Women and the pension poverty gap

Cus

Brie said:

@Cus
thank you for the interesting take on things..    

on a serious point - not all women procreate but get treated by some employers as if they're about to pop out a quick dozen or two.    Sigh.  

True, but hopefully getting better as time goes by.  One thing that pleased me reading this forum for years was how there were a number of women who drove the financial conversation with their male partners, who planned the pensions for both of them etc, whilst also being financially penalised with life events.

Just because the man might be more of the bread winner over the years does not mean they have to be more of the decision maker relating to that bread.
Just the same way that the woman might be giving birth and staying at home with the child doesn't mean that the man should not also have equal input.

SarahB16

DRS1 said:

SarahB16 said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Grumpy_chap said:

However, I suppose if women have historically earned less while in work and possible also worked less hours / months / years in their career, then the outcome will be lower pension fund accrual.  As equality increases through the workplace, does that mean that the delta in pension provision will self-resolve?

In theory but whilst laws have enabled greater equality gender bias in roles remains well and prospering. Leave for a new baby can now be shared rather than the mother having the right and the other parent just a token amount but uptake is low and in particular in lower earning families 

Women remain twice as likely to be part time workers than men, women are typically still seen as the carers of the family. There needs to be a much bigger shift in that before these issues go away but almost all media etc continue to reinforce the working dad, stay at home mum with any stay at home dad in a film or series often ridiculed or presented as an oddity. 

I'm not going to be brave enough to speculate if its simply more women want this role then men, that they are taking one for the team by allowing it to be them or something else but until it becomes as common for the "dad" to stay off work and the woman to go straight back to work after a baby etc then the situation won't fully resolve. 

I completely agree with this (the text in bold) and unfortunately for women who have absolutely no desire whatsoever to have children if they are of a certain age (25-40ish) employers quite often, incorrectly, presume they may wish to have children, take maternity leave and then wish to return on a part time basis.  

So yes until there is less gender bias in terms of who may take this role it will continue to negatively impact on women's career prospects (even for the ones who do not wish to have children).   

As an aside I was only recently made aware that women could get mortgages in their own name without a male guarantor in 1975! Seems far too recent in my view as this should have happened decades before.  Society is improving but unfortunately too slowly for my liking so it is on all of us to try our very best to improve the situation for those around us who are suffering (women's careers and men wising to look after their children/stay at home dads) due to this inequality but also for the future generations to come too.  

Presumably you would be surprised that the Equal Pay Act is from 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act is from 1975?

Then again the Married Women's Property Act does go back to 1870.

No just appalled at how recent this all is. I'm thinking back to when I bought my house with a mortgage in my own name and only a couple or so decades earlier I would have required a male guarantor or heaven forbid a husband! 

Mistermeaner

Correlation vs causation ; it is not being female per se that leads to lower pensions

it might be better phrased that “people who earn less / work less / take career breaks do not accrue the same benefits as those who earn more / work more / don’t take career breaks. There are a higher proportion of females in the first category and a higher proportion of males in the second”

confusing correlation with causation often leads to incorrect conclusions and ‘fixes’ to issues 


Another point is that we were meant to make and raise children together as a family unit , there will always be non fault separations but one of the most important decisions any of us make is who to couple up with and breed with - that decision should not be taken lightly and jointly managing finances long and short term should be a huge factor in that decision making process. On paper my pension wealth far exceeds my missus but it’s a meaningless distinction as it’s all ‘ours’ 

Grumpy_chap

Cus said:

I would like to think that in a balanced relationship the provisional pension share between the couple is merely academic as it's the total available to both that actually matters. That's my view.

Yes, but that can also be important to have some pension provision in the names / rights of both, even if only because two pensions each paying the respective individuals will be taxed less than one individual drawing the full pension for the retired couple and resulting in higher rate tax applying.

