WASPI -Women Against State Pension Inequality

[Hogg 10]

Ok, I'll put it another way. I have as much sympathy for them as babyboomers do for my generation facing retirement in our late 60s/ early 70s (which, based on the ones I've met, is very little).

 

Many boomer women didn't work after having children, or at best went part time. Not many women from my generation can afford that luxury. Juggling work and childcare to help service the debt on the artificially high asset bubble is more the norm.

 

Many of these women in their late fifties are also juggling work and childcare as they are looking after their grandchildren as well possibly, as elderly parents. I know a number of women in this situation and they are permanently and visibly exhausted.

[unbeliever 10]

Maybe part of that is down to the fact that the majority of baby boomer's rented property and didn't have a mortgage and therefore could cope with just one household salary. Today, people are obsessed with having to own their own home and getting into long-term debt with a a mortgage which creates other debt by having loans.

 

Mortgages are cheaper than renting.

Firstly after raising the initial deposit, the monthly payments are on average lower.

Secondly at some point before you retire, you will have paid off the mortgage and no longer have to make payments.

[WiseOwl182 10]

Maybe part of that is down to the fact that the majority of baby boomer's rented property and didn't have a mortgage and therefore could cope with just one household salary. Today, people are obsessed with having to own their own home and getting into long-term debt with a a mortgage which creates other debt by having loans.

 

Except that's completely untrue, because home ownership is actually in decline and renting is increasing. 2014 saw the highest proportion of renters since records began in 1980 (about the time boomers were buying future half million pound houses for twice their average single salary).

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2568559/Home-ownership-England-slips-lowest-level-seen-25-years.html

[xfox3x 10]

Ok, I'll put it another way. I have as much sympathy for them as babyboomers do for my generation facing retirement in our late 60s/ early 70s (which, based on the ones I've met, is very little).

 

Many boomer women didn't work after having children, or at best went part time. Not many women from my generation can afford that luxury. Juggling work and childcare to help service the debt on the artificially high asset bubble is more the norm.

 

Everyone I know that are now in their 60s and 70s is appalled that the retirement age has risen to 68. They have children and grandchildren facing this. They know that although people are living longer it is due to medical intervention for conditions that were once life-limiting. They also know, from experience that a 65 year old body is still a 65 year old body with all it's attendant aches, pains and tiredness.

I actually mentioned this in post #16. We are on our way to a society where 60+ year old workers are expected to work as labourers, nurses, teachers and a generation (or two or three or four) of young people will be frozen out of the job market.

[unbeliever 10]

Everyone I know that are now in their 60s and 70s is appalled that the retirement age has risen to 68. They have children and grandchildren facing this. They know that although people are living longer it is due to medical intervention for conditions that were once life-limiting. They also know, from experience that a 65 year old body is still a 65 year old body with all it's attendant aches, pains and tiredness.

I actually mentioned this in post #16. We are on our way to a society where 60+ year old workers are expected to work as labourers, nurses, teachers and a generation (or two or three or four) of young people will be frozen out of the job market.

 

My bold:

More older people working doesn't mean fewer young people working. That's not how economics works. There is not a fixed amount of work to be done.

[xfox3x 10]

My bold:

More older people working doesn't mean fewer young people working. That's not how economics works. There is not a fixed amount of work to be done.

 

Ah right, thanks. I don't know about economics.

[unbeliever 10]

Deleted by poster as may have perceived non-existent sarcasm.

[xfox3x 10]

Deleted by poster as may have perceived non-existent sarcasm.

 

I wasn't being sarcastic if you mean me. I was saying thank you because what I wrote about 68 year olds working was what I was afraid of for the future.

I really know nothing about economics but what you said makes sense so I said thanks for the info.

[apelike 10]

Except that's completely untrue, because home ownership is actually in decline and renting is increasing. 2014 saw the highest proportion of renters since records began in 1980 (about the time boomers were buying future half million pound houses for twice their average single salary).

 

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mortgageshome/article-2568559/Home-ownership-England-slips-lowest-level-seen-25-years.html

 

Trouble with that is it the way it has been written and only goes back till 1980.

 

The main headline at first states "England moves closer to becoming a nation of renters" and further on then states that "14.3m households own their home vs 7.7m that rent." so which part is right? According to my calculations is 6.6 million short of what was first claimed. Notice also that private renting has now overtaken social renting and in my days as a child social renting among the working class was very normal.

 

Here are some ONS statistics albeit only till 2011.

 

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/a-century-of-home-ownership-and-renting-in-england-and-wales/short-story-on-housing.html

[the_bloke 17]

The increase has been 6 years in some cases with little opportunity to make other provision for retirement.

 

I'm confused. Surely if that is the issue, then why would you complain at having a longer duration in order to make provision for retirement? More time means more opportunity to earn money to provide for yourself in retirement.

 

If it was the reverse, and the retirement age was being brought forward leaving you less time, I'd understand.

 

Actually.. I've just read through the facebook page that's linked. The problem is basically

 

a) having to work longer before getting a state pension

b) people banking on getting the pension at 60 and counting the money they have lost by not being able to have a state pension until 66

 

Comments like:

 

I understand they say the pension pot is empty, but how is it better to keep us working when there are so many younger people out of work claiming housing, income support etc which must run into hundreds of pounds a week. Compared to how much pension we would get it really doesn't make sense!

 

47 years of paying full stamp never joined a private pension and now i have being robbed of 5 yrs pension.

 

Apparently I have to keep contributing to NI in case I need benefits in the future. By the time I am 66 I will have paid 51 years contributions not many youngsters will pay that amount.

 

It is just so unfair that we have to work not one not two but six or more years to get a pension that rightfully belongs to us because we have paid into it most of our lives now have to wait if we are lucky and still alive to receive it.

 

By working longer you'll have more chance of putting money aside ready for retirement (in whatever form, saving, private pension, investments etc). Unless of course the majority of WASPI members are unemployed?

[runningman1 12]

I'm confused. Surely if that is the issue, then why would you complain at having a longer duration in order to make provision for retirement? More time means more opportunity to earn money to provide for yourself in retirement.

 

If it was the reverse, and the retirement age was being brought forward leaving you less time, I'd understand.

 

Actually.. I've just read through the facebook page that's linked. The problem is basically

 

a) having to work longer before getting a state pension

b) people banking on getting the pension at 60 and counting the money they have lost by not being able to have a state pension until 66

 

Comments like:

 

I understand they say the pension pot is empty, but how is it better to keep us working when there are so many younger people out of work claiming housing, income support etc which must run into hundreds of pounds a week. Compared to how much pension we would get it really doesn't make sense!

 

47 years of paying full stamp never joined a private pension and now i have being robbed of 5 yrs pension.

 

Apparently I have to keep contributing to NI in case I need benefits in the future. By the time I am 66 I will have paid 51 years contributions not many youngsters will pay that amount.

 

It is just so unfair that we have to work not one not two but six or more years to get a pension that rightfully belongs to us because we have paid into it most of our lives now have to wait if we are lucky and still alive to receive it.

 

By working longer you'll have more chance of putting money aside ready for retirement (in whatever form, saving, private pension, investments etc). Unless of course the majority of WASPI members are unemployed?

 

I have tried to argue the above but foxi is too bothered to accept the point.

[Ethical 10]

The WASPI point is pretty clear to me. It's about lack of notice not a complaint about equalising State Pension Ages.