Women and the pension poverty gap

Yarrows

Qyburn said:

BrilliantButScary said:

There is a school of thought that men should pay into their partner's pension, whilst the partner is on maternity leave, or a career break to look after children. 

That's not really any different to paying into his own. They will only be able to afford so much whether it's all into his or split between his and hers.

Except that the entity of "his and hers" that exists during the childrearing years may not exist by the pension-drawing years. It must be easier all round if her share of the pension is in her name (and there is an example further up in this thread of where a pension in his name would not be to the same benefit for her).

I agree with Brie's point as well that families are often not in a position to do this either way, though possibly any pension provision he's able to make could be split during the period to equalise the benefits of time in the market.

This doesn't get to the permanent damage to her future earning power and therefore pension contributions/entitlement by having children, but not to his, but that's trickier I think.

BikingBud

strawb_shortcake said:

Qyburn said:

Brie said:

quite agree - talk about being delusional if being at home looking after the house and children is considered a cushy option!!  And the idea that if there's only one person isn't getting an income then the other will be able to afford to contribute without any strain!

That's not really a pension issue.  If only one from a couple works, they'll have less money. No real way out of that, unless it's being suggested that non-working women (or men of course) should have their private pension contributions paid by others.

My Husband and I are the opposite of this thread with me being pretty much the sole earner and responsible for all the bills. 
Contributing a meaningful amount to a private pension for him certainly hasn't been possible for much of the time he hasn't worked. We could contribute now, but to be meaningful our current lifestyle would likely change. 
We've talked about him having a private pension, but due to health issues and family history on his side he's not convinced he'll see pension age so would rather enjoy the now. 
We are ensuring he gets a full state pension and hopefully he'll work more regularly though part time from next year. 

In theory I should be a higher rate (40%) tax payer as a pensioner 
If I go first he gets 37% of my pension and all our savings, plus his state pension. He can be frugal so he'd be comfortable I think - in today's terms £27k a year in pensions

I feel I earn a decent wage, our bills are pretty low but supporting a home and family on one wage is a juggling act. When I look at how others live seemingly much better than us, it always comes down to having two wages (or boat loads of debt, but no one sees that and assumes the latter).

We have had many improvements in employment equality that should support better standards of living however there is now that reliance on 2 salaries to pay for basic housing costs.

Locking in to 30-35 years of mortgage payments to get a first house inhibits many things that the second income from part time work would have covered. That wage was once bonus money and paid for holidays or other treats and is now critical for just living. It sucks so much out of the washing machine of the economy and that all stalls.

Oh the fallacy of HPI being a good thing!

Grumpy_chap

SarahB16 said:

westv said:

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

Thankfully times are changing but even from reading some of the comments on this thread it can be seen that some people's views haven't really moved on (some comments seem more appropriate for the 1950s). Thankfully we now live in a more diverse and equal society but we're not there yet.  

I did not read the comment by @westv as anything other than a statement of fact.

I certainly did not read that comment as expressing a view that is more appropriate for the 1950's (or any view for that matter).

Anyway, I was unaware of the fact that had been stated so thought I would try to verify it and have located the following, which appears to be a reliable source, indicating that the "Marriage Bar" in the Civil Service was not fully abolished until 1973:
https://www.civilservant.org.uk/women-history.html

1973 will certainly be within living memory for a good number of contributors to these forums so the comment from westv seems to be correct.
Obviously, if there is evidence that the website I located is a fabrication of the untruth then I will be more than happy to be corrected.

kermchem

BrilliantButScary said:

Qyburn said:

If I understand correctly the underlying issue is that women are likely to earn lower employers' contributions. It's not easy to see how that could be corrected, particularly for career breaks where there's no employer at all, but also for women who switch to part time when returning from maternity leave.

There is a school of thought that men should pay into their partner's pension, whilst the partner is on maternity leave, or a career break to look after children. 

I / we are about to do a variation of this. I am heading towards voluntary severance and retirement, and intend to put the (tax free) VS lump sum into partner's SIPP. Or, to keep HMRC happy, partner is going to pay all their salary for two tax years into SIPP and we will live on my lump sum (and DB/DC/SIPP). We will at least slightly equalise our different pensions that way. We can do it now, but could not have afforded it when the kids were born. 

But, men pay into partner's pension when partner is on maternity leave? If the man is a 40% tax payer, perhaps RR could let them (man or partner) have the higher rate tax relief.

BrilliantButScary

BikingBud said:

strawb_shortcake said:

Qyburn said:

Brie said:

quite agree - talk about being delusional if being at home looking after the house and children is considered a cushy option!!  And the idea that if there's only one person isn't getting an income then the other will be able to afford to contribute without any strain!

