Wages for HousePersons and Parents

[Griffin NoName]

Although I always had a full-time career (and job) I have rarely earnt the same as an unencumbered single person - same skills, qualifications, potential, bla, bla - and my pensions is peanuts (seriously not enough to live on). Plans to sort that out in the final years of my working life have been scuppered by serious illness (possibly due to the stress and strains of said previous working life - jury out on that I suspect for at least another century or two).

Much of the reason I haven't got the pension is through choice at the time but if I had known that I was going to be unable to work I would have made different choices. It didn't really occur to me that I'd get ill.

So, when my children were tiny I had a low-waged part time job, used the money to pay for childcare. This was planned. All I expected at that time from working was to keep my toe in the water for my career. Keeping up to date, etc. I wanted flexibility and time with the babies and a career.

When my children started school I took a high paid go-getting career job. Small company though and no pension, so paid small amounts into personal plan (which are never much cop). Again, a lot of my earnings went on childcare.

Then divorce. So again, low-paid flexible job, but a good one on the career front. Gave me the freedom to cope as a single parent. Just about covered living costs. Pension contributions by employer peanuts due to low wage. Low wage was the only compromise. But turned out to have siginificance later.

Throughout all this I did not worry as I reckoned - especially since I'd looked after my career prospects very carefully always choosing work that would leave me well placed - that I'd have 10+ years to really hit the money after the children left home.

Got ill. Didn't happen.

Another thread to my story is that I also had another sort-of-job while married. My husband's career was one where the significant other was involved. In a number of different capacities at different times and stages. But it involved a lot of time, work and effort. Now some SOs are beginning to refuse to do the stuff, but at the end of the day, there are aspects which because you are running a partnership, it is impossible to avoid. I'm not going into details, it would take too long. But there are certain jobs people do in the world that require a PA, or housekeeper, or secretary, or some person to hold life together and even contribute, which never get into the official job requirements/descriptions. For the purpose of this thread I shall call this person a Houseperson. It is not gender specific.

So, from my experience, the economy has gained from all my work. My children have been nicely brought up and educated (education is more than schooling) and are now in turn contributing to the economy. My husband has had an excellent career with pretty much all his responsibilities taken  care of and has therefore also been a net contributer to the economy.

The person who has enabled all this is me.

I want my state backpay for Housepersoning and Parenting.

Comments

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Should I read that you went easy on your ex during the divorce? 
---
Seriously speaking, your complain is quite valid and -sadly- quite common: you have been working only that your work hasn't been remunerated. The hard part is that I don't know how a situation like that can be avoided, if you help your husband you can't be possibly be thinking that you are going to divorce, if you help raise your children you don't expect them to flee, and on the same token, (I imagine) you wouldn't want to become a burden for them. And so long childcare remains expensive there aren't many alternatives.

I believe that in that last item there is a shift regarding affordable childcare subsidized by the state in many countries, but that will not help in your specific case 
---
I guess it goes back to demand your fair share from your ex and children

[Griffin NoName]

Let's separate out state and private.

I didn't so much as go easy on my ex as put as much distance between us as possible. I lived by my own standards. Those included supporting myself and half the cost (monetarily) of each child (each child having two parents).

Re Housepersons, I am not talking about "helping out". I am talking about the work that people do to enable others to contribute to the economy.

I didn't mean to start a debate about demanding fair share from my initimates. That's a dead duck that never flew. and would simply serve to mask the political exploitation in society

[beagle]

Re Housepersons, I am not talking about "helping out". I am talking about the work that people do to enable others to contribute to the economy.

Given the Treasury's economic view  (I believe a relative might be able to help you there  ) I suspect it would take a massive drop in the young working population to force the sort of child-rearing support measures that would help on to their agenda (good Conservative stuff by the way  ).

I believe there has been more debate about this sort of thing in Italy and Germany due to falling birth rates, (somewhat controversially  in Germany due to the Kinder, Kirche, Kuche legacy).  In practice immigration from Eastern Europe has solved the "missing workers" problem for the UK for the forseeable future, so it would have to be political will rather than economic necessity, IMHO.

Without any Government will, one would have to fall back on pre-nuptial agreements, but I'm not sure how much validity they have in the UK.  Certainly there have been cases in the press of men who've been retrospectively ordered by the courts to hand over more than was earlier agreed.

[Griffin NoName]

Given the Treasury's economic view  (I believe a relative might be able to help you there  )

That rather less than helpful relative? 

I suspect it would take a massive drop in the young working population to force the sort of child-rearing support measures that would help on to their agenda (good Conservative stuff by the way  ).

Could be arranged by getting the RMT to go on permanent stirke to support the agenda.

In practice immigration from Eastern Europe has solved the "missing workers" problem for the UK for the forseeable future, so it would have to be political will rather than economic necessity, IMHO.

I am sure you are right. But isn't there a plan to restrict this :<where is the emoticon for it's a wind up>: ? (after all lots are beginning to go home again now).

