Pension Inequality

[squidge]

Today there is a segment on the news highlighting pension inequality - apparently the difference in pensions between men and women is as much as £6000 in some areas. There are many reasons for this and in fact the figures suggest that the gaps are closing as pensions for men are coming down. It is, however an interesting area. A wee bit of digging showed that Home Responsibility Protection was removed in 2010 - this little understood regulation ensured that people - mainly women, were not disadvataged as far as State Pension was concerned if they were, amongst other things, at home looking after children. Previously if you were in receipt of Child Benefit for a child under 16 then you could receive a reduction in the number of qualifying years required to receive a full state pension. So if you didnt work for ten years instead of needing 40 years NI contributions you will only need 30. From 2010 it was replaced by Carer's Credits. These work in a similar way but you will be treated as having paid NI contributions for any year you were in receipt of Child Benefit for a child under 12. As with HRP - Carer's credits will count for any years that you earn below the level at which National Insurance contributions start to be paid. (Currently £107 per week)That reduction in 4 years is likely to adversely affect women more that men. Still, today women do more of the child care and are more likely to work in low paid and part time work. If you return to work but earn less than £107 per week you will now LOSE at least four years entitlement.
Also from Next year people at home with children where a partner earns enough to pay higher rate income tax face losing their entitlement to Child Benefit. Will they also then lose their entitlement to Carer's credit and therefore some of their pension entitlement?
I know that this is a small and not well understood or publicised change and I also know from a previous life that people dont understand NI contributions and may think that four years is neither here nor there. The UK government is increasing the pension age to bring women and men in line with each other whilst implementing a change which is likely to impact on women more than men - That surely is not acceptable

[changilass]

I just think its time folk stopped thinking they can have everything.

There just aint enough money to go round the benefits pot.

No one is forced to have kids. I made the choice to do so knowing full well the implications to pensions ect.

Life is about choices, its a case of you make your bed and lie in it.

I just thing too many people think the world owes them something, it doesn't.

[Alrock]

No one is forced to have kids. I made the choice to do so knowing full well the implications to pensions ect.

So... If someone was as pragmatic as you & weighed up the pros & cons of whether or not to have children based on how the benefits system was going to impact on that decision & the government then changes the rules of that system after you have already had your children is it in your eyes OK to get rid of the kids since it is no longer financially viable for you to have them anymore?
If yes then what should happen to the kids?
Legalised euthanasia?

[changilass]

Don't be so stupid.

We all have to adjust to changes, again its part of life.

To even suggest euthanasia is pathetic.

[squidge]

Thats fine Changi but actually, Its not actually about money its about fairness and equality. If it is ok to CHANGE the law so that women work and retire at the same time as men do then surely its not ok to make another change that means that women will be less likely to be able to qualify for the state pension when they do retire at the same age as men.

As for making choices - thats ok but some of us have choices and some of us dont. Childcare is such a complete mess in thos country that many child carers dont have the choice to work and many others have to work in jobs that are low paid or part time to fit in with school. What you say also reinforces the opinion that caring for children is somehow of less value than woking in a paid job and thats been going on for years. You still here people say about stay at home dads that there is something less masculine or manly about them.

There isnt enough money in the pot - I know that but we are still allowing large rich organisations and individuals to avoid paying their tax liabilities whilst removing measures to help keep people out of poverty - like this one. Its much cheaper to fund a years credits than to pay someone benefit top ups when they eventually need them.

[changilass]

Thats fine Changi but actually, Its not actually about money its about fairness and equality. If it is ok to CHANGE the law so that women work and retire at the same time as men do then surely its not ok to make another change that means that women will be less likely to be able to qualify for the state pension when they do retire at the same age as men.

If the woman has the same amount of time off work (for whatever reason) as the man then they should both have the same pension.

I just think that in the financial climate we are in just now, we should be going back to basics.

I thought the benefits system was set up as a safety net, not as a way of living, which seems to be the expectation these days.

I am a childcarer and think my job is one of the most important jobs there is. As for stay at home Dads, its a great thing if that is the most viable option. As you say though, attitudes do need to change about how they are viewed.

[RecQuery]

Surely because women - on average - live about 5 years longer than men that it's only fair for men to retire first about 5 years earlier. I imagine that if I didn't want to work full time, took time off to have and look after children, didn't make full national insurance contribution or change careers then my pensioner pot would be smaller than average.

That's the biggest joke though, someone of my generation expecting to have any pension at all.

[rob murray]

If the woman has the same amount of time off work (for whatever reason) as the man then they should both have the same pension.

I just think that in the financial climate we are in just now, we should be going back to basics.

I thought the benefits system was set up as a safety net, not as a way of living, which seems to be the expectation these days.

I am a childcarer and think my job is one of the most important jobs there is. As for stay at home Dads, its a great thing if that is the most viable option. As you say though, attitudes do need to change about how they are viewed.

So being fleeced as a worker, paying NI equals a safety net ??? You work, you pay NI, goes towards your pension....thats not a safety net your getting a small part of what you pay in. You dont work....you still get...thats the safety net or is it...alternatives ? = work house eh !

[Phill]

Difficult system to simply apply methinks. There needs to be equality but how do we make equality fair?

Simplicity is one way forward, male or female we retire at the same age and get the same entitlement. That's easy.
But, it appears some women don't 'work' so they fall foul of the system.

There is a choice, as changilass points out. I'm afraid far too many people (men as well as women) don't realise that it is a choice that comes with lifechanging and lifelong responsibilities. I honestly cannot believe more money, time and effort is spent on telling people that a puppy isn't just for Christmas than a child isn't a free ride for benefits.

I'm afraid the pension system has to be based on payments in, regardless of age or gender. If you want to introduce children to your family think long and hard, really long and hard. If you cannot for the foreseeable future afford to pay for them without any detriment to you, your partner and your longterm lifestyle don't have kids.
My best advice is: don't have kids.

Personally, I've resigned to the fact that the only pension pot we (me and wifey) will have is what we can provide for ourselves.

[focusRS]

Excellent post Mr Phill.