To see part time hours as a necessity not a luxury

[Mollymoo78]

I work at a nursery three days a week on minimum wage. It's very much a job of convenience and I've recently been offered full time hours. Despite needing the money I've turned it down. I just can't face doing it full time, the thought fills me with dread and I know I'll be miserable. I need two days a week to catch up on jobs and just have breathing space and stay sane. Trouble is certain full time colleagues feel that I should have taken full time hours and I'm letting them down and being lazy (that's what they imply in their comments). I always worked full time prior to having children (doing office work) but since having children and being a sahm for quite a while I seem to have more to do and more of a need to finally have time of my own. Is it lazy and selfish and ultimately unreasonable to feel this way?

TooStressy - do you know that you can still.make pension contributions of £3,600pa even if you don't have any employment income? I know you said you are part time so you might already be making contributions at or above this level, or you might not have spare cash in the household for pension contributions. But it is worth looking at what pension contributions your partner is making and whether these could be split between the two of you so you both build up a pot. Of course if he is a higher or additional rate tax payer it make more sense for him to make them as he gets more tax relief.

Thanks, that's good to know actually. We can't afford to make any additional ones now but maybe in the next few years that'/ something to look into. Have no idea how much I even pay in - I'm public sector and have always opted into pensions. DH higher earner than me but not high rate taxpayer so will look into all of that.

My job situation is awkward anyway and would derail the thread (I had my own thread some months ago) but basically I cannot leave without financial penalties but the hours and management culture really don't suit me any more so am dropping more hours and hoping to pick up some more flexible hours elsewhere.

The lack of pension provision for women caring for children is something that needs to be highlighted. I am one of those women. I work part time because working full time plus childcare wouldn't be profitable or feasible at present. It's not always about keeping up with housework, its about just doing what's necessary to keep things going and unfortunately women are loosing out in so many ways. This is what makes me angry when people say oh lucky you part timer - I'm not lucky, I'm just doing what I have to to get by and raise my DCs and I am the poorer for it financially and career wise but it's a loose loose situation.

Ah if you are public sector it maybe different as if it is a final salary type scheme it depends on years worked etc, and you can't just pay in extra.
You maybe able to have a separate defined contribution personal plan though.
I fully appreciate that lots of people's situations don't allow any leeway for extra contributions, and other things like the working spouse being higher rate so getting enhanced tax relief, or having an employer who matches contributions so it makes more sense to put the money there, mean that the working spouse (usually the man) has the better pension provision.
But if it is because people don't know they can contribute to their own plan, or haven't thought about it, then it might help to point it out.

Munster

Whatever.
You have made your mind up to convince yourself I had hundreds of thousands to invest. that's like me saying your first pension instalment was hundreds of thousands because that's what you'll get back.
but hey ho, you win

Well, I'm looking for PT work now, after 5 years of juggling FT work and DTDs - I just can't do it anymore - my mental health has suffered greatly, everything has suffered...

youre the winner gilly-you've found the secret formula that will ensure you financial security in your later years yet you insist it's without having huge sums Of money invested

I'm part time with a higher education pension - I pay 9% & employer pays 19%.

While 9% is a considerable sum of my part time wage (especially with my train commute costs) the overall benefits package - holidays, maternity, sick pay etc make it worth my while.

When I was job searching 4 year ago I was offered a home office job at the same time - 3.5% employee pension which employer matched. This was one of the main contributing factors that I took the higher education job despite the omission of flexi time.

Husband has been paying into a secure pension scheme since he was 18. Our mortgage will be paid when we are 50 (18
Years!).

Whilst morbid to put pen to paper, we stand to retrieve significant inheritances from our parents so that we imagine will assist with DC uni contributions (if applicable) 1st car, 1st house & wedding contributions (again if applicable).

Seriously though gillybeanz, all banter aside, I fail to see how anyone can set themselves up with financial security through doing up and selling properly without making seriously good money out of it.

