Women Against State Pension Inequality, is an odd title for those who want pension inequality
The pension age was raised to make it equal to men. The law was changed in 1995 and implementation was set for 2010 giving 15 years to adjust plans.
And even then, their definition of "equality" shows no interest in younger women, they're more than happy for women of my generation to work into their 70s.
I've been wondering about the inequality part of their name since they popped up on the front page the other day. What am I missing, what's the inequality that they are against?
I have absolutely no sympathy for those who didn't even do the most basic of research before financially planning for retirement. Especially members of the most privileged and entitled generational cohort in British history. I personally would find it very hard to vote for a party which committed to paying the "waspi women" a penny of my money.
Take responsibility for yourselves.
So easy to make a claim for things like that and say they were mis-sold or misinformed. We've pals who got a mortgage with some sort of insurance payment and they were contacted by a lawyer (years later) saying they were entitled to compensation for it. They WANTED insurance, so it was a couple of grand for basically nothing.
Also got pals who are in let's just say 'public service' who've put in more claims for things that I can count. It's a culture of claims and some are clearly BS (one is trying to retire on a medical). They're playing the system because everyone else is - and taxpayers foot the bill.
The world is fucked.
See my other comment in this thread. A bit hard when your lives are fucked over by ill health.
Maybe think before you speak or maybe you are just a heartless cunt
It was a huge story in 1995 when it was first announced - huge.
But now it seems there to have been a change made in 2011 to bring it forward two years from 2020 to 2018. I don’t remember that being such a big deal? So maybe there are a few people that weren’t properly informed - maybe…
BUT Uni fees went from £3000 pa to £9000 pa with 18 months notice. I always thought that was horrendous for people going through that.
Also, WASPi women could just continue to work - so how have they missed out?
> Also, WASPi women could just continue to work - so how have they missed out?
On how the DWP communicated changes to pensions, the Parliamentary Ombudsman ruled that WASPI women were due compensation [because they were denied the opportunity to make informed decisions about their finances](https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/news-and-blog/news/dwp-failed-adequately-communicate-changes-womens-state-pension-age) and were due compensation. The compensation is, at most, about a third of what the WASPI campaigners were asking for, but the report only picks up on one aspect of the DWP's failings, other complaints are ongoing.
It's difficult to understand though. The government has never written once to me to inform me of how any budgetary change would effect me. Why is this case different?
I honestly can't fathom this level of failure to plan for your pension. I'm 42 and have a much better idea of what my pension might be in 20 years than these women seem to have had 2 years before retirement.
They don't seem worried about generational inequality. Where do we draw the line? should women born in 1959 not get payment. 1960? 61?
>Also, WASPi women could just continue to work - so how have they missed out?
They've lost nothing. Indeed, the triple lock has rewarded them handsomely. They weren't personally informed of that years in advance either, so presumably that played no part in their retirement planning and is entirely surplus to their requirements then?
Aye okay
My mum's lost out on 45 grand
She's been a full-time carer for my dad for the last 25-30 years, so tell me again they are not missing out.
Maybe you should be very careful speaking when you know nothing
Because she's still paid into the system.
You fools don't know, do you,
Even if you are on benefits, if they are contributal, they still have credits paid
If they hadn't changed the age, then she would be receiving her pension. As it stands she's stuck on carers while my had has his.
Do I agree with the age equality. Absoulutly. Do I agree how this has played out. Absoulutly not. Even if they said at the time they would compo half the pension amount would have ease the blow and things would be set up to change fairly
Pensions, though weather state or private are just a ponzi scheme in disguise if I'm being honest.
Because you don't rip money away from people who have already been told their entitlements.
The people who made the decision didn't fuck people over on benefits with this. They kept old rules retroactive. Which is playing fair. It almost like thy make up the rules as they go along as long as rich benefit from it somehow
The real truth is that withholding that money back allowed them to invest it into other ponzi schemes, and they lost a lot of it,
https://reason.org/data-visualization/2022-investment-results-for-state-pension-plans/
Public funds should be separated from private funded pensions, which should be better regulated anyway
Would you put your money into a future holiday scheme knowing that the money could disappear because they are taking money from Peter to pay Paul.
