Baby boomers don’t plan to retire

Marion Jeffels
Member - 12 posts

Having children has a detrimental impact on the pension a woman accrues. For example two women born on the same date in 1954 and working throughout their career with the same employer. One has a family and continues to work after each child post maternity break of 3 months (children born in the 1980s). The other does not have a family and works continuiously. Today they get an estimate of pension. The difference is that the one who has had children has up to 18 years less reckonable service and up to 40% less in pension accrued. With this detriment, the woman who had the children has no option but to work as long as possible. Hopefully the policy which supports this current situation will be changed to encourage equality for those of us who have had children.

Emma McAuley
Member - 16 posts

I find this argument increasingly frustrating as women should be given the credit for being able to make well thought out decisions. If I chose to take a career break to have a child then I should plan for that properly (including financially) and not expect the government to offer me additional money for staying at home with my children. Another woman who chooses not to take any time off to have children, will obviously benefit in different ways (career advancement etc) from that decision, and that is right.

Surely, we are an intelligent women who make decisions based on fact, not on some whimsical hope that someone else will one day bail us out.

Deleted User
Member - 10 posts

Surely 'baby boomers can't imagine being in a position to be able to retire' would be more appropriate. We have a society geared to keeping us on the treadmill and dutiful debt-ridden slaves., brothers and sisters.

The early years of childhood are vital, the quality and continuity of care is deparately important. Society benefits massively from a population nurtured correctly (witness Denmark), although that doesn't mean any stereo-type role has to be the norm, but if a father or mother want to spend two years looking after their toddlers, I have no problem with measures to facilitate that, and that includes making sure contributions are dealt with fairly.

Colin England
Member - 55 posts

This site is for employers and their advisors to use. It is not for employees to air their grievances or problems. Maybe some one can point out to me and others a site which is geared to use by employees?????

But -- on this thread -- if a woman chooses to have children, when the time comes for her to retire she will be in the happy position of being able to benefit from the pension of her husband. And she will also have some moral claim on her children for support.

It may well be that "we" are the last generation to benefit from a last salary scheme paid into by ourselves and our employers as thanks to Robert Maxwell many (most?) employers are now very well aware of the cost of such schemes and their cost benefit and are stopping such schemes for new entrants.

Pensions are delayed payment of wages. No employer is going to pay a (delayed wages) pension for a woman when she chooses to be at home to look after children.

The State cannot afford to pay pensions for such women either - we are in a good economic period - yet Mrs Thatcher wasted the North Sea Oil tax income and increased the (what used to be called) National Debt. Wait until we hit a bad economic period, then hear the shouts of pain from employers and employees alike!!!!

As a Nation, we cannot afford to provide social housing for everyone, we cannot afford to provide an NHS service for the whole World, we cannot afford to have open borders for all refugees. We cannot afford to keep on subsidising everything. We must get real at sometime very soon.

I suggest that we stop all employment related pensions, so no one gets them - then at least we will all be equal.

Gavin Melville
Member - 6 posts

Although this site is for employers and managers, I believe that employers and managers can benefit hugely by the opinions of employees. If these opinions are expressed in the same thread rather than on a different site or thread the discussion would be much easier to follow. What about it Workplace Law?

Kelly Mansfield - Workplace Law Network
Online advisor - 62 posts

Gavin,

I agree that, in some instances, employees may add an interesting and useful dimension to a discussion - so we're not against their views and opinions being expressed, necessarily.

What we do want to avoid, though, is the forum being used for employees to raise personal queries and seek advice on their personal situations. As you know, the forum is designed for employers to obtain advice and guidance on professional situations, and we don't want to dilute its usefulness with lots of personal queries ...