Why don't men complain?

JezR

The reduction of the women's pension age in 1940 was a calculated political move to counter any clamour to raise the rate for all.

It was targeted at diffusing the gripes of two main groups:

Firstly the issue of unemployed men turning 65, where unemployment payments of 27/- for a married man was previously replaced by a pension of 10/- unless his wife was also over 65. Reducing this requirement to 60 meant a pension of 15/-; somewhat better but there was also provision for additional support to be available via local authorities.

Secondly unmarried women, a significant number of which were employed in textile jobs in the Midlands and North. The way insured pensions worked at the time required employment between 60-65 to qualify for a pension. The labour required for such jobs often meant the women in these age groups either had to stop work as incapable of doing it, or were dismissed in favour of younger women. These would then fall back onto public assistance, the slightly politer name by then for what was left of the workhouse system. They would get a Poor Law pension at 70.

The number of insured women and wives of insured men that gained a pension from these changes were roughly equal at 150k or so. National Insurance was increased for both men and women to pay for it, at least notionally.

Primrose

I didn't hear many men complaining when women were not allowed to vote. Or even in the sixties when their wives still couldn't have a credit card without their husband's permission !

spadoosh

Primrose wrote: »

I didn't hear many men complaining when women were not allowed to vote. Or even in the sixties when their wives still couldn't have a credit card without their husband's permission !

Thats because you wasnt alive when women didnt have the vote. When youre not alive you neither have the ears nor receptor cells to be able to hear or understand sound.

The credit card thing probably explains the massive rise in household debt since then.

MaxiRobriguez

My view is that pension ages should be equalised what with the equalisation of opportunity in the workplace.

Obviously childcare results in a parent, usually the female, but not always anymore, having to sacrifice career progression.

As a marriage benefit there should be consideration to apply a state pension top up to one of the couples state pension, if they've had children, with the default being the lower earner but the couple can change it if they so wish.

spadoosh

MaxiRobriguez wrote: »

My view is that pension ages should be equalised what with the equalisation of opportunity in the workplace.

Obviously childcare results in a parent, usually the female, but not always anymore, having to sacrifice career progression.

As a marriage benefit there should be consideration to apply a state pension top up to one of the couples state pension, if they've had children, with the default being the lower earner but the couple can change it if they so wish.

Just let them sort out their financial arrangements themselves.

The idea of topping up the state pension doesnt sit that great with me at all, at the moment its about £5tn in unfunded contributions for those alive now, until im shown a plan on how the government will guarantee my state pension im not going to volunteer another penny. At the moment my plans discard the state pension as i cant fathom how it will be funded.

atush

My view is that pension ages should be equalised what with the equalisation of opportunity in the workplace.

Let me know when that happens lol. in any case i am behind pension equalisation even though both i and my OH have been affected by the 2011 changes

As a marriage benefit there should be consideration to apply a state pension top up to one of the couples state pension, if they've had children, with the default being the lower earner but the couple can change it if they so wish.

In some ways this already happens are the child carer can be the one to receive the CB and get NiC credits if not working, or not working enough hours.

MaxiRobriguez

spadoosh wrote: »

Just let them sort out their financial arrangements themselves.

The idea of topping up the state pension doesnt sit that great with me at all, at the moment its about £5tn in unfunded contributions for those alive now, until im shown a plan on how the government will guarantee my state pension im not going to volunteer another penny. At the moment my plans discard the state pension as i cant fathom how it will be funded.

My plans also ignore any state pension.

I wasn't offering a practical solution based on ability of the exchequer to afford, more in the line if you wanted to try and find a fair solution...

The elephant in the room is childcare. Whoever takes primary care role ends up sacrificing career (and thus salary, and thus pension) opportunities. Stat maternity pay is more for women than men because women unsurprisingly need it. The concept of a state pension top up is due to similar reasons, just happening later on in life, so shouldn't be seen as unfair, especially if the top-up isn't given to one gender automatically.

Anyway, was just a thought.

bostonerimus

MaxiRobriguez wrote: »

My plans also ignore any state pension.

You should stress test your retirement plan, but don't ignore income streams that have a high probability of being there.

MaxiRobriguez

bostonerimus wrote: »

You should stress test your retirement plan, but don't ignore income streams that have a high probability of being there.

I'm only 32 so another 35 years (currently) until I can get state pension and things can change a lot in ten years let alone 30+.

My plans are based around 'resonable worst case scenarios' (:rotfl:) to retire at 55 which involves no state pension, pension/ISA growth of 3% (post inflation) per year and living until 100, so needing to draw down until then.

If things are better than that then I'll just enjoy a nicer retirement.

spadoosh

MaxiRobriguez wrote: »

My plans also ignore any state pension.

I wasn't offering a practical solution based on ability of the exchequer to afford, more in the line if you wanted to try and find a fair solution...

The elephant in the room is childcare. Whoever takes primary care role ends up sacrificing career (and thus salary, and thus pension) opportunities. Stat maternity pay is more for women than men because women unsurprisingly need it. The concept of a state pension top up is due to similar reasons, just happening later on in life, so shouldn't be seen as unfair, especially if the top-up isn't given to one gender automatically.

Anyway, was just a thought.

There always going to be someone left out, in my view its better just telling people their on there own and they should make their own provisions. That way when inevitable changes happen no one is getting screwed over.

No one in our house takes the primary carer role. We both work full time, we both manage the house and we both do childcare. She does slightly more hours at work due to commuting but earns the bigger salary. I work for family so it means she doesnt have to compromise anything regarding her career. Its not ideal, we rarely get a day together the 3 of us, maybe once or twice a month but its the most practical solution, we think, for our situation. I just think any incentive will be purely a political motivator and when someone gives with the left theyre taking with the right. It just seems pointless. Youre on your own, you sort yourself out, everyones equal.

bostonerimus wrote: »

You should stress test your retirement plan, but don't ignore income streams that have a high probability of being there.

The problem is ive had to tell people that their retirement plans are having to change due to political whim and those people always look devastated. In those moments it reaffirmed to me that i must not ever rely on the state for anything. The moment i do is the moment i lose all ability to control my situation. Thats not an acceptable outcome for me.

High probability, what are you basing that off? The current plan is to pay a state pension, well i say plan, theyre just saying they will pay it. As to how theyre going to actually pay it well thats a bit up in the air at the moment, theres £5tn of unfunded state pensions to the current population to find. Thats not a little number.