To think the UK unfairly taxes families?

[OwnGravityField]

I have just found out that the UK is an outlier, in that it completely stops collecting a form of social tax (NI in the UK) once someone gets to pension age.

In every other country, pensioners’ contributtion as a proportion of income is much more similar to working households.

Example of disparity in the UK:

A working person earning 25k pays:

• Income tax: £2,486
• NI: £1,002
• total = £3488

A pensioner with an income of 25k pays only:

• Income tax: £2,486
• no NI
• total = £2486

So, a UK worker on 25k pays 40% MORE total tax than the pensioner (the difference between 2486 and 3488).

Let’s compare with a beloved utopia of fairness, such as Sweden: worker on similar salary pays 9% more tax than a pensioner.

Yes, other countries have slightly larger differences, but none except France come anywhere close to the UK difference in tax treatment between workers and pensioners.

In the interests of balanced sharing of info: France is tax and spend basket case. France taxes workers roughly twice as hard as pensioners. It’s obscene and the country is practically bankrupt.

Most other European countries narrow the gap by keeping small health or social contributions on pension income.

You might be thinking most UK pensioners don’t have 25k coming in? Nope. 3 million have individual incomes of 25k or more.

Anyway, I think it’s shocking that people at the most expensive time of their lives (kids, mortgage, food) are taxed so much more heavily. AIBU?

People had less expectations. When I grew up, mostly only the Fathers worked full time. My Mum did a part time cleaning job. Nobody in our area went on holiday, owned their own home or had a car.

Places varied. I was born in the 50s, working class family. Some aunts and uncles bought houses some rented. People definitely had holidays, maybe not very luxurious but camping/caravans/holidays back to Ireland to visit family. All the women worked, childminding, cleaning, bar or shop work.

How quickly history is forgotten

Historically women in the UK often lost their jobs when they had children, and while legislation has improved, "motherhood penalties" still lead to significant employment loss.

• Historical Context: Before the 1970s, many women were required to resign when they married (known as the "marriage bar," abolished for civil servants in 1946 and fully in 1975) or were routinely sacked upon becoming pregnant.
• Legal Protections (Post-1975): The Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and Employment Protection Act 1975 began to protect women, but it was not until 1978 that it became illegal to fire a woman for being pregnant

Despite the introduction of workforce protection in 1978 women still lost their jobs and didn’t have the means or proof to take matters to court

Even I in the 1990s after getting married was demoted as they said they were just waiting for me to get pregnant.

Note
Women in their 80s now were born from 1945
Women in their 70s now were born from 1955

Agree

I rather think that it would be better if local/council tax was levied per capita. On adults only, obviously. I'd probably try to work out a fudge that allowed anyone over 75 to defer payment until their estate could settle the bill.

I'm sure your recollection of your particular experience is correct but so are my points about less women working overall, working less hours and in less professiona, at least intellectually demanding jobs.

Most women did not lose their jobs by the 1970s! How can @TheignT's recollection possibly be correct if so.
Most women, by the 1970s/80s, when most of current pensions were young workers, gave up work by choice because they could comfortably be supported by their husband's salary. That generation, and certainly the ones before, had less protections and frreedom, sure, but they were much better off from an economic stand point.

Most women, by the 1970s/80s, when most of current pensions were young workers, gave up work by choice because they could comfortably be supported by their husband's salary.

That’s absolutely not the case. Most women had to give up work because there was no childcare available. It wasn’t by choice, it was from necessity. And employers were reluctant to employ the mothers of young children. Of course then it was perfectly legal for interviewers to ask about marital status, intentions of starting a family and number of children. As pointed out by a pp it was also legal to fire a pregnant woman or refuse to have her back.

I’m pointing out why one income was more common to our pensioners in their 70s and 80s.
Less protection in the workforce did lead to people losing their jobs when they became pregnant
along with so many other factors that made it impossible to go back to work when kids were young
It’s a fact.

