An outrageous suggestion: Citizen's Pension - yet more money for women

Too bad they won't tell us the costs and let us vote on this. It's a major policy change and a possible indication where our country is headed.

Americans have an option on their income taxes to specify what a percentage pay's for.

Why don't you write them a really furious letter?

It'll make virtually no difference. In the vast majority of cases it'll just be replacing means tested benefits (Pension Credit/Housing Benefit etc) with the full basic state pension. I suspect the "5-10 Billion" cost doesn't take account of the savings in means tested benefits.

The main people it'll help are people who haven't got a full NI record but who have got a decent occupational/private pension/savings. People with poor NI records don't tend to have much in private pensions or savings.

It will also slightly help those who rely on their spouse's NI record, by taking the pension up from 60% to 100%. But again this will often reduce means tested benefits.

And it'll seriously piss off those women who used to pay the reduced married woman's NI rate, but opted for the full rate so as to build up their entitlement to the basic state pension!

If we didn't have any children who would pay the NI and taxes YOU will need to pay YOUR pension?

The OP's point was not that no-one should have children.

Rather, that as women are not stuck with having to have a child, since they are allowed many legal avenues to void the results of sex ( While men *aren't* ), that said resulting choices to proceed to parenthood are, for the most part ( When it's single women ), are theirs, alone, as well. Including to pay for.

Oh. Most pension schemes tend to use the payors' money, to pay out to those payors, after they retire. The kids' money, is needed to build up the funds to pay the kids, when they retire.

Andre

Have you contemplated the fact that women who pay the full NIC have a very rough deal. They are entitled to the spouse's part of the SRP (£49.15 from

No surprise there. Feminism is the radical idea that only women are people. And, by corollary, only women are citizens.

...i.e., "the lower class."

...and has what feminists consider to be the added benefit of making things less fair for people who did not "take time out" for a hobby of playing doll-house-and-baby. Sheesh.

...yup, one daren't call that a double standard 'cause it benefits women, either or else...

Your attempt to wave away an objection to another double standard, clett, is pregnant with the premise that all children come by virgin birth. Thank you for illustrating how stupid are apologists for women's greed for the unearned, clett.

...or even raise a child they do cook up and pop out, given the number of creches the bureagynist State has already paid for...

Sigh. Once again the womanfirsters are stamping their little feet and demanding that the working class* be burdened with paying for more goodies for the leisure class**.

• Men.

The honest ones, anyway. Then there are the dishonest ones, the ones called "social insurance".

Hey, Andre, how come those schemes to loot the public purse put forward by the womanfirsters under the guise of "fairness" don't base payouts on the number of children the woman has raised to working adulthood? -- given clett's preMISSes, of course.

That's an interesting spin on the situation, the fact that women are entitled to something that men aren't (ie a state pension based on their spouse's NI record), means that women get a rough deal when they only get the same as men! Sounds like feminist logic, or are you just trying to wind up the soc.men crowd?

Anyway in a few years time (2010 IIRC) men will get the same entitlement as women to a state pension based on their spouse's NI record. Some men already are, I believe a divorced man or widower is entitled to a pension based on his ex-wife's NI record.

" Feminism: The radical idea that women are people. " " Humanism: The even more radical idea that men *and* women are all people. "

Yep. Couldn't be more sexist...

Didn't they once say that that was a Bad Thing ?

I guess that they were... lying. As usual.

Indeed.

And, then they claim that the ruling class is being somehow, " discriminated against ", when they are asked to EARN added priviliges.

Canada Pension Plan is in good shape. But, then again, for a " socialist " land, we have a budget surplus, and a positive balance of trade...

Well, even that would require some specific level of... performance, and we cannot ask that of the ladies...

:-)

Nor are women anything but net *consumers* of resources.

Reduce your costs today ! Fire a woman !

" You're a liberated woman. Learn to *lose* ! " Danny DeVito, " Other People's Money ".

Andre

The implication is that they want to *increase* the basic pension as well, which accounts for a good-sized chunk of the cost.

Anyway, means-tested benefits are, *in the public perception*, more uncertain than a flat-rate 100% benefit. Yes, of course I know it isn't

Yes, I know that the "everyone" who "know" this are stupid for doing so. That doesn't change things. Because people believe this particular set of myths, they will "plan ahead" even less assiduously in the flat-rate case than in the means-tested case. "What happens if they mess with the tests, and I can't get my full pension because I've got 50p in the bank? I'd better save some more, just in case." (OK, maybe not that extreme, but you get the idea.) If there is an unconditional pension, people will say something like, "Hey, no problem, they'll pay me anyway. Hurrah! Down the shops, now!"

Don't forget all the things that women already get free or deeply discounted - prescription charges, women-only classes, queue-jumping for housing, etc., etc. Which people are *really* homeless? Almost all of them are men. I used to work in an evening shelter, and out of about two dozen regulars, only one was a woman.

Think about this: on top of all these freebies that women get, under this proposal, they also get a "guaranteed" pension, that they don't have to pay for. This will just encourage even more irresponsible behaviour.

Quite often, when married women work, her money is her money, but his money is their money, so by paying full NI rate, the women lose out by not having quite so much pin money... (More likely clothes, videos, and the like, these days, and not so many pins...)

I have a private pension. Don't count on the next generation supporting you through the state pension "system". People used to save for their old age, you know.

Even if your argument were correct, nobody is making women's "Citizen's Pensions" conditional on *having* children, so they are, effectively, being granted free money for being *able* to have children.

Which will benefit *everyone*, except those on means test benefits.

Well this government has been far more generous to people on means tested benefits than it has been to people on contributory benefits. They have committed to increase many means tested benefits, including the MIG/PGC, in line with earnings, whereas they refuse to do this for contributory benefits - despite the fact the *contributions* for these benefits *are* increasing in line with earnings!

Also a point you seem to have missed is that women (or men) who take time off work to bring up children get HRP which protects entitlement to the basic state pension anyway (it reduces the qualifying years needed by up to half). So under

Only when pregnant. Unless you count contraception.

I've noticed over the last few years there are less of these, or where they do exist there are also men only equivalents. Our local swimming baths has had a women only session for years, they still do but now they also have a men only session. Our doctor's has had a well woman clinic for ages, they now have a well man clinic too. Pensions are getting more equal with the equalisation of retirement ages and the soon to be ability for men to claim on their wife's NI record.

Seems to be the case.

The same could be said of anyone who doesn't bother to save for their retirement. The way means tested benefits work is the thing which encourages irresponsible behaviour - if you don't save the government will bail you out - if you do save you can look after yourself. So why save? At least this proposal will reduce reliance on means tested benefits - and so make saving for retirement more attractive for everyone.

In case you hadn't noticed, Women ARE citizens, you idiot.

Yeah and do you want the species to go extinct? How do you think Women

get made pregnant? Males get to work fulltime when they have kids so Women should too and if they don't then they should be paid. I think Women should be paid for their ability to have children. Like I said, without Women, there is no species.

See above. No Women having children no species so you pay.

Women sacrifice their careers for children you fool. What do you think? Giving birth is fun? It HURTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is it Women's fault that males don't take care of their health? Is it Women's fault that males work too many hours? Is it Women's fault that

males eat all the wrong things? Why don't you take some personal responsibility instead of blaming Women all the time?

Women spend money on children, if you haven't noticed. Without Women doing the shopping, the children would starve. That's what you males wnat isn't it? You hate children.

What's that supposed to mean?

You're evil! I just read your website and you're making a WOMAN bankrupt! A Woman who owns her own business!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you realise how HARD it is for Women to own their own businesses? Do you know how much prejudice she had to face?!!!!!!!!! And now your going to take it

all away from her and SHE'S ILL! You scum! Who do you think you are? You hate WOMEN!

Jasi-jazz

In case you hadn't noticed, Women ARE citizens, you idiot.

Yeah and do you want the species to go extinct? How do you think Women

get made pregnant? Males get to work fulltime when they have kids so Women should too and if they don't then they should be paid. I think Women should be paid for their ability to have children. Like I said, without Women, there is no species.

See above. No Women having children no species so you pay.

Women sacrifice their careers for children you fool. What do you think? Giving birth is fun? It HURTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Is it Women's fault that males don't take care of their health? Is it Women's fault that males work too many hours? Is it Women's fault that

males eat all the wrong things? Why don't you take some personal responsibility instead of blaming Women all the time?

Women spend money on children, if you haven't noticed. Without Women doing the shopping, the children would starve. That's what you males wnat isn't it? You hate children.

What's that supposed to mean?

You're evil! I just read your website and you're making a WOMAN bankrupt! A Woman who owns her own business!!!!!!!!!!!! Do you realise how HARD it is for Women to own their own businesses? Do you know how much prejudice she had to face?!!!!!!!!! And now your going to take it

all away from her and SHE'S ILL! You scum! Who do you think you are? You hate WOMEN!

Jasi-jazz

Think for a moment. The article calls it a "Citizen's Pension", and then goes on and on about how it's for women, for this, that, and the other reason. A true Citizen's Pension would be for men as well - after all, it's men who'll be paying for it.

