Why don't men complain?

GunJack

zagfles wrote: »

Here's what I mean. A couple have a child. One of them gives up work to look after child. The one that carries on working is now supporting the family, the one that looks after the child is now "working" to enable that.

So allow the person still in employment to formally allocate half his/her salary to their partner, eg by asking the employer to pay half their salary to the partner. It would count as the partner's income for everything, tax, pensions, equal pay audits etc. It would be just like a "salary sacrifice" scheme to pay for childcare.

There is one major flaw in that case that I doubt any government would go for - there would be less tax & NI payable on a split salary than if it was kept whole due to personal tax allowances (now x2 on the same income) and the NI contribution rules...

JezR

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 !

The curious position when feme covert was the legal principle, ie a married woman having no separate legal identity, was that she would be normally considered to be able to initiate debts on her husband's behalf as the law considered she was always acting under direction. This meant if the two became estranged it was usual for the husband to write to all the local merchants and place newspaper advertisements to indicate no credit to be advanced.

Couverture for debts was abolished in the 19th century in the UK (never in force in Scots Law) but lingered into the 1960s in some states of the USA.

ArcticRoll

The argument that someone who was caring for a child or caring for an elderly relative, regardless of whether they were claiming state benefit in their own right at the time being given the assumption that they had contributed the same as if they were in work and earning the national average income at the time so that they're not disadvantaged when it comes to their state pension entitlement is perfectly fine.

The idea that we should only do that if the person doesn't have a penis - doesn't make sense.

Besides I didn't hear many straight people complaining in 1885 when sex between men was outlawed. So I should retire at 47..or something.

zagfles

GunJack wrote: »

There is one major flaw in that case that I doubt any government would go for - there would be less tax & NI payable on a split salary than if it was kept whole due to personal tax allowances (now x2 on the same income) and the NI contribution rules...

Well exactly, it'll never happen because of this. It's the utter hypocrisy of governments who legislate for stuff like pension sharing on divorce, child support, share of assets on divorce etc thus recognising the need of cross subsidy within the family and protection if the family breaks up, but refuse to allow that to be formally recognised in an intact family, through income sharing or stuff like tax allowance transfers (other than a trivial 10%, and only for some).

zagfles

Primrose wrote: »

I didn't hear many men complaining when women were not allowed to vote.

Congratulations, I think we've found MSE's oldest member :rotfl:

zagfles

JezR wrote: »

The curious position when feme covert was the legal principle, ie a married woman having no separate legal identity, was that she would be normally considered to be able to initiate debts on her husband's behalf as the law considered she was always acting under direction. This meant if the two became estranged it was usual for the husband to write to all the local merchants and place newspaper advertisements to indicate no credit to be advanced.

Couverture for debts was abolished in the 19th century in the UK (never in force in Scots Law) but lingered into the 1960s in some states of the USA.

Yes and there was a time when a man could be sent to prison for a crime committed by his wife :eek:

zagfles

colsten wrote: »

That's it, you got it in one!

A substantial part of the rationale behind it is that we were, allegedly, discriminated against all our lives and therefore have deserved some sort of recompense. As a woman, I find this rationale entirely counterproductive. It suggests we are cheap enough to endure and accept a lifetime of discrimination in return for a measly £48,000, or however much individuals believe they have been denied. How ridiculous would that be?? Simplistically, that would be £1,200 a year over a 40 year working life, £100 a month? I mean - really?

Asking for women to be positively discriminated against when it comes to state pensions nurtures the idea that women are always unequal birth machines, weak, only good for earning less than men and to do jobs men don't want to do. It does absolutely nothing towards getting to actual equality. Would this be a reason why some men are supporting the WASPI idea, and would be quite happy to grin and bear when it comes to different state pension ages for men and women?

Absolutely. That plus a bit of virtue signalling.

There are some voices speaking up against the constant victim narrative, and the harm it's doing. Unfortuantely it's drowned out by the likes of the BBC.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/21/victimhood-narrative-taught-schools-fuels-anxiety-young-women/

fred246

When I wrote this I had just been reading WASPI stories. They were all like "I am 63. I have to work for a living. I am weary. I shouldn't be working at age 63. I should be putting my feet up." I just thought that that was the reality for men and has been for years. A weary man just has to keep working.

nigelbb

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.

The National Insurance Fund which receives National Insurance payments from employers & employees & out of which the state pension is paid is some £30billion in credit & accumulating credit at the rate of about £2billion every year. I don't know where you get your fantasy figure from or the idea that the state pension is unfunded.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Insurance_Fund

Happier_Me

I was born in the 70s when the norm was for the mum to stay at home or work very part time in low end jobs and for dad to be the breadwinner and have very little to do with the practical side of raising his kids. Or at least, this was my reality, but we were poor by most peoples standards so maybe that has skewed my experience.

My husband had a similar upbringing.

So it was very much ingrained in us both that mum does all the mundane bits that needs to be done to keep the children alive and the house ticking over.

But I also got the message that women should be financially independent and I took notice. Admittedly, this was probably driven by the fact that I really wanted to afford to heat more than one room in my house when I was an adult😊

Now before I say the next bit I'm really not husband bashing, 23 years in I've decided I'm keeping him. Our situation is as much my doing as his.

I've earned more or the same (due to maternity leave and a very short lived period of 3 day a week working) than my husband throughout our relationship. I've also taken on the traditional role of being the main carer for our children and home. I've juggled high stress, professional roles whilst pretending to my children I work 3 days a week. I've been at breaking point at times. I am probably in the minority although I'm certainly not alone in my working environment.

Attitudes still needs to change and maybe it will take future generations to do this because we are all influenced by our upbringings. We simply don't value the work that goes into raising our children or managing our homes as much we should, which is why stay at home mums are often vilified for sponging off their partners and career mums are in danger of trying to do it all, whilst being vilified for not looking after their kids!

I'm all in favour of equalising the state pension. In any couple, one will almost always end up with a bigger pension than the other but it really shouldn't matter who in a couple has the highest pension as long as they have both pulled their weights to get there, whether that be through paid in employment or not.