Mr Average Gets a Free House In His Lifetime That Ms Average Doesn't

olly300

mitchaa wrote: »

Remember this increase from the normal 60/65 scenario is for state pension purposes (which is a pittance anyway) Individual companies will have their own ageing structure.

If you have built up a good pension pot with your employer, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to take early retirement.

I am in a final salary pension scheme and the maximum available for me is 40/60 of my final salary. My 40yr point in the company will be at around the time of my 63rd birthday so if i stay in the company that long there is not a hope in hell i'll be working to the age of 68, ill be taking early retirement.

Final salarly pension what's that?

Seriously you will do well to find an private sector employer still offering a final salarly pension or giving one to existing staff.

Plus I know people in their early 60's who have been forced to retire even though they were happy to continue working even at a lower salarly.

Turnbull2000

SingleSue wrote: »

Or turn it another way.......

Make child rearing an equal thing and have the man stay at home in half the cases.

Woman are only forced into part time work by old fashioned ideas that the woman must do the child rearing, make that equal and that arguement would go away.

Oh and I was/am very very competitive in the workplace, have always put in equal or more hours than the men there and my roles have been extremely demanding.

Why should the woman stay at home and child rear anyway? What makes a woman better at it (in the eyes of some men anyway)? Men are just as capable and just as good at bringing up children.

I'm sure if most mother's would prefer to swap roles, then they'd do just that. Or do you believe the broodish instinct of women to rear children and stay at home is not actually natural, but rather forced on them by the demands of society? Cos that's what your post implies. I guess this leaves the entire animal kingdom guilty of discrimination against the fairer sex.

SingleSue

It's natural for quite a few but how much of that is from years of being told that is the way I have no idea.

I didn't find being a stop at home mother natural, my wanting to work was just as strong as it had been before although yes you do get a little tug at the heart strings at the thought but then I had had many years of hearing my father telling my brother that his role in life was to work and then my father telling me my role was to get a little job which I would give up the moment I got married - the unfairness of that irked me, so I rebelled against it.

My main arguement was around the discussion that woman should never expect equal pay in the workplace because they MIGHT have children later on in life and when equally if they did, then the male member of the partnership may actually stay at home to rear.

It was just my bad luck that my spouse was not the stay at home dad type so I had to give up my very well paying career to child rear...and then once I had built it all up again after the childrens early years, I had to give it up again when we split up.

As a little side note, my father has finally realised that woman are not just useful for housework and having babies after many years of me having to prove myself to him. I will be the executor of their wills, I help out with all their insurances, I help him letter write and I help my siblings with any advice needed. I have also acted as their advocate when they have had dealings with various medical professionals and years ago, social services when my sister was unwell.....something which my father has come to realise my brother is unable to do as he appears to have not been born with that competitive, questioning, relentless streak in him.

olly300

Turnbull2000 wrote: »

I'm sure if most mother's would prefer to swap roles, then they'd do just that. Or do you believe the broodish instinct of women to rear children and stay at home is not actually natural, but rather forced on them by the demands of society? Cos that's what your post implies. I guess this leaves the entire animal kingdom guilty of discrimination against the fairer sex.

Economics or resources in the animal kingdom.*

If both partners in a couple are working and the women earns less than the man, which is normal if she is younger than the man, and looking into the cost of childcare it realised that it's cheaper if one of them is not working then the lower earner stops working.

However increasly more women are earning the same as or more than their partner. Also lots of employers have flexible working arrangements. So childcare especially once the child goes to school can be split between both parties.

I work in a male dominated profession and find more men have children working in the profession then women. (Women don't tend to admit they have any children what so ever or if they do they are teenagers otherwise they don't get the job in the first place.)
In addition more of the men are:
1. working part-time
2. come in at a certain time after taking their child to school/nursery or leave at 4.30pm to put their child to bed and let their wife go to work.

*There are instances in the animal kingdom where both partners take turns sitting on eggs and feeding the young.

PasturesNew

mitchaa wrote: »

Remember this increase from the normal 60/65 scenario is for state pension purposes (which is a pittance anyway) Individual companies will have their own ageing structure.

If you have built up a good pension pot with your employer, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to take early retirement.

I am in a final salary pension scheme and the maximum available for me is 40/60 of my final salary. My 40yr point in the company will be at around the time of my 63rd birthday so if i stay in the company that long there is not a hope in hell i'll be working to the age of 68, ill be taking early retirement.

I have no pension though. Most small private companies don't offer one. Most larger companies used to need you to work for them for two years before you were allowed in too.

My landlord bought this flat (and 3 others) because he had a good pension due ... and it folded/lost all the money. So he was left with about £50/year instead of £25k

StevieJ

PasturesNew wrote: »

Good. Somebody needs to be working to be paying for my pension

But she is not working!

StevieJ

mitchaa wrote: »

Remember this increase from the normal 60/65 scenario is for state pension purposes (which is a pittance anyway) Individual companies will have their own ageing structure.

If you have built up a good pension pot with your employer, there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to take early retirement.

I am in a final salary pension scheme and the maximum available for me is 40/60 of my final salary. My 40yr point in the company will be at around the time of my 63rd birthday so if i stay in the company that long there is not a hope in hell i'll be working to the age of 68, ill be taking early retirement.

I am in one of the best pension schemes in the country, and even they have increased it to 65 for new entrants and changed the number of years to qualify for a maximum.

StevieJ

SingleSue wrote: »

It's natural for quite a few but how much of that is from years of being told that is the way I have no idea.

I didn't find being a stop at home mother natural, my wanting to work was just as strong as it had been before although yes you do get a little tug at the heart strings at the thought but then I had had many years of hearing my father telling my brother that his role in life was to work and then my father telling me my role was to get a little job which I would give up the moment I got married - the unfairness of that irked me, so I rebelled against it.

My main arguement was around the discussion that woman should never expect equal pay in the workplace because they MIGHT have children later on in life and when equally if they did, then the male member of the partnership may actually stay at home to rear.

It was just my bad luck that my spouse was not the stay at home dad type so I had to give up my very well paying career to child rear...and then once I had built it all up again after the childrens early years, I had to give it up again when we split up.

As a little side note, my father has finally realised that woman are not just useful for housework and having babies after many years of me having to prove myself to him. I will be the executor of their wills, I help out with all their insurances, I help him letter write and I help my siblings with any advice needed. I have also acted as their advocate when they have had dealings with various medical professionals and years ago, social services when my sister was unwell.....something which my father has come to realise my brother is unable to do as he appears to have not been born with that competitive, questioning, relentless streak in him.

little job which I would give up the moment I got married - the unfairness of that irked me, so I rebelled against it.

And that is unfair?

Pobby

PasturesNew wrote: »

Are you sure? Mine's 66.

Thought the max was now 65. My sis in law is 50 and hers is 65. My wife missed out by a couple of months and has to go on to 61.

Gorgeous_George

A woman born between 6 April 1955 and 5 April 1959 inclusive will retire at 65.

Those born before 6 April 1955 will retire before they are 65 and those born after 5 April 1959 will retire at 65+.

I plan to jack it in at 55.

GG