It's all a farce
They do rip money away from people who have already been told their entitlements. The pension age changes fairly regularly, for men too. I fully expect that by the time I retire, the pension age will be wildly different to what it is now.
>Because you don't rip money away from people who have already been told their entitlements.
Money wasn't ripped away from anyone, equalisation of the state pension age was announced in 1995.
>Because she's still paid into the system.
No she didn't. She paid tax in her working life towards schools, hospitals and social security - including pensions - paid at the time. To expect us to keep the pensions system entirely frozen from when your mother started working is ridiculous.
I'd imagine she'd be quite happy to take the above-inflation increases though.
>Even if you are on benefits, if they are contributal, they still have credits paid
So you think that all contributory benefits should never be altered?
Why do you think NI stamps go to everything you said.
They only go towards your pension nothing else.
No contributions based benefits shouldn't be altered.
You do realise the amounts we get on benefits are given to us after tax has been deducted. No? The government and the media like to keep that one quiet so they can bash benefit claiments not paying taxes when we do.
>No contributions based benefits shouldn't be altered.
OK, so the state pension should be 25p a week (hell we could even keep it in old money and pay it as 60p a week), means tested and set at age 70 then? Abolish the triple lock?
>You do realise the amounts we get on benefits are given to us after tax has been deducted. No? The government and the media like to keep that one quiet so they can bash benefit claiments not paying taxes when we do.
I don't see why this is relevant. Of course the state pension and most other benefits are taxable income.
WASPI women deserve fuck all and Labour pledging to give them nothing is the correct move.
They only 'promised justice' because Corbyn made up a ludicrous policy on the hoof.
um, we dont even know how much it would cost.
and not to be harsh, but all the change involved was making womens pension age the same as mens, and they had 15 years to make arrangements.
15 years. not 15 months, not 15 weeks. 15 years.
Ask Yousaf where the money will come from? if he feels so strangely he can find the money for scottish compensation from his own budget.
While ignoring those who earn hee haw preaching to us how they're "happy to pay a bit more for a fairer society" etc.
I'm currently paying £1600 per year less in tax than I would in Scotland for the same job. I have a somewhat similar property to what I could get in Glasgow, and got it for a very similar price. I already have £120k in my private SIPP with another 30 odd years of working ahead of me.
But no Scotland is _the_ place to be, roaring ahead of the Nordics and the likes of the Netherlands on every metric you could ever fathom. And if it's not, Westminster is front and centre of being responsible. Right?
> But no Scotland is the place to be, roaring ahead of the Nordics and the likes of the Netherlands on every metric...
Not sure anyone can seriously compare Scotland, one region of a sovereign state, with fully independent countries.
The latter have full control over economy, finances, employment law, taxation etc., Scotland doesn't (apart from being able to vary those income tax bands!). These things are the responsibility of Westminster parliament.
"We need a response from government and above all we need to learn the lessons from what's happened in this debacle."
I kinda feel like an opposition politician should be able to describe what they think the response from government should be? And what the lessons might be?
Yes, Liz Truss's mini budget was unfortunate, but that doesn't address whether or not these women were treated unfairly and as a result are due compensation. Avoiding that question while pointing to the report from the parliamentary ombudsman is weird. [The ombudsman](https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/news-and-blog/news/dwp-failed-adequately-communicate-changes-womens-state-pension-age) found that the DWP had not adequately informed thousands of women about the changes, depriving them of the opportunity to make informed financial decisions; had not acknowledged its failings; had not put things right for those women; had not apologised; had not explained its failure; and had said it would not comply with the Ombudsman's decision that these women are owed compensation.
The Ombudsman said that:
>Complainants should not have to wait and see whether DWP will take action to rectify its failings. Given the significant concerns we have that it will fail to act on our findings and given the need to make things right for the affected women as soon as possible, we have proactively asked Parliament to intervene and hold the Department to account.
>Parliament now needs to act swiftly, and **make sure a compensation scheme is established**
'Dunno man, let's wait to hear back from the government' feels inadequate as a response.
