As a Waspi woman, Hannah Nemeth stands to receive a windfall if Labour win power next month, but argues that the potential pension payout would be better spent on the health service.
If Labour confounds the latest poll from YouGov and is able to form a government, then I will be due for a windfall of £12,833 over five years – that’s £2,566 a year.
I’m already thinking about how I would spend this pension payout – paying off credit card bills, helping my two kids with deposits for their first homes or just helping to clear their debts, going on a few holidays or splurging on a trip to Ikea or John Lewis. But, deep down, I believe my potential windfall would be better spent elsewhere – on improving the ailing NHS.
- GE 2019: What will Labour's policies do for your personal finances?
- Your essential guide to: the state pension and how the goalposts will shift in future
- Labour’s WASPI pledge: how much compensation will be received and how will it be funded?
- Stay in the loop on pensions: sign up to our newsletter
Born at the tail-end of the 50s, for the first 15 years of my working life I expected to receive my state pension at 60. And this did affect my retirement planning – I took out a personal pension plan in my mid-20s and I factored into my pension forecast that I would receive my state pension at 60.
I do recall receiving a letter explaining that my state pension age would go up from 60 to 65 – and I remember feeling dejected and angry.
When the 1995 Pensions Act was introduced, I was self-employed with two young children and wasn’t earning enough to plough extra cash into my pension pot and make up for a shortfall in 25 years’ time.
In 2011, I accepted the change to my state pension age from 65 to 66 with greater equanimity because it didn’t seem such a big leap.
While I have lost out on six years of state pension, to some extent I have had time to play catch-up – however, not all women have been so lucky.
I am a ‘Waspi’ – one of the Women Against State Pension Inequality – but only out of support for those who are most adversely affected, such as women born from 6 April 1953 to 5 April 1955, who had their retirement plans snatched away from them.
I have friends in this age group who have found it hard to see other women who celebrated their birthday just a few months before them accessing their state pension months or years earlier.
The other groups that I believe should be compensated are workers on low incomes, struggling to make ends meet and unable to make up the shortfall, along with self-employed women who couldn’t fall back on a company pension plan or afford to pay more into a private pension.
I am puzzled why Labour would propose a compensation scheme that will be universal. While I am not in favour of means-testing, I do feel there should be a cap on compensation to the wealthiest women in our society.
Much has been made of the fact that Theresa May would receive £22,000 under Labour’s compensation scheme – she earns £79,468 a year as an MP.
But what about ITV breakfast host Lorraine Kelly, born on 30 November 1959, who would be entitled to £2,191, and is said to be worth more than £4 million? Or actor Emma Thompson, born 15 April 1959 and said to be worth $45 million, who would be entitled to a payout of £5,966?
Let’s keep the compensation for those who really need it or those who were most adversely affected by being at the cusp of when these changes started to take place.
And if money can be found in the government’s coffers for this – and that’s a big if – let it go to our beleaguered NHS. That way, both men and women can benefit, getting the best treatment possible as quickly as possible – something more of us will need as we head towards retirement.
Image accompanying this article: Labour posted a 'calculator' online to show how much so-called Waspi women could get back in state pension payments.
This article was first written by our sister magazine Moneywise.
Wouldn't the extra money injected into the economy lead to bigger tax takes in the long run? Unless of course those who don't really need it spirit surplus money away to overseas bank accounts.
State pension discrimination
Any chance of pension age compensation for men ?
I feel that any payout to Waspi women should be means tested to eliminate those women who are wealthy and therefore do not need it i.e Emma Thompson , Lorraine Kelly. I would love to donate any personal entitlement to the NHS. However, I would not be able to do this since at the age of 63 I am too ill to work and rely on my husbands pension to survive.
Maybe it could be left for the individual to decide, what they would do with their windfall - if, and it is a big if, it ever happens
Naive and simplistic not up to MO standards
I am not a member of any political party but have worked in gov, now retired. I think this is a very simplistic point of view, it raises all the problems of means testing. If someone is arguably entitled to something, why should they have to go through the indignity of being means tested. Secondly means testing is very expensive, that's why every pensioner gets the fuel allowance. The general all party solution is that it is cheaper and simpler to give out whatever people are entitled to and then tax it back from those that don't need it. So the only question is, are people entitled? It is pointless giving out details of wealthy people that benefit from it, why not list all those that get the winter fuel allowance. This isn't what we expect from MO. It falls well short of your usual standards.
Surely deciding to compensate those who 'need it now' a) discriminates against those people (male and female) who did accept the changes to state pension entitlement ages when they were announced and have made appropriate adjustments in the interim to minimise or eliminate the effects? and b) also encourages others across all sectors of society not to take responsibility for their own situations, now or in the future, as the state will always bail them out ?
It has come to light that the Waspi compensation is not compensation at all. It will be paid over 5 years and will be treated as income. This means the vast majority of Pension Credit will be lost and some of the housing benefit as well. People like me who have too high an income to claim PC and we get some, but not all of our rent and Council Tax paid will suddenly find we lose any benefit we have.
That means the poorer pensioners will gain nothing.
The wealthier pensioners will lose very little of their “compensation”.
Why can’t they just treat it as it should be ie compensation, then the people who Ned it the most will benefit the most
I assume this was just a big con to get people to vote foe Labour