Women set for '£100,000 pension pay gap' with men
Discussion
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56315730
Scottish Widows said to reach "retirement parity", a woman in her 20s today would have to work 37 years longer than a man of the same age to accumulate the same income.
This sort of ignores the elephant in the room that overall general pension provision is lacking
Is this a specific woman who is currently earning the same income as that specific man whilst both are working in similar jobs and performing to the same level, or "a generalised woman" versus a "generalised man" taking averages across the population?
Are both contributing the same amount to the same pension scheme? Are they using the same investment vehicles within the scheme?
If they are, I don't think there would be a gap at all, if they aren't, then the comparison is meaningless.
Or should we read it as "Pensions firm encourages people to put more into their pensions earlier"?
Are both contributing the same amount to the same pension scheme? Are they using the same investment vehicles within the scheme?
If they are, I don't think there would be a gap at all, if they aren't, then the comparison is meaningless.
Or should we read it as "Pensions firm encourages people to put more into their pensions earlier"?
They’re taking into account lower average earnings, more likely to work part time and more likely to stop working for some years for childcare.
It’s another meaningless report, just a way of Scottish Widows getting some free advertising.
Shock, horror, work less, pay less into pension and you’ll have a smaller pot when you retire but give your money to Scottish Widows and they help you grow a small pot instead of someone else whilst creaming off the top in fees.
It’s another meaningless report, just a way of Scottish Widows getting some free advertising.
Shock, horror, work less, pay less into pension and you’ll have a smaller pot when you retire but give your money to Scottish Widows and they help you grow a small pot instead of someone else whilst creaming off the top in fees.
Edited by Smiljan on Monday 8th March 09:32
Smiljan said:
They’re taking into account lower average earnings, more likely to work part time and more likely to stop working for some years for childcare.
It’s another meaningless report, just a way of Scottish Widows getting some free advertising.
Shock, horror, work less, pay less into pension and you’ll have a smaller pot when you retire but give your money to Scottish Widows and they help you grow a small pot instead of someone else whilst creaming off the top in fees.
Whilst the same time pushing a wedge in just that little bit more...It’s another meaningless report, just a way of Scottish Widows getting some free advertising.
Shock, horror, work less, pay less into pension and you’ll have a smaller pot when you retire but give your money to Scottish Widows and they help you grow a small pot instead of someone else whilst creaming off the top in fees.
Edited by Smiljan on Monday 8th March 09:32
Irresponsible at best.
GroundZero said:
If this is an issue surrounding the fact that women generally don't choose to go in to certain professions where they could earn more, then its nothing more than the usual identity politics brigade trying to create an inequality issue where there is none.
For full time workers there basically isn't a gender pay gap for anyone under the age of 40, so not sure the choice of profession is having much bearing.https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/p...
If there is a "pensions" gap that applies to young workers in the workforce now then this is likely due to the impact of time off for pregnancy and part time working thereafter.
GroundZero said:
If this is an issue surrounding the fact that women generally don't choose to go in to certain professions where they could earn more, then its nothing more than the usual identity politics brigade trying to create an inequality issue where there is none.
Agreed. The NHS has a gender pay gap which is heavily influenced by the number of female nurses (doctors are much more balanced male vs female). It's a choice to become a nurse, and it's not as if it's a low skill job with no barriers to entry. You need a degree these days.CubanPete said:
My wife's pension pot is smaller than mine. This is mainly because I put in additional contributions,rather than a salary difference between us.
Mine's bigger than my wife's but when the time comes she'll be getting far more out of her's than I will.Gender pension gaps suck.
What is overlooked by the report is
1. Any divorce which is 1 in 3 marriages means the woman has a huge slice of the mans pension pot
2. Death in service/sibling allowance nearly always means the woman gets this 50% of the mans annuity.
3. Having a child and child care/part time has been in the main by a woman. The logic being the higher earner keeps going and earns a pension pot that is for both
4. Men die younger than women yet have 5 years less state pension than women. Then when the WASPI women moved to 65yo they hated it as financially they missed out but were more than happy about gender equality meaning salary increases.
1. Any divorce which is 1 in 3 marriages means the woman has a huge slice of the mans pension pot
2. Death in service/sibling allowance nearly always means the woman gets this 50% of the mans annuity.
3. Having a child and child care/part time has been in the main by a woman. The logic being the higher earner keeps going and earns a pension pot that is for both
4. Men die younger than women yet have 5 years less state pension than women. Then when the WASPI women moved to 65yo they hated it as financially they missed out but were more than happy about gender equality meaning salary increases.
The whole argument around wage gaps etc is always incredibly biased with bugger all regards for facts. Trying to have a rational discussion with anyone supporting the existence of such things is like arguing with a brick wall.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pdnkbs4l_g This clip from Oz demonstrates the stupidity of the whole debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pdnkbs4l_g This clip from Oz demonstrates the stupidity of the whole debate.
csd19 said:
The report should really be taking into account a comparison with women who chose to not have children and instead continue to make pension contributions throughout their career (assuming same role/pay as those nasty men).
But I guess that wouldn't score as many internet points.
Some believe that a woman who has a baby, goes on maternity leave for a year and comes back should still be equally rewarded as someone else who does not. So they should still be on the same pay.But I guess that wouldn't score as many internet points.
The argument against this is that it would be a big disadvantage to UK companies compared to overseas competition.
The counter-argument is that we already have disability pay, maternity/paternity leave, minimum wage - all these factors put a financial disadvantage to UK companies so why the difference for equal women pay?
brilliant leef44 said:
csd19 said:
The report should really be taking into account a comparison with women who chose to not have children and instead continue to make pension contributions throughout their career (assuming same role/pay as those nasty men).
But I guess that wouldn't score as many internet points.
Some believe that a woman who has a baby, goes on maternity leave for a year and comes back should still be equally rewarded as someone else who does not. So they should still be on the same pay.But I guess that wouldn't score as many internet points.
The argument against this is that it would be a big disadvantage to UK companies compared to overseas competition.
The counter-argument is that we already have disability pay, maternity/paternity leave, minimum wage - all these factors put a financial disadvantage to UK companies so why the difference for equal women pay?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff