From: "Andy Pandy" 
Newsgroups: uk.finance soc.men alt.politics.economics
Subject: Re: An outrageous suggestion: Citizen's Pension - yet more money for women
Date: Tue, 7 Dec 2004 13:25:15 -0000


"SteveR"  wrote in message
news:v+HW$7DCKNtBJwYT@grandfathersaxe.demon.co.uk...
> >> They call it a "Citizen's Pension", but it's for women.  It will cost
> >> £5-10 *BILLION*, and guess who will pay...  That's right, mainly men.
> >> It is supposedly to make things "fair" for women who *chose* to "take
> >> time out" to have children.
> >
> >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 implication is that they want to *increase* the basic pension as
> well, which accounts for a good-sized chunk of the cost.

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

> 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
> *really* more certain to have a Citizen's Pension like this, but the
> real certainties aren't as important as how people see things.  And
> "everyone knows" that governments meddle with the tests used in
> means-tested benefits.  They shift the balance between group X and group
> Y, they change the limits, they ...  On the other hand, "everyone knows"
> that an unconditional flat-rate pension will not be meddled with the
> same way.
>
> 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?

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
*current* rules, a woman taking 20 years off work to look after her children
will still get the full basic state pension anyway, provided she gets NI credits
for 90% of the rest her working life.

> Don't forget all the things that women already get free or deeply
> discounted - prescription charges,

Only when pregnant. Unless you count contraception.

> women-only classes,

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.

> 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.

Seems to be the case.

> 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.

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.

--
Andy