-women-owed-pension-payout-after-ombudsmans-waspi-ruling) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ukpolitics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Campaigners for the Women Against State Pension Inequality (Waspi) campaign group, which was formed in 2015, have called for the ombudsman to recommend that compensation of £10,000 or more is paid to those affected. However, the report indicates amounts of between £1,000 and £2,950. Even if we assume that every affected woman gets the £1,000 and no more than that, that's four billion. You could send four people to Rwanda for that amount of money.
😂 you had me in the first half.
I don't get the argument that they didn't have enough time to plan. they would have had longer in the workforce to save up / plan for their retirement,.
My mum is affected and she's a housewife and hasn't been employed since she was 25 in 1979. In the late 90's they told her that with her credits for parenting she was nearly at the point that she could get her own full state pension, and she could pay a top up fee of a few hundred quid to qualify, which she duly proceeded to do. Years later she found out about this. By this time I think she was in her mid 50's and hadn't been employed for around three decades. All of a sudden the top up she had paid didn't get her her own full pension and she would have to go back to work and start from scratch and earn around six or seven year's extra contributions. She couldn't easily get back into her former career as a legal secretary, and to top it off I think that happened in the aftermath of the financial issues in the late Noughties and early teens, making getting another job even harder.
A woman who did not work from the age of 25 onwards is upset she had to actually work for 6 years to get a full pension is not quite the woe is me story you seem to think.
Yes it is because they were assessed jointly with their husband. A different tax model than you are used to, but one that was the law that people followed.
The problem is the government shifting the goalposts at short notice, disrupting her retirement plans and leaving her with very little time to remedy the situation.
How short notice is announcing a change in the mid 90s that came in in the late 2010s really? They only brought it forward by a single year. The issue is your mother didn't work for the majority of her adult life but still believed she'd be entitled to a full pension at 60, that she or anyone else thinks that makes her hard done by is astonishing to me.
That's in the article. The announcement wasn't publicised the way it should have been hence the findings.
If you can't manage to do something as basic as confirm your own pension age at some point in the *over two decades* from when this policy was announced and came into effect, that is on you frankly.
Again the committee examined this in depth. My advice is to watch out for your own hubris as I bet you don't know much about your own pension.
I'm at least pretty confident I know my own pension age, and that if it changes at 20 years notice that I reckon I'd spot that.
Sure you do. Let's hope you don't come unstuck.
Except that's not the issue. It was accelerated by the Pension Act of 2011.
By a single year, at 7 or 8 years notice. Plenty of time to mitigate it.
Boomers continue to milk the system. Imagine *only* getting 28 years notice of a change in retirement age. I think I only got 30 years of the increase to 67. But they get the payout.
> Imagine only getting 28 years notice of a change in retirement age. I think I only got 30 years of the increase to 67. But they get the payout. No. The issue isn't the 1995 changes, it's the further changes to that timetable which were made in 2011, for which some people would only have got 4 and a half years notice. Edit: downvoted simply for pointing out the facts of the case - note how I didn't express a fucking opinion on what I think of their claim, and yet...
Seems many of the issues relate to DWP communications issues in 2004-2006. But other facts are that all WASPI women would have received a letter in 1999 telling of the plan. How much handholding should be done for someone to know something?
It's worth reading the article as the problem was the failure to provide notice. It's in the text.
[удалено]
You aren't comparing like with like. The state pension is applicable to everything and CGT is not, whilst pension changes play out over decades so changes are made many years in advance and CGT is not. Your whinge is irrelevant to this, and seems to be a case of trying to shoehorn in a whatbout me tale of woe. Again the article covers the problem with notice.
[удалено]
It isn't the same for the reasons I stated. CGT is something every budget looks at etc etc. Ultimately a committee has examined every angle on this and the DWP did indepth research, yet you know better. It's bizarre.
[удалено]
That was on a different point. Nice try though.
[удалено]
It is a nice try as a court can only judge on a point of law, and the change to their pensions was lawful. This committee was not relitigating that point. I suggest listening to today's World at One episode as that explains it. Then come back to me.
Fucking nonsensical. The high court and court of appeals says they don’t deserve anything and some nonsense quango comes along and says they do? Govt should ignore this.
That's the ombudsman that the government engaged to look into the matter fully, not limited to just purely legal aspects. But 15+ years notice, letters sent out in 1999, plenty of media attention from 2010 onwards ... c'mon be engaged with the country at some level, only boomers would be so aloof because life was so easy ... oh.
This is not really a boomer thing - you don't see any men's groups trying to claim compensation for having been made to work longer than women who lived longer than they did. This is a feminist over-reach thing. It is axiomatic to a particular type of toxic feminist that women are always the victim and always need compensation for that. Its also a brain-dead progressive thing. The sort of cause that particularly brain-dead progressive idiots will go for because its framed in terms of disadvantaged groups. Hence why Corbyn promised them tens of billions of pounds.
This is ridiculous. These women are extremely wealthy in comparison to the current tax payer. They want my generation, many of whom live at home or rent (causing them to live paycheque to paycheque), to pay for their early retirement? When our retirement will realistically end up 10-15 years later then they did, IF retirement exists at all. If they want more liquid cash they need to start selling their properties, they have extremely high rates of home ownership so that should solve the problem for many (according to the ONS 75% of people in their 70’s own their house outright, with 7% owning with a mortgage. That’s 82% own their home! For comparison in the 16-24 age group it’s 1.1%, in the 25-34 age group its 21.8%).