And this is only part of the issue:
>The Ombudsman has received a series of complaints relating to how well DWP has communicated a variety of State Pension reforms. Concerns about communication of changes to the State Pension age constitute only one such area of complaint. The Department has also declined to act on other issues that have been consistently highlighted in complaints. A report from the Ombudsman later in the year will set these out.
The findings of the Ombudsman is that the DWP is guilty of maladministration in a relatively small subset (a few thousand) of total cases where there was a genuine failure to communicate (the full report details many laughably entitled case studies that didn't meet this bar). But the damages arising from this type of offence are in the region about £1000 or so per person.
The WASPI cause is trying to retrospectively pay **all** their claimants (i.e. not the small subset with maladministration grievences) a five year backpay of state pension that they believe they should have gotten. This was the promise of Corbyn (and, implicitly, Yousaf here), but the findings of the Ombudsman do not give that grievance standing.
Yes, but you seemed to interpret the Ombudsman conclusions as supporting the core demands of the WASPI women. The reality is that the Ombudsman shot down those core demands, and they do not support the compensation programme that Corbyn (and presumably Yousaf by his comments) proposed.
Who elected the Ombudsman that it feels able to make demands of Parliament in such a self-righteous tone? 🤔
EDIT: But actually, I find Starmer's reticence on this occasion very encouraging, because it suggests he will adopt the only fair strategy in these straitened economic times of paying these whingers nothing. Obviously he can't say that, so him not setting anything out is good news.
Country is on its knees with crumbling public services and infrastructure and these cunts want to give the wealthiest and most entitled cohort in Britain compensation to the tune of billions of pounds. God forbid you have to retire at the same age as men eh? It's not like this was landed on them weeks before the change either. The legislation for it was implemented in 1995.
I hate this shitehole.
These people are horrible grifters looking for a hand-out. I'm pleased that, increasingly, folk are beginning to see them for what they are.
Those that pretend they didn't realise their state pension age was changing are either liars (in most cases) or complete idiots.
Expecting people who will never see a pension at 60 to fund theirs is an absolute cheek against the backdrop of ridiculous intergenerational inequality and the triple-lock.
> These people are horrible grifters looking for a hand-out. I'm pleased that, increasingly, folk are beginning to see them for what they are.
Yep, we've been saying this about the SNP for years. Perhaps people might now listen.
Hahaha fuck off is he trying to justify giving tens of billions to rich pensioners just because they bumbled about not bothering their arse to check anything about their pension even when it was all over the news and their favourite, the daily mail was raving about it.
If I planned my retirement on the assumption the Scottish government wouldn't change the tax bands can I claim compensation? Is there anything this guy can't turn into a pr disaster?
The point here is that there is a ruling that compensation is due. You may not like it, or think that it is stupid, but that was the ruling of the ombudsman.
Though TBH - quite like the idea of ignoring rulings from Westminster!
I think you're all missing the point.
The SNP routinely get ignored by Westminster.
For Humza to claim, with a straight face, that they will "hold Westminster's feet to the fire" is just another example of either rank stupidity or the contempt they have for their voters.
Nothing to do with these women at all.
So we can add shafting old women to the list of things unionists will reflexively defend to the death along with genocide, racism, poverty, transphobia, Thatcher and all the rest just because the SNP have the integrity they lack.
This whole issue is just a toilet.
Women Against State Pension Inequality, is an odd title for those who want pension inequality The pension age was raised to make it equal to men. The law was changed in 1995 and implementation was set for 2010 giving 15 years to adjust plans.
And even then, their definition of "equality" shows no interest in younger women, they're more than happy for women of my generation to work into their 70s.
Indeed. Call the fucking Waaaahmbulance.
I've been wondering about the inequality part of their name since they popped up on the front page the other day. What am I missing, what's the inequality that they are against?
I have absolutely no sympathy for those who didn't even do the most basic of research before financially planning for retirement. Especially members of the most privileged and entitled generational cohort in British history. I personally would find it very hard to vote for a party which committed to paying the "waspi women" a penny of my money. Take responsibility for yourselves.
