Feminism claims to be about equality and not pro-female, but why no outcry about current Tax law?

Gosh Gee. thanks Dawn.

Thanks for the kind words. OP should have done her? homework before posting.

But hey, let's not let the facts interfere with a good rant eh?

I think KarenC, wherever she? is, might also consider that when I was young (dinosaur years ago) and had a family there was no such thing as maternity leave/maternity pay. So you either left and put yourself in a position of dependency and either paid no NI - smaller pension again unless you made the work years up later - or opted to pay NI out of your non-earnings, or gave birth in your holiday time and kept going. Wonder how Karen thinks that advantages us selfish females….?

Oh, I was going to report this as goady fuckery but if the OP has gorn I say let it stand.

I thought Mhairi Black was campaigning on this issue, i.e. that the equalisation should be introduced in a way that's fair to the women d'un certain âge?

The OP has deregistered? Well that's just not cricket! I vote to keep though.

Goodness keep it - Grimbles post was the most interesting informative thing I've read this year!

I'd like it to stay for Grimbles post please

That's fascinating grimbletart - I d always wondered why the SRA for women was lower when we live longer (and I work in pensions )

Chill out op. No need to spit.

Thanks vesuvia.

I agree Grimble - I didn't know the justification behind the earlier retirement age, and it's very interesting to hear!

No outcry, because change already well underway.

No need to campaign for something that's already happening.

BoGrainger wrote - "I'm 60 this year and won't get my state pension until 2022 when I'm 66. I don't understand the bit about November 2018 and equalising men and women's pension ages at 65."

In November 2018 the state pension ages for men and women will be equal at 65 and then, after that, the age rises for everyone. By the time you retire, the state pension age will have reached 66. After that, it continues to increase for people younger than you.

I won't get a state pension until 67.

The elimination of the inequality between pension ages was announced yonks ago and started being put into practice in 2010.

I do not think the pace can be accelerated now. And there is a fair possibility that there will be further rises above 67 on a short timeframe than previously anticipated.

My mother had to wait until she was 62 years and six months until she could claim her state pension. She 'retired' at 60 after having a nervous breakdown caused by running herself ragged looking after 3 elderly relatives with dementia. So for two and a half years she was completely financially dependent on my father, who, thankfully, is a decent man.

So, pension age is being equalised so you'll be happy. Meanwhile thousands of women across the country will still be expected to do unpaid caring for family members. That's something I care about as a hypocritical female feminist.

OP, there is another thread going on about the pay gap. Why don't you have a spout there?

The pay gap exists, maybe not for the reasons that you can easily refute but it definitely exists.

And you shouldn't assume that you know what feminists think on every topic. You'd get a lot further if you ask first.

That is assuming you want to have a rational debate and not just find fuel for your hatred.

Hmmm. It is worth asking who actually made the retirement age of women 60?
When the State Pension was brought in in 1908 it was for individuals (men and women) over 70 with a higher rate paid to married men - women being seen of course as a dependent.

In 1925 the age was reduced to 65, meaning many men had to wait to until over 65 to get the higher married rate (because men like to marry younger women dontcha know).

In 1940 the pension age for women was cut to 60 to ensure that for most couples the married rate would be paid as soon as the husband reached 65, thus the anomaly in NI payments.

So, historically, it was the overwhelmingly male Government who decreed that
women were not individuals to be taxed or paid a state pension as individuals but a dependent half of a couple.

It was also an overwhelmingly male Government that decreed married working women could pay a reduced NI stamp. The catch, of course, was that this reduced stamp meant you got a reduced pension as a married woman.

I married in 1966 when this married woman's stamp still applied. I opted to pay the full NI whack to get my pension as an individual (and because I never saw DH as an automatic bread ticket).

I worked until I was 70 and paid class 4 NI until then, so paid NI for 50 years by the way.

But many women were forced to retire at 60 whether they wanted to or not.
So in terms of overall fairness OP it was a case of swings and roundabouts - in some instances men gained by working longer, in some instances women by paying NI for fewer years (but how much gain was that considering they got a smaller pension?)

In any case pension and NI equalisation is now well under way.

So the unfairness was really triggered way back in 1908 when married women were considered dependents of men and exacerbated by laws passed in 1925 and 1940 plus the reduced married women's stamp (abolished in 1977).

I'm 60 this year and won't get my state pension until 2022 when I'm 66. I don't understand the bit about November 2018 and equalising men and women's pension ages at 65. Please explain only I'm getting excited!

KarenC1983 wrote - "us women don't pay tax between the ages of 60 and 65, yet men do?"

Would you rather live on a small pension that is too small to be taxed, or live on a job income that is larger than the pension, even after tax has been deducted?

Since 2010, the UK Government has been raising the state pension age for women. Today, the state pension age for women is actually 63 not 60. For men, it's 65. The age for women will continue to increase until November 2018 when the age will be set to 65 for men and women. That's a phased-in equalisation of the age because, although the government would probably have loved to have reset the ages overnight back in the mid-1990s when they changed the state pension laws, it was rightly considered too unfair to suddenly change the rules for women (when no sudden change for men was involved). Even with the phased-in approach, some women are now experiencing unfairness in some aspects of the age equalisation process.

The difference in the state pension age has, for decades, led to poverty for many older women, because women were deprived of the opportunity to continue earning a much larger income from a job during their early 60s. Men were not deprived of this opportunity. (That's before we even think about the negative effects of the marriage bar that forced women in some jobs to stop work when they married).

Pensions are not tax-free because they are pensions. The state pension is only tax-free because it is much less than the tax-free allowance. If a woman also has a private pension, which takes her income above the personal allowance, she will have to pay tax on that pension.

There is nothing stopping a 64-year-old man voluntarily reducing his income to the same as a female state pensioner, if he wants to legally avoid paying tax. Men won't do that because they are financially better off earning a much larger income from their jobs because they will have more money left to spend after tax has been deducted.

Since 6 April 2010, the age when women can claim their State Pension is gradually increasing to bring it in line with the State Pension age for men. Between April 2016 and November 2018, State Pension age for women will increase gradually to 65. That's from the National Insurance pages on Directgov. I'm sure it was announced some years earlier as 2010 seems very recent to me - have memory like sieve though.

I have a public sector pension due to kick in at 60 (not enough to retire on, sadly) but it also kicks in for men at the same age. It's been equal since I started work there nearly 40 years ago. A lot of occupational pensions do the same, I believe (including the other little bits and pieces of pensions I've picked up along the years). Finally the state pension too is catching up with the 21st century. Do you see women campaigning against it? Not many, I don't suppose. Are we trying to avoid paying that extra 5 years' contribution? No-one that I know. Who built the discrepancy into the respective retirement ages in the first place? A government full of feminists? Don't think we've had one of those yet

I am 57, I will have to work, pay tax and national insurance until I am 67. As a young married woman in 1979 I was advised not to take out a private pension, it would not be worth it as I would be giving up work when I had children, and would be retiring at 60 anyway.
Get your facts right op, "us females" pay the same as men.

Your information about tax law and pension age is wrong. Pension ages are already being equalised.

And I'm a feminist, and I am quite happy for my feminism to be female-centred.

Maybe the poor men can pick up a few hours in home care. It will likely involve caring for other old men who need toilet help and the like. They could make up for the few thousand they lost out, in wages.