People had to cut their cloth accordingly

Thankyou Blossom.
History and the law at the time speak for themselves

I agree but I’m not convinced deferring payment would be universally successful for the over 75s as many do not have an estate and others that do see it all eaten up on care home fees

That just isn't true @BIossomtoes. Most women gave up work because they could afford to stay at home to raise their families. That is less common nowadays. I agree that there was less childcare available. Childcare provision, which charges £££ after all, increased because it was demanded by the market, because more women needed to work, not the other way around.

No, it was the other way around. Many families were able to survive on one income because the basics were affordable, even on low wages. Indeed, even my grandparents, who raised their children in the 30s-50s were able to survive with multiple children on one, low income because they had access to council housing. My parents were able to manage comfortably on one, above average but not huge income because housing was so much cheaper for their generation. Admittedly, I was raised in a predominantly middle class area but a SAHM/housewife was absolutely the norm. That is absolutely not the case now.

As I said, the market demanded childcare provision when women were forced, for financial reasons, to work. It's a business and that is how businesses work.
I understand that there was less protection but that applied to the generation prior to the current elderly, rather than current pensioners in the main.

You are wrong
Most women could not afford to give up work, they just had no choice. They went back if they had a cat in hells chance of finding childcare ( none of which was free) that they could afford and an employer that would employ a woman with kids.

Some women did.

we are going round in circles here Raining
Some of us have actually experienced this discrimination in our working lives

.In the 1970s, it was less common for married women to work outside the home due to
a combination of deeply ingrained social,
legal, and
economic factors, although the decade marked a major turning point toward the dismantling of these barriers.
While the 1950s and 60s had higher rates of stay-at-home mothers, the early 1970s still carried over strict expectations, discrimination, and structural limitations.
Here are the primary reasons married women did not work in large numbers during that era:
1. The "Marriage Bar" and Workplace Discrimination

• Forced Resignation: In many industries and professions, women were forced to resign upon getting married. Known as "marriage bars," these policies remained in place in various sectors well into the 1960s and early 70s.
• Hiring Discrimination: Married women were often deemed unhirable because employers assumed they would soon become pregnant, quit, or prioritize their families over their jobs.
• Legal Restrictions: In some regions, married women needed their husband’s permission to take a job or even to open a bank account.

1. Social Stigma and Gender Roles

• The "Housewife" Ideal: Society held a strong belief that a woman’s primary role was to be a homemaker and mother.
• Social Judgement: Working wives were often viewed negatively—labeled as selfish, neglectful mothers, or un-feminine.
• Husband's Reputation: It was often considered a sign of a husband's failure to provide if his wife had to work, causing some to feel ashamed if their wives worked outside the home.

1. Economic and Practical Factors

• The "Family Wage": Throughout the post-war era, there was a strong, albeit diminishing, expectation that a male head of household should earn enough to support the entire family.
• Lack of Childcare: Affordable, reliable childcare was largely unavailable, making it difficult for mothers to work.
• "Invisible" Work: The notion that women didn't work was also partly a myth. Many women engaged in informal, part-time, or seasonal work to help with family finances.

To suggest women didn’t work because they didn’t need to is throwing the history of womens fight for equality down the drain.

It is blatantly untrue

In terms of ‘ the basics were more affordable’ @rainingsnoring

it’s worth noting the facts again
The following are the average costs of the basics on an average income

1970s
Food 39%
Energy 10%
Rent 10%
Total = 59%

2020s
Food 11.5%
Energy 7.4%
Rent 32%
Total = 50.9%

Its also worth noting there were no UC top ups for low earners, no free childcare, only children of the unemployed had free school meals etc etc etc

To say therefore that the basics were more affordable in the 70s is simply not correct

That's just not true. Most women could work in the 1970s and 80s if they chose to do so. Many didn't have to, as I've said, certainly far more women didn't have to than do now. The chief cost that has risen stratosperically relative to incomes, even two incomes, of course, is housing. As I said, due to cheap housing, my grandparents managed with a v large family on one income. That house is now worth a huge amount of money, entirely beyond the budget of two professional people. Of course, my grandparents led a v frugal life, were on rations, etc but their basic housing is now unaffordable to two, v well educated, hard working professionals. That's a huge difference.