Agreed- it starts small. You buy a cheap property, do it up, perhaps make 15k profit, invest in another property, make a little more profit.... but how do you get to the stage where that provides long term security without having, say, at least 200k accumulated over the years, to invest?

I'm not criticising this as a method btw- hats off to anyone who does this- but the figures just don't add up when you insist you've done it without seriously big sums of money

Of course, you don't have to explain it to us- that's your prerogative. But it might be helpful, given that most women aren't in such a fortuitous position, and it might help people to see the different ways they can secure their future.

There should be no embarrassment in mentioning large sums of money... people need transparency about what retirement costs, and whether they are on track to secure it. I'm not embarrassed to say i have a few hundred k in my teaching pension, and that I achieve that by paying 11.3% of my salary, plus I am very fortunate that with the teachers' pension the employer pays in over 16%

But i am very aware that this is a very good deal and that most women are not in this position, and many will wind up living with financial insecurity at a time in their life when they really don't need that

Why does it matter what work colleagues think? I'm confused by that. Just ignore and live your own life.

It is none of their fecking business! You do what is right for you and your family! I certainly will not be working full time when my children are both in school. Xx

Munster

Tbh, I think we got our wires mixed, or I did.
I thought you were saying that huge sums were invested from the outset, not that there is a growing amount in bricks and mortar.
That was probably my fault, interpreting your comments in the wrong way.
Our initial investment was 1k believe it or not.
A friend was helping us out, he didn't need our 1k but saw it as a way for us to get on our feet. The idea of it eventually providing a pension was not in our thoughts.
So we started off very little and soon invested the profit from that property, then the next and so on. There has never been a huge profit at once to invest, but obviously it has grown each time.
Now, 2 of our dc have started doing it, they are employed though so have pension through their employers.
Obviously, I don't think this is a realistic thing for many people, it's time consuming and hard work for very little instant reward, especially if you are reinvesting the profit.
I'm sure if me and dh had been employed by a company we'd be doing something different.
I think the funds for a pension will come from renting a couple of properties, or of course selling them and providing a salary from the sale.
We aren't sure yet and taking it as it comes.
Apologies, if I still haven't explained properly.

Thank you for clarifying. I never assumed you had invested several 100k from the outset! I completely assumed this was over a life time, and would therefore have accumulated to a huge sum. You've also now mentioned having BTL properties too- which of course is another source of income if the rent you charge is a profit over any mortgage.

But my point remains: most women are not in your position (or mine) and therefore they need to consider the implications of working only part time or not at all over a significant period of time

That I can agree with. Do you think it's getting better though now more women are wising up to the fact.
I mean as opposed to 20/ 30 years ago when it was hardly thought about at all?
It's just that whilst I believe what you say, women I come across are making provision for their future, some who are working pt too.
maybe they might not realise how much they will need for their future though.

Overall, yes, I think it's better insofar as things have improved for women in broader terms- e.g.: females performing better at A level and university, having higher aspirations for themselves etc. I also wonder whether shared parental leave will make a difference, because if mothers start to transfer some leave over to the father it creates more of a balance from the early days of parenting, so it won't by default be the woman who takes a greater career hit. However, takeup of it has been disappointingly low so far. (I realise there may be financial implications if the man is the higher earner, but if couples are serious about sharing responsibilities then they may consider taking the short term financial hit, just as many WOHP do with childcare costs) I think shared parental leave is a wonderful piece of legislation- I only wish it had been around 20 years ago! All these things bolster womens' rights and opportunities and therefore should have a knock on effect in improving their position financially. Also the changes in legislation about employers and automatic enrolment in pension schemes have highlighted the fact that people need to make provision

However, all that aside, the evidence is that a frightening percentage of women remain unprepared for how they will support themselves in their older age, particularly if they outlive their husband. (The percentage of men with inadequate provision is also a concern, but it's significantly higher for women.)

