I know where you're coming from @zoominmoom and what I'm thinking is that if A contributed then their "pot" should be safe to pay them their pension.I understand that as life expectancy increased, it was no longer feasible for the government to fund people to retire at 60. For the average woman, that's almost 30 years of life they'd be receiving a State Pension. HOWEVER - life expectancy in the UK is now declining in some regions. Will the government roll back the State Pension age to reflect this? I won't hold my breath!
As an aside, I'm not really sure how the State Pension was ever thought to be sustainable - isn't it just a giant Ponzi scheme?! The State Pension of current retirees is funded by the National Insurance contributions of working people, so if Bob claims State Pension, Sally, Pete and Anne have to pay for it through their taxes. When Sally, Pete and Anne retire, they will each need 3 working people (or however many) to fund their State Pensions, and so on it goes. Maybe someone who understands it a bit more than me can put me right on this, but I don't get how it's meant to work unless the population continues to increase infinitely.
However, it seems that "X, Y and Z" are now contributing, therefore "A" is only able to receive a proportion of their pot, as older people have been paid from 'A", "A" is now relying on "X, Y and Z" to support them.
Sounds ridiculous and impossible to explain, but if you understand what I'm trying to explain then you'll understand the frustration that WASPI women are going through.