PDA

View Full Version : Women win again!!


Nills Lagerbaak
25-05-2006, 13:54:03
Right, they've just announced that the retirement age is to go up to 68, supposedly in line with increased life expectancy.


But who's life expectancy??

Women live on average considerably longer than men, so if we're talking about guaranteed annuity schemes, same for men and women employees then women come off better!

MoSe
25-05-2006, 14:02:39
that's for reparation as it's much harder for them to come while they're young...
:cute:
:nervous:

Gary
25-05-2006, 14:20:51
I thought that was a personal choice thing

Funko
25-05-2006, 14:24:06
It's ok Nills, by the time we're 68 we'll get fuck all from the state anyway.

Japher
25-05-2006, 14:24:52
whatever, men do the better work
so it's better this way

Nills Lagerbaak
25-05-2006, 14:39:55
So. We do better work, then we retire and live for another say 2 years, whereas our evil, breasted counterparts probably live for another 20 years, getting fat off the taxes we paid whilst we were working.

I for one will be slacking a lot more.

Gary
25-05-2006, 14:40:55
HOW ?!?!?!

Nills Lagerbaak
25-05-2006, 14:41:21
Dunno, might stop posting too.

Kitsuki
25-05-2006, 14:44:09
:lol:

The Norks
25-05-2006, 18:00:44
i think it balances out because a lot of women have periods of child raising where they can't pay NI contributions.

Women of my mothers generation paid 'married women's stamps' which was half the husbands contribution, and then later a lot of those same women ended up divorced, or widowed like my mother, with the state declaring the married women's stamps redundant, and taking the entirety of the husbands pension (if deceased) and then taking the widows pension if she has the audacity to find another partner. She has basically 15 years of contributions to pension, most of which were part time. There's a lot of women up shit creek like that.

Venom
25-05-2006, 18:10:23
So they live longer. Only means they're crazy bitches for longer.

Gary
25-05-2006, 18:58:12
The UK state pension system is crap for both genders. It's insulting to make out women are the only ones hard done by given that they traditionally retired earlier having contributed less. And private pensions are raided by the government as well. It needs a complete overhaul, but the intended changes are garbage. They force folk to work for more years, thus ensuring a job opportunity is denied to a younger person. It's not like everyone's employed and positions are going begging. These plans are a wasted opportunity.

Darkstar
25-05-2006, 21:45:02
What are you going on about? This was done so you can get more elderly people taking your orders at fast food resteraunts. It's not like corporations are going to be keeping around all those grey heads--- they'll cut them as a cost savings measure, and then those grey heads will have to take basic, non-skilled positions as no company will want to pay them fair scale for their prior work experience.

The way of evil capitalism. Eventually, retirement age will be moved to 100 anyways--- since the current babies being born in the West are expected to live to be 99 (for men) and 105 (for women). And only the last 30 years of their life are expected to be a complete drooling, vegetative mess. What they can be employed at other then doorstops, I don't know, but that's what the best think-tanks are coming out with, based on current medical projections/life expectations.

Koshko
26-05-2006, 01:58:08
Well iirc for children born now the retirement age will be 75. It's in the process of being scaled up from 65 to 75 based on the birth year here in the US.

Nills Lagerbaak
26-05-2006, 08:23:12
Originally posted by The Norks
i think it balances out because a lot of women have periods of child raising where they can't pay NI contributions.

Women of my mothers generation paid 'married women's stamps' which was half the husbands contribution, and then later a lot of those same women ended up divorced, or widowed like my mother, with the state declaring the married women's stamps redundant, and taking the entirety of the husbands pension (if deceased) and then taking the widows pension if she has the audacity to find another partner. She has basically 15 years of contributions to pension, most of which were part time. There's a lot of women up shit creek like that.

So state pensions are linked to NI cntributions? Fit enough then.

But University pernsion schemes for example. Men and women pay a certain amount each year to guarantee them a annual %age of salary for the rest of their lives. The contribution they pay each year is the same %age of salary so in what way do women not end up with a better deal?

Funko
26-05-2006, 08:33:34
'cause they still get paid less?

Tizzy
26-05-2006, 08:38:04
Same basic point I guess. If a woman stops work to take care of her children she won't be earning and therefore not contributing to a pension scheme, therefore having less "in the pot" at retirement.

Nills Lagerbaak
26-05-2006, 08:39:47
Pay is a different issue. Assume a male and female lecturer get the same annual salary (which they do).

The final pension scheme works out in their favour.

Nills Lagerbaak
26-05-2006, 08:47:07
I know someone who got a year off on maternity leave, full pay / contributions.

DaShi
26-05-2006, 08:47:55
Yes, but they can't pee standing up. Can't comfortably, that is.

Tizzy
26-05-2006, 08:50:40
Originally posted by Nills Lagerbaak
I know someone who got a year off on maternity leave, full pay / contributions.

That's standard for maternity leave if you've been with a company for a while (although a year is quite generous), but that only lasts so long.
I was referring to cases where someone takes a few years off to stay at home.

Nills Lagerbaak
26-05-2006, 08:55:46
I agree that women lose out of pensions etc. durng that child raising period.

But a few years off compared with an average 10 years, more at the end?

Yeah, probably does even out in the end.
Still don't think I'd ever get married if I was a vry rich man though!

Funko
26-05-2006, 08:57:16
That's very generous, on the flip side some women also get effectively fired whilst on maternity leave (which is illegal, but it still happens) they also miss any promotions/pay rises/bonuses they would have got in that time because they aren't working, are passed over in the future and lose future earnings that way.

Nills Lagerbaak
26-05-2006, 08:58:09
that'll teach me to not read your post.

Funko
26-05-2006, 08:59:49
Of course, but it can be hard to prove and sometimes companies get away with it because women don't want to fight the court battle (with all associated costs) and risk losing.

Funko
26-05-2006, 09:00:10
Damn you for editing so fast!

Nills Lagerbaak
26-05-2006, 09:23:57
Fasted editor in the west. bizzang!!

Gary
26-05-2006, 09:48:28
You need to be taught not to read a Funko post :eek:

RedFred
29-05-2006, 00:47:33
NI? Like the knights who say Ni?

I outsmarted CPP/QPP by taking a five year mid career break.