Women SPA this week

tempus_fugit

DairyQueen wrote: »

Each time the 'W' word is mentioned on this forum I hear the same arguments for/against (mostly against).

All kinds of associated, but not directly related, issues of gender inequality are briefly mentioned but those issues are generally marginalised.

The specific issue of gender equality in SP age has been done to death. The consensus is that most 50s women (of whom I am one) knew about the equalisation many years prior to its implementation. The consensus is that most of us agree that it is fair and just.

I would like to hear more debate on the much bigger legacy issue of gender inequality - i.e. the inequality in non-SP pensions.

A show of hands from any male whose female spouse has a higher non-SP income/pot than him would be an interesting starting point.

Any takers?

Yes, me for one, as my OH worked in the public sector and therefore has much better, defined benefit pensions than I do, as I worked in the private sector. She will also get one of them at age 60 and one at age 62, so several years earlier than mine. In fact, one of my non-SP pensions I will get at age 65, despite the original pension (it is a s32 buy-out) having a NPA of 60. As it will probably not reach enough to pay the GMP at age 60 I have to wait until age 65 to get it, whereas a female colleague the same age as me on the exact same pension would get hers at age 60. Doesn't seem fair to me.

Pollycat

tempus_fugit wrote: »

Yes, me for one, as my OH worked in the public sector and therefore has much better, defined benefit pensions than I do, as I worked in the private sector. She will also get one of them at age 60 and one at age 62, so several years earlier than mine. In fact, one of my non-SP pensions I will get at age 65, despite the original pension (it is a s32 buy-out) having a NPA of 60. As it will probably not reach enough to pay the GMP at age 60 I have to wait until age 65 to get it, whereas a female colleague the same age as me on the exact same pension would get hers at age 60. Doesn't seem fair to me.

I'd say it isn't fair.
Can they really discriminate like that?

lisyloo

Looks like there’s a ruling on this

https://www.ipe.com/countries/uk/uk-schemes-face-15bn-bill-from-pension-equality-ruling/www.ipe.com/countries/uk/uk-schemes-face-15bn-bill-from-pension-equality-ruling/10027487.fullarticle

Silvertabby

“ Yes, me for one, as my OH worked in the public sector and therefore has much better, defined benefit pensions than I do, as I worked in the private sector. She will also get one of them at age 60 and one at age 62, so several years earlier than mine. In fact, one of my non-SP pensions I will get at age 65, despite the original pension (it is a s32 buy-out) having a NPA of 60. As it will probably not reach enough to pay the GMP at age 60 I have to wait until age 65 to get it, whereas a female colleague the same age as me on the exact same pension would get hers at age 60. Doesn't seem fair to me.
Originally posted by tempus_fugit

Pollycat wrote: »

I'd say it isn't fair.
Can they really discriminate like that?

Only in the case of the GMP element of the pension. Despite the changes in State pension ages, GMP age remains 65 for men and 60 for women (HMRC rules - nothing the pension scheme can do).

The normal retirement age for the LGPS was set at 65 for both men and women when the scheme began in the 1920s, and I'm pretty sure that other public sector schemes were the same.

Again, in the case of the LGPS, someone - male or female - who left with deferred benefits some years ago may be able to take their full benefits from 60 if they meet the Rule of 85.

debtfreeforlife

I am a 33 year old woman and although at the moment my SO age is 67, I am fully expecting it to go up to 70 or even higher by the time I get there. I'm overpaying into my work civil service pension now because i know i will want to go earlier than that. But I am lucky - I'm on a good salary, and although I don't have a partner, I also don't have children so it isn't expected that I'll take time away from my career to raise them (therefore taking time away from paying into an additional pension).


The gender pay gap has been narrowing in recent years - which means that for most of their working lives women born in the 1950s have been discriminated against on the basis of their gender. So long as the gender pay gap still exists, and women are disproportionately affected by cuts to benefits, and are expected to carry most of the burden of childcare, I can completely understand these women's frustrations.

lisyloo

debtfreeforlife wrote: »

I am a 33 year old woman and although at the moment my SO age is 67, I am fully expecting it to go up to 70 or even higher by the time I get there. I'm overpaying into my work civil service pension now because i know i will want to go earlier than that. But I am lucky - I'm on a good salary, and although I don't have a partner, I also don't have children so it isn't expected that I'll take time away from my career to raise them (therefore taking time away from paying into an additional pension).


The gender pay gap has been narrowing in recent years - which means that for most of their working lives women born in the 1950s have been discriminated against on the basis of their gender. So long as the gender pay gap still exists, and women are disproportionately affected by cuts to benefits, and are expected to carry most of the burden of childcare, I can completely understand these women's frustrations.

Women born before 6th November 1953 are advantaged on a sliding scale.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/310231/spa-timetable.pdf

Opportunities e,g, university, benefits, pay have been equalising over that time so we have to make efforts to equalise all areas.
It’s both fair and also we can’t afford it as taxpayers.

If people want to retire early then they need to save for it themselves and not expect it from the taxpayers.

We can’t pick and choose equality and demand it in some areas but want concessions in others.

The point about this case is that these women have known this since 1995. If they had genuine grievances about inequality then they might have mentioned it then don’t you think ??

bugslett

DairyQueen wrote: »

.

A show of hands from any male whose female spouse has a higher non-SP income/pot than him would be an interesting starting point.

Any takers?