"get to"? No, men *have to* work full-time when they have kids, to pay for the needs of their families. Work isn't some sort of hobby, you know.

I don't agree that they should be paid for having children, much less being paid for their *ability* to have children. Paid for a biological ability, without even using it? How about paying me for my ability to walk? Or breathe?

Women have been having babies without being paid by the state for thousands of years.

What are you going to do if I don't pay?

I have a hobby that hurts sometimes, called martial arts, but I don't expect anyone else to pay me for it. I also don't expect to have to pay for other people's hobbies that hurt them.

And have you never heard of that stuff invented by men, anaesthetics? Makes labour much less painful. Great what men do for women - women complain of pain, men invent something to lessen it, and women *still* complain.

The reason that men die sooner is because they work long hours for long years, often in dangerous conditions, to pay for women's choices.

More on themselves, and on turning their children into dress-up dolls. No child needs designer clothes.

And who do you think buys those designer clothes?

And who earns the money?

I don't hate children, but I do hate them being used as begging bowls.

I think you've just proved my point.

It doesn't matter that she's a woman. I'm making her bankrupt because she won't pay me the money she owes me. As for being ill, she claims a new disease or three every time there's another hearing, and if you had actually read the site, you'd be able to see that it's all just a smoke-screen.

And I don't hate women. I just don't like people who don't pay me the money they owe me.

No, it would cost all the taxpayers money, and lots of it. I don't agree with a state pension - it takes money away from me, preventing me from using it the way *I* want to. The bigger you make the state pension, the more you have to take away from the taxpayer to pay for it, and the less guaranteed it becomes. We are already in a "pensions crisis", and making it bigger (and then "full all over" to make it even bigger) will only make this worse.

You've missed a point here. I wasn't talking about the *reality* of the means-tested benefits - I was talking about the *perception* of them. The things that "everyone knows" are extremely unreliable.

That sort of thing is one of the reasons for the pensions crisis. That's why I'm all for private pensions, so I wouldn't have to subsidise women's hobbies.

But I *do* count contraception. Do men get any contraception paid for by the state?

Not only are the men-only provisions rarer than women-only, but men have to fund their own, unlike women. If we base proportions of these things by who funded what, there would be much more men-only, and much less women-only things. Think: who pays most of the taxes that pay for the subsidised facilities, classes, etc.?

Another missed point. The government is all worried about poor starving women pensioners, but not about homeless, sometimes starving, men.

You are arguing that people will save to supplement the guaranteed full-whack state pension. I argue that, human nature being what it is, the vast majority of people will follow the "what the hell, they'll give me a full pension anyway, I don't need to save" theory. If they go through with this daft plan, time will show me to be right.

i completely agree m8 - the whole country is turning into one big nursery

just because brown has a kid we all have to

So how do you feel about means tested benefits for pensioners? Or should those who haven't saved starve? Assuming not, and they are entitled to means tested benefits, then there will be an even more massive hill to climb for the low paid to gain any benefit from saving than there is now. So many won't, if they've got any sense.

I disagree, many people seem to be of the opinion that the basic state pension will eventually become means tested. Ie they are confident that means tested benefits will continue to exist but not so sure that contributory benefits will continue.

Well when you're a pensioner, assuming you want to eventually give up work, you will have a very hard time if there aren't enough workers (ie the children of today). Even if you don't want a state pension, and you have saved for your retirement, your savings won't go very far when labour costs are sky high because there aren't enough people to do the work. The "pensions crisis" will be a hell of a lot worse in a few decades if there aren't enough children born now.

I think you can actually get free condoms on prescription. Vasectomies are free. Is the male pill available yet? If it is, surely it is free?

My point was about the direction things are moving in. Things are getting more equal. I know that is heresy on soc.men.

No, I agreed with you.

People are saying that now. The government is guaranteeing pensioners an income of at least 105 a week (for a single pensioner). IME people have more faith in that guarantee than the (contributory) basic state pension still being there when they retire.

The basic SP is bound to become means tested eventually. There are too many people to whom it is just pocket money, so it represents a substantial misallocation of taxpayers' funds.

Of course, one could say the same for child benefit. In the end it comes down to which politician has the ba11s to implement something so contentious.

The first hurdle is that the entitlement to the basic SP is based on one having paid NICs, so these would have to be merged into income tax, and then one can means test (i.e. confiscate from many people) the SP without having to face the complains from those (many!) who think their NICs have somehow been "invested"... The Govt would probably have to offer a (derisory) lump sum option to those not getting the SP.