BrilliantButScary

Mistermeaner said:

Correlation vs causation ; it is not being female per se that leads to lower pensions

it might be better phrased that “people who earn less / work less / take career breaks do not accrue the same benefits as those who earn more / work more / don’t take career breaks. There are a higher proportion of females in the first category and a higher proportion of males in the second”

confusing correlation with causation often leads to incorrect conclusions and ‘fixes’ to issues 


Another point is that we were meant to make and raise children together as a family unit , there will always be non fault separations but one of the most important decisions any of us make is who to couple up with and breed with - that decision should not be taken lightly and jointly managing finances long and short term should be a huge factor in that decision making process. On paper my pension wealth far exceeds my missus but it’s a meaningless distinction as it’s all ‘ours’ 

I suspect that a lot of the female posters on the pensions forum are either single, childfree or are 'one and done'.

Universidad

Albermarle said:

I think the main issue is not really which gender is the breadwinner, but what happens if the marriage/partnership is poor or breaks up. That is when the real problems start.

But wouldn't pension provision be split in these cases generally? 

Obviously it is vastly more expensive to be single than part of a couple, but that's not as much of a gendered issue as pay/pension accrual gaps.

af1963

SarahB16 said:

DRS1 said:

SarahB16 said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Grumpy_chap said:

However, I suppose if women have historically earned less while in work and possible also worked less hours / months / years in their career, then the outcome will be lower pension fund accrual.  As equality increases through the workplace, does that mean that the delta in pension provision will self-resolve?

In theory but whilst laws have enabled greater equality gender bias in roles remains well and prospering. Leave for a new baby can now be shared rather than the mother having the right and the other parent just a token amount but uptake is low and in particular in lower earning families 

Women remain twice as likely to be part time workers than men, women are typically still seen as the carers of the family. There needs to be a much bigger shift in that before these issues go away but almost all media etc continue to reinforce the working dad, stay at home mum with any stay at home dad in a film or series often ridiculed or presented as an oddity. 

I'm not going to be brave enough to speculate if its simply more women want this role then men, that they are taking one for the team by allowing it to be them or something else but until it becomes as common for the "dad" to stay off work and the woman to go straight back to work after a baby etc then the situation won't fully resolve. 

I completely agree with this (the text in bold) and unfortunately for women who have absolutely no desire whatsoever to have children if they are of a certain age (25-40ish) employers quite often, incorrectly, presume they may wish to have children, take maternity leave and then wish to return on a part time basis.  

So yes until there is less gender bias in terms of who may take this role it will continue to negatively impact on women's career prospects (even for the ones who do not wish to have children).   

As an aside I was only recently made aware that women could get mortgages in their own name without a male guarantor in 1975! Seems far too recent in my view as this should have happened decades before.  Society is improving but unfortunately too slowly for my liking so it is on all of us to try our very best to improve the situation for those around us who are suffering (women's careers and men wising to look after their children/stay at home dads) due to this inequality but also for the future generations to come too.  

Presumably you would be surprised that the Equal Pay Act is from 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act is from 1975?

Then again the Married Women's Property Act does go back to 1870.

No just appalled at how recent this all is. I'm thinking back to when I bought my house with a mortgage in my own name and only a couple or so decades earlier I would have required a male guarantor or heaven forbid a husband!

All sorts of things were organised on the assumption that men would work and women would not ( or rather, not be employed, but work in the home, supported by their husband's pay.)

Independent taxation of married couples only started in 1990, so there will be people still working who used the old system that a wife's income was added to her husband's and taxed together.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/RP95-87/RP95-87.pdf



 

GunJack

Grumpy_chap said:

Cus said:

I would like to think that in a balanced relationship the provisional pension share between the couple is merely academic as it's the total available to both that actually matters. That's my view.

Yes, but that can also be important to have some pension provision in the names / rights of both, even if only because two pensions each paying the respective individuals will be taxed less than one individual drawing the full pension for the retired couple and resulting in higher rate tax applying.

