Attention Mums, Am I the only person who didn't know this?

I know this might be off topic as I'm male, but I've already got 46yrs contributions and I'm told I need to make another 5, the whole system stinks.

Now if you stopped paying after 35 yrs, that would be a different thing, but you dont.

Nothing is fair in this world, and I stopped expecting it to be long ago.

 

Perhaps the generally low working wage and increasing cost of child care has contributed to a parent staying at home.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

 

@shiney i am not sure how it all works nowadays as I have only claimed benefits once for six weeks after I was made redundant in 1990 and was waiting to start my next place of employment and was told that I could claim unemployment benefit then I have family members who have been able to claim benefits for donkeys years because they had angina,then heart attacks and a stroke so have spent their sick time fishing all day long and working n their allotment

When Mr Kandys cousin enquired about it before she was 60 they told her she could buy missing years which she has done but has bought them at a lower rate than I had paid in in NI contributions working all the hours I did do.

I am not yet 60 so haven't got a clue about whether you get credited after that age.My father in law took early retirement aged 64 and he was credited for that last year as it was looked on that he wouldn't be able to get another job.(this was over 30 odd years ago before the law changed to let pensioners carry on working)

@pete my dad worked from the age of 14 until he was 61 when he had the stroke that killed him and apart from when he was in the war for five years (not to sure if anyone in the war still had to pay NI out of their army etc pay) and after he had died all that he had payed in for all those years so never saw any benefit from it and like you he had paid thousands into the scheme

 

In the 70`s/80`s I was unemployed for 12 years, but was still credited for my NI contributions.

 

I think service during the war and probably during national service after that counted as being payed.
When I was unemployed a few years ago I was told if you are not working you didn't need to pay a stamp.
I was signed on for Job seekers at the time though, not sure if it counts if you are not claiming.

 

In the age of equality, why should women retire years earlier than men?

 

I agree, but i don't make the rules and if its was a private penison the provider couldn't change the dates so close to the retiring age but the goverment can, so all your plans get thrown out the window

 

Don't disagree with you @JWK but doubt any political party would commit suicide by raising even further the retirement age for women after raising it by 3 years fairly recently. The chances of reducing retiral age for men being about as likely as me winning Miss World.
If there weren't so many scroungers who play the system when not needing to ( daughter volunteers at CAB and tells me stories that make me furious) perhaps our country would be able to afford a more generous pension for it's citizens.

 

Women should retire earlier than men because even though a lot of women now have careers so choose to work it is still the vast majority of wome that still do the cooking,cleaning,gardening, allotmenteering and looking after the kids and running them about to different after school activities etc,more so than the men do so by the time they get to 60 they are already worn out.

If there are women that want to carry on working well past the age of 60 then I have no objection to that because some women have more energy to carry on,but those of us that have spent all our working lives in physical jobs should be allowed to retire with our state pension when we get to 60 not being forced to wait until we are 66,67 or 68

Also if there are any men that have worked in a physical job all their lives then they should be allowed to retire at 60 with a full state pension instead of giving the money to mothers who have a dozen or so kids and have no intention of going to work.

 

She will have been "rewarded" for those 12yrs childrearing towards the pension she now receives.

It is indeed 24hrs - and those are the very same 24hrs whether you are a SAHM or a working one.

Regarding #1

• If your child is unwell, you cannot send your child to school.
• If your child is taken ill at school, you are expected (as a parent) to down tools and collect your child.
• If your child has an accident at school, you are expected to drop everything and collect your child/take them to hospital
• This is also applicable at weekends regardless of your child/children attending other activities.
• It is also applicable throughout the working week (not just those who work Monday-Friday) and let's not forget shift workers who have shifts which cover all 7 days of the week (although, hopeful.

On the subject of shift workers, it is interesting to note, most "childcare" provision is tailored to a Mon-Fri 8am-6pm working schedule. Hardly conducive to shift patterns, which are becoming more common in our 24/7 world of commerce.

Regarding #2

• The assumption *all* mums moan at school holiday time is completely flawed. I'm quite sure some SAHM's do (actually, I've known a number who did/do!).
  Equally, I know of many other SAHM's who are delighted to have time to spend with their children reinforcing good behaviour and trying to undo all those unpleasant behaviours the children are exposed to and inevitably pick up in the classroom/playground from children whose parents are not quite so like minded in the ethics and morals of bringing up children as they might be.
• The assumption regarding a SAHM's routine is also flawed. In one breath you state how it fell to you, after a full day at work, to cook, clean, walk the dog, deal with the laundry and yet you then make the assertion *all* (SAH) mums spend the time their children are at school visiting other mothers, having cuppas, gossiping and shopping!
  They sound like a stereotype from a day time "chat" show

I'm quite sure this is a contributing factor.
Equally there will be parents who *wanted* the children they have but did not give birth to them to then pay for someone else to bring up

 

Loads of issues here, but I'll restrict to only 1 quote:

After our daughter was born, Mrs Scrungee went for jobshare to spend time with her, then following my early retirement (and paying off our mortgage) she could also afford to stop working and increase our input to childcare to 100%.

On average men die earlier than women, so it never made sense to me that women should retire earlier, but as women would've had (still have?) a harder time getting back into the workplace it seemed OK to have same retirement age.

But the big issue as I see it is that although life expectancy increases, ability to work at 100% of former capacity decreases, and this is going to cause a lot of problems for HR departments plus, possibly, a lot of resentment in the workplace.

 

This is precisely the issue Kandy is alluding to in her posts too.

 

What is an HR department?