I think a major reason is that to get the maximum gains from any provision you need to start young- and many people understandably don't think about their retirement when they're in their 20s and 30s

It's also very easy to fall into a working pattern for various reasons, and once in an established pattern it can be difficult to change. I consider myself reasonably intelligent and aware, but as I've already mentioned, there was an element of luck in that a full time post in my subject at a local school cropped up at exactly the time my youngest turned 4 and started school. I had been doing a 3 day a week job share while the children were pre schoolers, and TBH if I'd continued doing that for another year while my children were in school, I'd probably have slipped into a pattern of using my newly acquired 2 child-free days to do housework, shopping, school prep and marking... then I would have started to feel i needed that time for those things (because jobs can easily expand to fit the time available) and who knows, I could still be doing that now. I have several teacher colleagues of a similar age to me who have worked part time most of their career and it's only dawning on them now that their pensions are severely depleted. I don't know about all public sector pensions but I imagine they're similar in that even having a few years knocked off your pension affects it disproportionately. And these are intelligent, educated women, so Its not about people being stupid- it's a more complex set of reasons that have resulted in women being disadvantaged.

So- long post! But overall yes things have improved. But not enough to address the scale of the problem, particularly with people living longer. I think the pensions crisis over the next few decades is going to be a massive issue.

I want to work until I die. My father worked full time to 77 and died at 79 so so smuch for all his pension provision!

Also in the UK if you pay into a small pension you dont' get pension credit and housing benefit when you retire. If instead you spend every last penny but never work the state (currently) puts you in the same position as if you'd worked with 40 years of NI contributions. Thee is an argument the minimum wage workers who choose not to opt out of auto enrolment pensions are perhaps being mis-sold those pensions.

The UK has very low productivity - basically we don't work very hard and are pretty keen on short hours and part time work and tax credits often top that up or a spouse. for the good of UK PLC it is probably better if everyone works full time but on an individual basis women (and men of course) take their own decisions.

Ignore them. Working part time is not lazy especially in a nursery where the work is demanding. You have made the right choice as working full time would be almost impossible for you

Me2017- I agree with you that tax credits have backfired very badly, and it would be far better if NMW were higher and tax bands adjusted to make a greater incentive to work more hours and have more money in your pocket. however, anyone choosing to work fewer hours and get topped up by tax credits is making a really bad long term decision because they aren't really doing anything to secure their future.
I think you're taking a cynical view of outcomes in the long term. OK, if you don't pay full NI contributions and you don't make personal pension provision the state won't watch you starve, but you're wrong in thinking you'll have the same standard of living as someone who's made wise choices. You mention housing benefit- well I for one don't intend to be at the mercy of landlords in my retirement- we own our home and I intend to keep it that way. And have you looked at what the state pension is ? Frankly it's pretty shit; I look on it as a bit of a top up when I reach 67 but no way on earth would I want to rely on Earth would I want to rely on it as my sole income as a pensioner.

Remember the whole benefits system is undergoing reform anyway.... there is likely to be far greater emphasis on people making their own provision, and I think what the state will provide will be pretty shit

More than half people in their 20s - 40 don't and never will own a house so will be renting in old age. So when they reach that age they will if we maintain the current system get housing benefit i.e. all rent paid plus pension credit. I agree that my view is a bit risky as by the time people retire there may not be universal credit for OAPs so if you don't have your years of NI contributions you may be left without a bean and if you have no second pension of any kind the state pension might be pretty small - I think it might be about £150 a week if maintained at current levels.

I really really think that's a risky strategy, to rely on state handouts. If more people are renting in old age and relying on benefits, benefit caps will be even tighter. You might get your housing benefit paid, but it may be for renting somewhere pretty shit, and you might need to move around if a new cap comes in and you can't afford your rent payments.
Having rented when younger, the last thing I'd want in my final years is that kind of instability.

So even if our children are more likely to end up renting than we were, it makes complete sense to encourage them to finance themselves as independently as possible so at least they Retain more control over their lives