Mr Bugs can't reply since he is expired, but he had no pension provision whatsoever and limited savings. I on the other hand had a small pension pot in my early 20s which grew over the years. I was in the long term, always going to be better off than him.

debtfreeforlife wrote: »

I am a 33 year old woman and although at the moment my SO age is 67, I am fully expecting it to go up to 70 or even higher by the time I get there. I'm overpaying into my work civil service pension now because i know i will want to go earlier than that. But I am lucky - I'm on a good salary, and although I don't have a partner, I also don't have children so it isn't expected that I'll take time away from my career to raise them (therefore taking time away from paying into an additional pension).


The gender pay gap has been narrowing in recent years - which means that for most of their working lives women born in the 1950s have been discriminated against on the basis of their gender. So long as the gender pay gap still exists, and women are disproportionately affected by cuts to benefits, and are expected to carry most of the burden of childcare, I can completely understand these women's frustrations.

My retirement age is 67, it was 60 when I left school. I have no issue with it.

Gender pay gap. I'm not aware of experiencing it and I started work in 1982. AFAIK, I have always been paid the same as a man if I did an equivalent job (for clarity, I have only worked for small firms and i was usually the only person doing that specific job, but generally it was what could be considered a 'male' job).

I ran my own business to paid myself what I could afford/though sufficient for my needs.

As for the whole childcare issue, it's not obligatory to take a year off for maternity leave, you can either take less or the partner can take some and split it 50/50.

GibbsRule_No3.

PPOV
I received notifications with my works pensions for a few years saying my SP would start in September 2018. Then 2011 change was introduced and for at least two years maybe more more the note that came with the works Pension info said they could not tell me anything about the SP date. Most of us knew it was being extended by the 18 months. Nothing I could do to add to my pension so I just decided to drop to three days, take the work pension and work until I felt financially I could stop and live on savings until the SP did kick in. When the new 2016 SP came in, it then became worth me staying on because I had COPE, so for three years I benefited from the extra £4.17 (?) a week per extra year of NI. This year and any time after April 2019 does not increase my SP that now starts in March 2020. I am enjoying my three day week but am lucky that it is not an overly heavy physical working type of job, photoprinting, so packets of SRA3 paper and boxes of A4/A3 and at 65 I am still fairly fit, cycle and walk a lot. Already done 48 years and have decided with the pay, pensions already in payment, stakeholder creating a nice little pot and SP from next March that I will now work until I do at least 50 years and possibly more due to the extra money. I am extremely lucky in my position others are not so lucky. So it would be nice if at least the 2011 could be looked at. I’m sure it is not just the money but the loss of that time, to spend with family that women would like. Men born at the same date can also be helped by looking at the 2011 introduction as they were not given any longer time either.

lisyloo

But what about men?
Would men not like more time to spend with their families especially as they (on average) have less of it left?
Would men not like to stop physical work. In fact isn’t it more likely a man is doing a physically demanding job.

We would all like to stop earlier, but for a long time (at least since 1990 when I started work) it’s been UP TO US to fund a more luxurious retirement,
State pension is for the basic surviving.
If you want more, then by all means have more (I intend to) but plan and pay for it yourself and don’t expect it from the taxpayer. The taxpayer can’t afford it any longer.

I have nothing against early retirment, I think it’s a fab idea.

DairyQueen

debtfreeforlife wrote: »

I am a 33 year old woman and although at the moment my SO age is 67, I am fully expecting it to go up to 70 or even higher by the time I get there. I'm overpaying into my work civil service pension now because i know i will want to go earlier than that. But I am lucky - I'm on a good salary, and although I don't have a partner, I also don't have children so it isn't expected that I'll take time away from my career to raise them (therefore taking time away from paying into an additional pension).

The gender pay gap has been narrowing in recent years - which means that for most of their working lives women born in the 1950s have been discriminated against on the basis of their gender. So long as the gender pay gap still exists, and women are disproportionately affected by cuts to benefits, and are expected to carry most of the burden of childcare, I can completely understand these women's frustrations.

This is the issue that I was hoping would be mentioned (thank you), and also applies to women born later than the 1950s. Inequality in lifetime earnings is responsible for the gender gap in both SP and non-SP pension provision, and that gap is growing. Compared to this (much greater) inequality, an additional few years of SP are a drop in the ocean.

Women are still much more dependent on the SP than men. Hardly surprising when the gender pension gap is estimated at twice the gender income gap.

It's not so long since the majority of part-time workers were excluded from company pension schemes (and some still are), and most part-timers are female. As you say, women are still expected (and expect) to fit work around childcare, whilst men generally do the opposite. And not just childcare; the same applies to elder care.

As the only daughter of ageing parents, one of whom has been severely disabled for a few decades, it fell to me to step-up when my dad could no longer cope. I had to retire at 52. Bang went the eight years of pension contributions I would have made prior to my planned retirement age (60). You can choose not to have children but you can't choose not to have parents. Of course there are many male carers but, as with the higher-pensioned females, they are a minority.

Ironically, I could not have retired when I did without the financial support of my husband. He has also suffered the loss of my missed income and pension contributions. However, his pension reflects how he has benefited from never taking time away from work whilst his children were young, nor whilst his mother required support, and that he was on the plus side of the gender pay gap throughout his working life.

We rightly expect females to have the same opportunities as males, the same rights and responsibilities, but this won't happen until females have equality in lifetime earnings. And that won't happen until our society has the same expectations of males as of females in taking an equal share of caring as well as of earning.

I am pleased to hear from a few 'horses' mouths' but, as you no doubt know, you are the exceptions. The guys appear more reticent on this issue than on the WASPI campaign. Do our male contributors only hold views on gender inequality with respect to the one issue where they have been discriminated against?