We are going to have to agree to disagree on this topic rather than going round in circles.

I'm sorry if you experienced discrimination in the workplace as a result of your sex. That doesn't take away from the chief point about the difference in affordability of basics, chiefly housing. Nor is it directly relevant to this thread, the point of which is that pensioners should not have a special, lower tax rate.

Here we go again. Back to the golden age when women had a much easier life than those unfortunate enough to be raising children today, who are the most shafted generation ever. No one has suffered as they do.
Another reason why it was possible fir women to stay at home in the 60s and 70s is expectations were much lower. The lives we led with my sahm would probably be classed as 'poverty' today. But it really wasn't, all of my friends had the same standard of living as we did, even those from relatively well-off families. These days, clubs and activities, eating out, takeaways, cars, holidays, weekends away, cinema visits, soft play etc seem to be regarded as basic requirements but they were very occasional when I was growing up. They did exist, but were not embedded into normal life they way they seem to be now.
So while I would never say stop buying coffee and you could afford a house, it stands to reason all of these things cost a lot more than none of them.
Yes housing is more expensive now, but pretty much everything else is relatively cheaper. It's lifestyle creep that is the problem.

This. Many couples could afford for the women not to work nowadays. They probably wouldn't want to give up the lifestyle to enable it though.

It is true. I was there. And as pps have pointed out the standard of living was far lower for young families in those days. Quite honestly I’m tired of younger women asserting nonsense about a time in which they were young children or not even born and telling those of us who lived that experience that we’re lying.

Not just my experience. Every woman I knew in the 70s were working. Women did many jobs, the doctor I saw at family planning was a woman. I'm sure you are so much more intellectually challenged than she was, well no I'm not really as a woman who qualified in the 1930s faced challenges you can't even imagine.

Have a look at the average working week back then, it wasn't 36 hours a week like now, have a look at legal entitlement to paid holidays and maternity leave.

My recollection is correct and women lost jobs. This miracle was accomplished by applying for a new job when you'd managed to find childcare.

As part of my degree, that I did as a mother with a full-time job in the 70s, I researched childcare. There were fewer nurseries in the 70s than in the 40's and 50s. Local authority nurseries had closed or were closing, in my city places were prioritised for families referred by social services. Private provision was growing but it didn't magically happen overnight.

You did have the choice of childminders who were poorly controlled with many scandals, or you relied on your own mum or mother's supported each other. I was in a group of three mothers who supported each other combined with my mother doing some of the care. Fortunately one worked in her family business and was flexible, my husband worked Saturdays so could do a day in the week. We combined this with playgroup for 2.5 hours four days a week. We were a resourceful generation.

and by taking off your wedding ring, hiding your hand and lying about being married

I absolutely agree with this.
People who were actually there are brushed aside as if their experiences are utterly irrelevant as they don't fit poster's rhetoric of how life has never been harder for working mothers than it is now.
As a pp said, many families could afford to have a SAHP if they drilled their lifestyles back to the 'golden ages' when 'most families could easily afford to have a SAHM'.
I don't know if it's still live, but there was a thread a couple of weeks back about how much money (mostly) SAHM had to spend as 'theirs' every month. The general consensus seemed to be that £500 was the minimum, although one poster said she would struggle with less than £1000 a month! This was money for treats, activities, coffees, nails etc etc for themselves and somethimes the children.
To me, this is an outrageous amount of money to (a) expect and (b) spend just of fripperies and trinkets and goes some way to explaining why many families can't 'afford' a SAHP!