Men’s final salary pensions nearly double women’s at state pension age

[IwantToRetire]

Men’s DB (final salary) annual pensions are worth nearly twice the value of women’s, at £13,900 compared to £7,500 net per annum, while their DC (contribution) pensions are worth more than three times as much, at £90,000 compared to £28,500.

The findings come from a Department for Work and Pensions analysis of 7,802 adults aged 62 to 65 from the 1958 National Child Development Study, examining their preparation for retirement and overall pension adequacy.

Around 8 in 10 participants had some form of private pension, but women were more likely to rely heavily on the State Pension and less likely to meet a moderate Retirement Living Standard.

Meanwhile, nearly half, 47 per cent, of participants were expected to depend on the state pension for between 67 and 100 per cent of their retirement income. This group was more likely to include women, those with lower educational attainment, the self-employed and renters. Around half were also estimated not to have sufficient pension income to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living.

Continues https://corporate-adviser.com/mens-db-pensions-nearly-double-womens-at-state-pension-age/

That wouldn’t be unusual because jobs that traditionally come with a DB scheme are often female heavy professions - teaching, nursing, social work, social care all have high proportions of women at practitioner level. Public sector also tends towards more flexible working which is needed to run a home and care for children. It would make sense that on a female led forum, many participants would be in jobs viewed traditionally as female.

But the issue is still structural and systemic disadvantage. How often do we see on here woman works part time or not at all because of man and big important job, with fat salary and presumably fat pension contributions to match. Maybe some men do top up or make private pension provision for their partners who are facilitating them and their careers, but I bet it’s not many.

Knowing the pension situation doesn’t mean all women are necessarily in a position to change it.

No auto enrolment at that time, and in fact that employer wouldn't allow you to join the pension scheme until you'd worked there for two years

Auto enrolment today is pretty crap for many employers contributions wise & many young people opt out due to living costs.

There’s a thread right now where the woman found out her husband fell in love with someone else, she said she can’t afford legal advice and won’t bother as she wouldn’t be entitled to his pension anyway 🤯. They have adult kids and rent so she was planning to split without any legal help. I hope she changes her mind.

I’m not too sure on current trends, I’m in my 50s now and my kids are grown up but all my friends and family worked pt when they were young and I know hardly any with just one kid.

They do not work more. The patriarchy values the work they do more highly, whereas the work women do is more likely to be unpaid or paid at minimum wage.

If you removed sex markers from the data and showed that people who have spent their adult lives working an average of 40 hours a week end up with retirement pensions that are two or three times bigger than people who have spent their adult lives working an average of 60 hours a week would that not ring alarm bells? The fact that it doesn't seem unfair to you because the people getting the shitty end of the stick are female is just part of the endemic cultural misogyny that just seems normal and natural.

How often do we see on here woman works part time or not at all because of man and big important job, with fat salary and presumably fat pension contributions to match. Maybe some men do top up or make private pension provision for their partners who are facilitating them and their careers, but I bet it’s not many.

I dislike the narrative that women lack knowledge or can’t access that knowledge. I work p/t & have since my dc were born. My DH does a lot with dc/house. The main reason I work is for my pension.

The patriarchy values the work they do more highly, whereas the work women do is more likely to be unpaid or paid at minimum wage.

But younger women are out earning men

This! Time and time again women make that short term choice. Should be a discussion to have before planning kids.

@Alpacajigsaw I’m confused by your reply to me? Women today have fewer dc & more mothers work ft vs the past.

bottom line is don’t give up work unless your dh is earning enough to financially compensate you. Which it very rarely is

Exactly my DH would need to earn a lot more to pay the equivalent into my pension hence why I stayed in work.

They may be able to access it, but it doesn’t always mean they’re in a position to change the situation. Again, how many posts on here do we see with big important man opting out of anything to do with family as he “works long hours” meaning the woman has no choice but to deprioritise her own earning potential?

ok, I wasn’t disagreeing. Just not really something I’d noticed being older and out of that demographic.

There's nothing feminist in implying women have no agency in the decisions that lead to this.

@Alpacajigsaw Im sorry I disagree, I recognise it was an issue in the past but there is far more agency today & we literally have a wealth of knowledge at our fingertips.

The vast majority of women here do have a choice with regards to who they marry & have dc with & yes relationships change, abuse happens etc but the vast majority of women recognise it’s important to be independent.

@Alpacajigsaw sorry, didn’t notice what?

This goes along with all the threads stated by women who haven’t married the father of their kids and then are left penniless when they split. Women need to take financial decisions to protect themselves before having kids.

Pay attention to Reforms proposed policy. They are looking to reduce public sector pensions by changing terms and conditions. This will impact women more than men because women are more likely to have public sector jobs as well as being in lower paid jobs to begin with.

With other policies designed to be better for employers, it means it would make a problem about lack of pension provision increasingly worse.

As it is I think we have a time delayed bomb on pensions already in progress. It's not so bad at the moment because a lot of pensioners are on those good pension deals. But changes to how many years you need to qualify for the state pension and lower quality private pensions are problematic. If you are my age you weren't immediately enrolled into a company pension until your mid 30s. It started for large companies in 2012 but wasn't compulsory for small and medium ones until 2018. I was 40.

Having worked in low income jobs I have a number of years where I didn't meet the minimum NI payment for credit for the full year for state pension eligibility. Zero hours contracts make it more difficult for young people to make the hours to do this.

I do think we are sleep walking into an age where being able to retire will be something only for the wealthy and ultimately I can see the state pension disappearing all today. Instead you work until your private pension is big enough or you work until you no longer can and are signed off permanently as no longer physically or mentally fit for work.

A generation who are increasingly priced out from housing ownership are also going to be much more vulnerable.

This all impacts heaviest on women not men, so we should expect to see those differences only get worse. That in itself isn't conducive to the birth rate increasing any time soon...

The levels of poverty in the elderly are going to skyrocket by the time I'm 67 and will only get worse after that.

None of that 'happened ' to your friend. Those are the choices she made in her life. It's 2026 not 1926. Women don't have to get married or have children at all. We can work, buy property etc. Your friend chose to marry, have children and go part time. She got to spend time with her kids and now she gets half their father's pension. Sounds like she didn't do too badly.

But v it is unfair that public sector pensions are so much better than private ones so it’s an anomaly that needs fixing. Women are just as capable as men of working in the private sector /they don’t have to be stuck in s public sector job.

Lots of women on MN crowing about their high earning partners while they work a day or two a week. So your pension is based on what you earn not on what your DH earns unless you get divorced and claim a slice of his or get a portion if when he dies. Reality check needed here. You get no reward for being a man's servant.

@RedToothBrush I don’t disagree with the wider points about pensions. Interestingly public sector pensions are far less generous to newer entrants and retirement & home ownership will be a pipe dream for many.

And now they will also pay off their student loans more slowly and pay more interest - isn't it GREAT!

But v it is unfair that public sector pensions are so much better than private ones so it’s an anomaly that needs fixing.

It’s today’s pensioners and the ones retiring soon that have the really good ones…and let’s not discuss the triple lock!

The choice is paid childcare or one or both parent drops hours or stops work (or works shifts etc).

There are obviously reasons why this is often the woman - perhaps she's the lower earner (and that also should be questioned). But if you're on a similar wage as each other then it shouldn't automatically be the mother... there are tons of different circumstances that would affect this decision.