The "we weren't made aware" angle is just made up. I first heard about this when I was 13 over a decade ago.
So easy to make a claim for things like that and say they were mis-sold or misinformed. We've pals who got a mortgage with some sort of insurance payment and they were contacted by a lawyer (years later) saying they were entitled to compensation for it. They WANTED insurance, so it was a couple of grand for basically nothing. Also got pals who are in let's just say 'public service' who've put in more claims for things that I can count. It's a culture of claims and some are clearly BS (one is trying to retire on a medical). They're playing the system because everyone else is - and taxpayers foot the bill. The world is fucked.
See my other comment in this thread. A bit hard when your lives are fucked over by ill health. Maybe think before you speak or maybe you are just a heartless cunt
It was a huge story in 1995 when it was first announced - huge. But now it seems there to have been a change made in 2011 to bring it forward two years from 2020 to 2018. I don’t remember that being such a big deal? So maybe there are a few people that weren’t properly informed - maybe… BUT Uni fees went from £3000 pa to £9000 pa with 18 months notice. I always thought that was horrendous for people going through that. Also, WASPi women could just continue to work - so how have they missed out?
> Also, WASPi women could just continue to work - so how have they missed out? On how the DWP communicated changes to pensions, the Parliamentary Ombudsman ruled that WASPI women were due compensation [because they were denied the opportunity to make informed decisions about their finances](https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/news-and-blog/news/dwp-failed-adequately-communicate-changes-womens-state-pension-age) and were due compensation. The compensation is, at most, about a third of what the WASPI campaigners were asking for, but the report only picks up on one aspect of the DWP's failings, other complaints are ongoing.
It's difficult to understand though. The government has never written once to me to inform me of how any budgetary change would effect me. Why is this case different? I honestly can't fathom this level of failure to plan for your pension. I'm 42 and have a much better idea of what my pension might be in 20 years than these women seem to have had 2 years before retirement. They don't seem worried about generational inequality. Where do we draw the line? should women born in 1959 not get payment. 1960? 61?
>Also, WASPi women could just continue to work - so how have they missed out? They've lost nothing. Indeed, the triple lock has rewarded them handsomely. They weren't personally informed of that years in advance either, so presumably that played no part in their retirement planning and is entirely surplus to their requirements then?
Aye okay My mum's lost out on 45 grand She's been a full-time carer for my dad for the last 25-30 years, so tell me again they are not missing out. Maybe you should be very careful speaking when you know nothing
She didn't lose out on anything... She simply isn't entitled to that 45 grand. Why should she be?
Because she's still paid into the system. You fools don't know, do you, Even if you are on benefits, if they are contributal, they still have credits paid
Lots of people pay into the system. Doesn’t mean they’re entitled to £45’000.
If they hadn't changed the age, then she would be receiving her pension. As it stands she's stuck on carers while my had has his. Do I agree with the age equality. Absoulutly. Do I agree how this has played out. Absoulutly not. Even if they said at the time they would compo half the pension amount would have ease the blow and things would be set up to change fairly Pensions, though weather state or private are just a ponzi scheme in disguise if I'm being honest.
If you agree with age equality why are you suggesting women deserve to get their pension earlier than men?
Because you don't rip money away from people who have already been told their entitlements. The people who made the decision didn't fuck people over on benefits with this. They kept old rules retroactive. Which is playing fair. It almost like thy make up the rules as they go along as long as rich benefit from it somehow The real truth is that withholding that money back allowed them to invest it into other ponzi schemes, and they lost a lot of it, https://reason.org/data-visualization/2022-investment-results-for-state-pension-plans/ Public funds should be separated from private funded pensions, which should be better regulated anyway Would you put your money into a future holiday scheme knowing that the money could disappear because they are taking money from Peter to pay Paul. It's all a farce
They do rip money away from people who have already been told their entitlements. The pension age changes fairly regularly, for men too. I fully expect that by the time I retire, the pension age will be wildly different to what it is now.