Whilst that balancing is far easier to achieve with either exclusively or mainly DC pensions it can be nigh-on impossible to do with DB. For example, I have 36 yrs across 2 DB pensions which if I croak Mrs.G-J will only get half the income from and will lose my SP (once I get there). There's no scope to treat those DBs any other way....at least if they were DC they would be fully inheritable on my death.

Pollycat

Grumpy_chap said:

I am mindful that it is difficult to comment on this without falling foul of the rules around political discussion.

However, I suppose if women have historically earned less while in work and possible also worked less hours / months / years in their career, then the outcome will be lower pension fund accrual.  As equality increases through the workplace, does that mean that the delta in pension provision will self-resolve?

It is also important not to generalise.  I have what I consider to be a good and well-rewarded job and very high portion of worked years.  My wife has a far lower paid administration job and fewer worked years.  A period of her working time was in an NHS pension where she accrued however many years of DB pension.  Her forecast retirement income will match or exceed mine, even though I am desperately seeking to make up prior years of underfunding to my DC pension at the maximum rates permissible.

I was lucky enough to have a good job in a large company that paid women and men on the same grade the same salary.
Women also got the same opportunities for promotion.
This was 55 years ago.
There wasn't any issue of 'you've just got married so you'll be having a baby soon and leaving'.
A lot of women my age did leave work after giving birth though.
I worked for the same company for 33 years and retired with a good final salary pension.

The pension scheme had something called 'marriage gratuity' whereby you could take your pension contributions as a lump sum upon marriage.
I considered this briefly and then dismissed it as I intended to have an unbroken working career and even at the age of 21 back in 1974, I knew the benefits of a good occupational pension (this was because I too worked in the pension section)..

Something not mentioned so far:
A lot of women working with me opted to pay the reduced NI contributions.
Not me.

westv

SarahB16 said:

DRS1 said:

SarahB16 said:

MyRealNameToo said:

Grumpy_chap said:

However, I suppose if women have historically earned less while in work and possible also worked less hours / months / years in their career, then the outcome will be lower pension fund accrual.  As equality increases through the workplace, does that mean that the delta in pension provision will self-resolve?

In theory but whilst laws have enabled greater equality gender bias in roles remains well and prospering. Leave for a new baby can now be shared rather than the mother having the right and the other parent just a token amount but uptake is low and in particular in lower earning families 

Women remain twice as likely to be part time workers than men, women are typically still seen as the carers of the family. There needs to be a much bigger shift in that before these issues go away but almost all media etc continue to reinforce the working dad, stay at home mum with any stay at home dad in a film or series often ridiculed or presented as an oddity. 

I'm not going to be brave enough to speculate if its simply more women want this role then men, that they are taking one for the team by allowing it to be them or something else but until it becomes as common for the "dad" to stay off work and the woman to go straight back to work after a baby etc then the situation won't fully resolve. 

I completely agree with this (the text in bold) and unfortunately for women who have absolutely no desire whatsoever to have children if they are of a certain age (25-40ish) employers quite often, incorrectly, presume they may wish to have children, take maternity leave and then wish to return on a part time basis.  

So yes until there is less gender bias in terms of who may take this role it will continue to negatively impact on women's career prospects (even for the ones who do not wish to have children).   

As an aside I was only recently made aware that women could get mortgages in their own name without a male guarantor in 1975! Seems far too recent in my view as this should have happened decades before.  Society is improving but unfortunately too slowly for my liking so it is on all of us to try our very best to improve the situation for those around us who are suffering (women's careers and men wising to look after their children/stay at home dads) due to this inequality but also for the future generations to come too.  

Presumably you would be surprised that the Equal Pay Act is from 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act is from 1975?

Then again the Married Women's Property Act does go back to 1870.

No just appalled at how recent this all is. I'm thinking back to when I bought my house with a mortgage in my own name and only a couple or so decades earlier I would have required a male guarantor or heaven forbid a husband! 

It's within living memory when female civil servants had to resign when they married.