That's not really a pension issue.  If only one from a couple works, they'll have less money. No real way out of that, unless it's being suggested that non-working women (or men of course) should have their private pension contributions paid by others.

My Husband and I are the opposite of this thread with me being pretty much the sole earner and responsible for all the bills. 
Contributing a meaningful amount to a private pension for him certainly hasn't been possible for much of the time he hasn't worked. We could contribute now, but to be meaningful our current lifestyle would likely change. 
We've talked about him having a private pension, but due to health issues and family history on his side he's not convinced he'll see pension age so would rather enjoy the now. 
We are ensuring he gets a full state pension and hopefully he'll work more regularly though part time from next year. 

In theory I should be a higher rate (40%) tax payer as a pensioner 
If I go first he gets 37% of my pension and all our savings, plus his state pension. He can be frugal so he'd be comfortable I think - in today's terms £27k a year in pensions

I feel I earn a decent wage, our bills are pretty low but supporting a home and family on one wage is a juggling act. When I look at how others live seemingly much better than us, it always comes down to having two wages (or boat loads of debt, but no one sees that and assumes the latter).

We have had many improvements in employment equality that should support better standards of living however there is now that reliance on 2 salaries to pay for basic housing costs.

Locking in to 30-35 years of mortgage payments to get a first house inhibits many things that the second income from part time work would have covered. That wage was once bonus money and paid for holidays or other treats and is now critical for just living. It sucks so much out of the washing machine of the economy and that all stalls.

Oh the fallacy of HPI being a good thing!

They used to call it 'pin money'. I remember being asked on a couple of occasions whether I 'needed to work' by older men or whether it was just 'pin money'.

I have to say, that for us, buying a house needed 2 salaries in the 1980's. I think that many women have always had to work, to make ends meet. My Mum and paternal Grandmother both worked, not necessarily full-time, one because of a large family and the other because she was a widow at a young age.

SarahB16

Grumpy_chap said:

SarahB16 said:

westv said:

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

Thankfully times are changing but even from reading some of the comments on this thread it can be seen that some people's views haven't really moved on (some comments seem more appropriate for the 1950s). Thankfully we now live in a more diverse and equal society but we're not there yet.  

I did not read the comment by @westv as anything other than a statement of fact.

I certainly did not read that comment as expressing a view that is more appropriate for the 1950's (or any view for that matter).

Anyway, I was unaware of the fact that had been stated so thought I would try to verify it and have located the following, which appears to be a reliable source, indicating that the "Marriage Bar" in the Civil Service was not fully abolished until 1973:
https://www.civilservant.org.uk/women-history.html

1973 will certainly be within living memory for a good number of contributors to these forums so the comment from westv seems to be correct.
Obviously, if there is evidence that the website I located is a fabrication of the untruth then I will be more than happy to be corrected.

@Grumpy_chap I wasn't referring to westv's post. If you read the thread again you should hopefully be able to see the post that I was referring to as others have commented on it as well.  

Mistermeaner

I (man) have my 1mil+ in my DC pension, my partner (lady)200k

if we were allowed I would happily balance  that out to 600k each as it would benefit us as a unit when it comes to draw down time 

if any government is serious about equalisation they would need to make this possible as in effect it is retrospectively redressing disparity in earnings and contributions

of course it gets more complex as when we met I already had 400k+ and her only 25k …. How would we square that circle ? 

Qyburn

To really even it off we'd need to go back to taxation of couples jointly, or something similar.

DRS1

Mistermeaner said:

I (man) have my 1mil+ in my DC pension, my partner (lady)200k

if we were allowed I would happily balance  that out to 600k each as it would benefit us as a unit when it comes to draw down time 

if any government is serious about equalisation they would need to make this possible as in effect it is retrospectively redressing disparity in earnings and contributions

of course it gets more complex as when we met I already had 400k+ and her only 25k …. How would we square that circle ? 

You could always get a divorce!

Mistermeaner

DRS1 said:

Mistermeaner said:

I (man) have my 1mil+ in my DC pension, my partner (lady)200k

if we were allowed I would happily balance  that out to 600k each as it would benefit us as a unit when it comes to draw down time 

if any government is serious about equalisation they would need to make this possible as in effect it is retrospectively redressing disparity in earnings and contributions

of course it gets more complex as when we met I already had 400k+ and her only 25k …. How would we square that circle ? 

You could always get a divorce!

Have to get married first

Genius though - get married, get divorced, rebalance everything. Get married again 

all for tax benefits