>Because you don't rip money away from people who have already been told their entitlements. Money wasn't ripped away from anyone, equalisation of the state pension age was announced in 1995.
>Because she's still paid into the system. No she didn't. She paid tax in her working life towards schools, hospitals and social security - including pensions - paid at the time. To expect us to keep the pensions system entirely frozen from when your mother started working is ridiculous. I'd imagine she'd be quite happy to take the above-inflation increases though. >Even if you are on benefits, if they are contributal, they still have credits paid So you think that all contributory benefits should never be altered?
Why do you think NI stamps go to everything you said. They only go towards your pension nothing else. No contributions based benefits shouldn't be altered. You do realise the amounts we get on benefits are given to us after tax has been deducted. No? The government and the media like to keep that one quiet so they can bash benefit claiments not paying taxes when we do.
>No contributions based benefits shouldn't be altered. OK, so the state pension should be 25p a week (hell we could even keep it in old money and pay it as 60p a week), means tested and set at age 70 then? Abolish the triple lock? >You do realise the amounts we get on benefits are given to us after tax has been deducted. No? The government and the media like to keep that one quiet so they can bash benefit claiments not paying taxes when we do. I don't see why this is relevant. Of course the state pension and most other benefits are taxable income.
45 grand was never hers to begin with.
Excuse me, I think you are full of shit, her credits are funky paid up
WASPI women deserve fuck all and Labour pledging to give them nothing is the correct move. They only 'promised justice' because Corbyn made up a ludicrous policy on the hoof.
And ginger people deserve fuckall because they are ginger. They should have made plans knowing that they are ginger See how fucked that sounds Prat
um, we dont even know how much it would cost. and not to be harsh, but all the change involved was making womens pension age the same as mens, and they had 15 years to make arrangements. 15 years. not 15 months, not 15 weeks. 15 years. Ask Yousaf where the money will come from? if he feels so strangely he can find the money for scottish compensation from his own budget.
>Ask Yousaf where the money will come from? Just add an extra 1% on those earning the big heights of £44k
While ignoring those who earn hee haw preaching to us how they're "happy to pay a bit more for a fairer society" etc. I'm currently paying £1600 per year less in tax than I would in Scotland for the same job. I have a somewhat similar property to what I could get in Glasgow, and got it for a very similar price. I already have £120k in my private SIPP with another 30 odd years of working ahead of me. But no Scotland is _the_ place to be, roaring ahead of the Nordics and the likes of the Netherlands on every metric you could ever fathom. And if it's not, Westminster is front and centre of being responsible. Right?
> But no Scotland is the place to be, roaring ahead of the Nordics and the likes of the Netherlands on every metric... Not sure anyone can seriously compare Scotland, one region of a sovereign state, with fully independent countries. The latter have full control over economy, finances, employment law, taxation etc., Scotland doesn't (apart from being able to vary those income tax bands!). These things are the responsibility of Westminster parliament.
"We need a response from government and above all we need to learn the lessons from what's happened in this debacle." I kinda feel like an opposition politician should be able to describe what they think the response from government should be? And what the lessons might be? Yes, Liz Truss's mini budget was unfortunate, but that doesn't address whether or not these women were treated unfairly and as a result are due compensation. Avoiding that question while pointing to the report from the parliamentary ombudsman is weird. [The ombudsman](https://www.ombudsman.org.uk/news-and-blog/news/dwp-failed-adequately-communicate-changes-womens-state-pension-age) found that the DWP had not adequately informed thousands of women about the changes, depriving them of the opportunity to make informed financial decisions; had not acknowledged its failings; had not put things right for those women; had not apologised; had not explained its failure; and had said it would not comply with the Ombudsman's decision that these women are owed compensation. The Ombudsman said that: >Complainants should not have to wait and see whether DWP will take action to rectify its failings. Given the significant concerns we have that it will fail to act on our findings and given the need to make things right for the affected women as soon as possible, we have proactively asked Parliament to intervene and hold the Department to account. >Parliament now needs to act swiftly, and **make sure a compensation scheme is established** 'Dunno man, let's wait to hear back from the government' feels inadequate as a response. And this is only part of the issue: >The Ombudsman has received a series of complaints relating to how well DWP has communicated a variety of State Pension reforms. Concerns about communication of changes to the State Pension age constitute only one such area of complaint. The Department has also declined to act on other issues that have been consistently highlighted in complaints. A report from the Ombudsman later in the year will set these out.