Without any Government will, one would have to fall back on pre-nuptial agreements, but I'm not sure how much validity they have in the UK. 

More or less than pre-coital agreements? (Or was that a typo?)

[Bluenose]

IIRC the law in Australia was recently changed so that the Family Court can make a determination that part of the superannuation of the main earner in a situation where the other person was performing the "enabling" work etc can be split out and put into the account of that person.  I do not know the details since this change was long after my divorce and there was no super to worry about at the time anyway.

In Australia there is a state funded old age pension. It is not an enormous amount but people do usually mange to get by on it.  The pension is means and asset tested, but the only qualification is age and being a permanent resident.  Plus pesnioners are entitled to a number of discounts and subsidies, for example they get reduced fees for many government services, are entitled to cheap subsidised pharmacuticals and so on.  How does the pension operate in the UK.  I have a vague idea that it is based upon contributions made during your working life, is that so?

am I correct in assuming that the state operated pension system is separate from private superannuation, as it is in Australia?

I must admit, I have never really though about there being any significant difference between Australian and British poicies on this front, I had always assumed that the policies were more or less hte same.

[beagle]

In practice immigration from Eastern Europe has solved the "missing workers" problem for the UK for the forseeable future, so it would have to be political will rather than economic necessity, IMHO.

I am sure you are right. But isn't there a plan to restrict this :<where is the emoticon for it's a wind up>: ? (after all lots are beginning to go home again now).

You'd think the plan would be to earn more in the West then use it to move back to a huge house in the East, but apparently recent surveys show around 30% plus planning to stay permanently (can't find the link).  I expect at that age the odds are they'll get hitched up with someone, and if a local that probably drops the chances of going back to 50/50.

am I correct in assuming that the state operated pension system is separate from private superannuation, as it is in Australia?

It's all a bit fragmented over here.  There's a basic state pension you get for having worked (I think) 40 years, but it's set at real hardship llifestyle level. 

You may get a pension from your ex-employer paying (if you're very lucky) up to around 2/3rds of your old income at the time you retired. Unintended consequences of government policy and low interest rate returns have killed off almost all these though.

Otherwise you can save money in various tax-free pension vehicles. The problem with this is the government says when you can take the money out again (they recently arbitrarily moved my earliest retirment date five years further into the future. When you take it out you have to buy an annuity (an insurer takes the lump sum and gives you a guaranteed income for life in its place). However increased longevity  and falling/volatile investment returns mean annuities only pay around 5% of the lump sum a year whereas it was 10% not many years ago.

The real trick to pensions in the UK is to be an MP or in the public sector. They get guaranteed pensions. For example a London Underground train driver who gets around £25000 a year in retirement (around AUS$61000 , US$50000) would have to have saved £500,000 ( AUS$1220000 , US$1,000,000) to get the same pension privately.

MPs do even better than the public sector, which is why people are very cynical about politicians meddling in pensions policy and continually changing the rules.
There was a classic case in the press not long ago of how out of touch they are when a Labour politician describing people with total savings of £100,000 as rich.  This would buy a pension of only £5000 a year (AUS$ 12,200, US$10,000).

The practical upshot of all this cynicism is that a large part of the population saves for retirement outside pension schemes in (mainly) residential property investments. It may lack the safety of diversity, but at least politicians can't get their hands on it without a big row.

[Griffin NoName]

Otherwise you can save money in various tax-free pension vehicles. The problem with this is the government says when you can take the money out again (they recently arbitrarily moved my earliest retirment date five years further into the future. When you take it out you have to buy an annuity (an insurer takes the lump sum and gives you a guaranteed income for life in its place). However increased longevity  and falling/volatile investment returns mean annuities only pay around 5% of the lump sum a year whereas it was 10% not many years ago.

I thought one could still opt to take it as a lump sum in some schemes ?

My information is that annuity payouts for women are even worse than that due to the fact that they just go on and on living. 

First they go off to have babies, then they just won't die.

The practical upshot of all this cynicism is that a large part of the population saves for retirement outside pension schemes in (mainly) residential property investments. It may lack the safety of diversity, but at least politicians can't get their hands on it without a big row.

Virtually ALL my friends from wayback when we all began our working lives (and did not divorce) have gigantic houses but the old trick of downsizing is apparently not adequate as they ALL almost without exception have at least one other smaller house they let out.... for their retirement, and in a few cases they have more than one spare house or two..... no wonder the Tories want to encourage marriage

[beagle]

I thought one could still opt to take it as a lump sum in some schemes ?

I think it's around 25% you can take out as a lump sum.

My information is that annuity payouts for women are even worse than that due to the fact that they just go on and on living. 

First they go off to have babies, then they just won't die.

Do sound a bit of a waste of space don't they? We're probably being over-harsh though, I'm sure they must have some redeeming features if you're prepared to search.