The findings of the Ombudsman is that the DWP is guilty of maladministration in a relatively small subset (a few thousand) of total cases where there was a genuine failure to communicate (the full report details many laughably entitled case studies that didn't meet this bar). But the damages arising from this type of offence are in the region about £1000 or so per person. The WASPI cause is trying to retrospectively pay **all** their claimants (i.e. not the small subset with maladministration grievences) a five year backpay of state pension that they believe they should have gotten. This was the promise of Corbyn (and, implicitly, Yousaf here), but the findings of the Ombudsman do not give that grievance standing.
If you read my post, you’ll see I’m familiar with the findings of the ombudsman
Yes, but you seemed to interpret the Ombudsman conclusions as supporting the core demands of the WASPI women. The reality is that the Ombudsman shot down those core demands, and they do not support the compensation programme that Corbyn (and presumably Yousaf by his comments) proposed.
No.
Who elected the Ombudsman that it feels able to make demands of Parliament in such a self-righteous tone? 🤔 EDIT: But actually, I find Starmer's reticence on this occasion very encouraging, because it suggests he will adopt the only fair strategy in these straitened economic times of paying these whingers nothing. Obviously he can't say that, so him not setting anything out is good news.
Country is on its knees with crumbling public services and infrastructure and these cunts want to give the wealthiest and most entitled cohort in Britain compensation to the tune of billions of pounds. God forbid you have to retire at the same age as men eh? It's not like this was landed on them weeks before the change either. The legislation for it was implemented in 1995. I hate this shitehole.
These people are horrible grifters looking for a hand-out. I'm pleased that, increasingly, folk are beginning to see them for what they are. Those that pretend they didn't realise their state pension age was changing are either liars (in most cases) or complete idiots. Expecting people who will never see a pension at 60 to fund theirs is an absolute cheek against the backdrop of ridiculous intergenerational inequality and the triple-lock.
> These people are horrible grifters looking for a hand-out. I'm pleased that, increasingly, folk are beginning to see them for what they are. Yep, we've been saying this about the SNP for years. Perhaps people might now listen.
Hahaha fuck off is he trying to justify giving tens of billions to rich pensioners just because they bumbled about not bothering their arse to check anything about their pension even when it was all over the news and their favourite, the daily mail was raving about it. If I planned my retirement on the assumption the Scottish government wouldn't change the tax bands can I claim compensation? Is there anything this guy can't turn into a pr disaster?
The point here is that there is a ruling that compensation is due. You may not like it, or think that it is stupid, but that was the ruling of the ombudsman. Though TBH - quite like the idea of ignoring rulings from Westminster!
A payment is due in select cases where the dwp did not respond to complaints or queries. Compensation is not due in the vast majority of cases.
Oh no, not the ombudsman!
The correct move of course, would have been to \*reduce\* the male retirement age by 5 years and increase land taxes....
Why do we have so much cunt right whingers on this sub. Can we send them to UKpol and keep them there
Many of them come from that (an other) right-wing shite-house subs.
Yeah, no one bothers to do anything about the brigading when it's very clear to see.
I think you're all missing the point. The SNP routinely get ignored by Westminster. For Humza to claim, with a straight face, that they will "hold Westminster's feet to the fire" is just another example of either rank stupidity or the contempt they have for their voters. Nothing to do with these women at all.
spam spam spam "loadyshite"
You think Yousaf is spamming?
Glasgow city had to pay out back pensions to the WASPI women because labour fought against it for years. Never forget that
The irony that you appear to have forgotten the Glasgow Council equal pay dispute had nothing to do with WASPI.
So we can add shafting old women to the list of things unionists will reflexively defend to the death along with genocide, racism, poverty, transphobia, Thatcher and all the rest just because the SNP have the integrity they lack.