Bro ! every confidence trick and every shell trick exponent worth their salt needs a sucker and collectively us men are such

At some level I think this is fair, especially if we are talking about housewives who have spent half of their workable life being home taking care of kids and the household.

I know this is a choice, but nevertheless a necessary choice, if you want the best for your kids.

The problem here is that if a couple split up when the kids are older (too old for support) a house wife will have half of the valuables, but nothing to provide a steady income.

So what I am saying is, that this is good for the women who really want their families to be 1st priority.

On the other hand, if we are talking about career women...this is clearly an unfair advantage...

I heard an advert for this on the radio, and I'm sure I heard it is 30years for men and women alike... don't quote me for 100%, but I'm fairly certain it applies to both sexes.

Quote from Marx

I heard an advert for this on the radio, and I'm sure I heard it is 30years for men and women alike... don't quote me for 100%, but I'm fairly certain it applies to both sexes.

Must check on this!

It'll be fair if both genders are to benefit. However, on the TV. news they were referring only to women.

To be more precise it was the "generally biased" BBC news, not surprisingly.

NEVO

[QUOTE=BasicGuy;207956]
The problem here is that if a couple split up when the kids are older (too old for support) a house wife will have half of the valuables, but nothing to provide a steady income.

QUOTE]



""The problem here is that if a couple split up when the kids are older (too old for support) a house wife will have half of the valuables, but nothing to provide a steady income."

you are referring to an extant nuclear family surviving long ennough to acquire "valuables "!

nowadays these are an ever diminishing set - dad has been paying maintenance for years and not seeing his kids who are strangers and probably don't even like him ! I suppose he would have to work a few years longer to pay for his funeral expenses

such is life !

but we must not leave cupcake short in her old age her kids may not donate any of their income to her

""The problem here is that if a couple split up when the kids are older (too old for support) a house wife will have half of the valuables, but nothing to provide a steady income."

And neither will the man.

The 'man' has no 'steady income' these days. His job, if he has one, is the first to go, unless he works for the Guvmunt in some capacity as a clerk in the 'Diversity' department, keeping the seat warm until he is replaced by a Pakistani single mother with a self-invented 'history' of 'abuse'.

Quote from Percy

And neither will the man.

The 'man' has no 'steady income' these days. His job, if he has one, is the first to go, unless he works for the Guvmunt in some capacity as a clerk in the 'Diversity' department, keeping the seat warm until he is replaced by a Pakistani single mother with a self-invented 'history' of 'abuse'.

Note that I was talking about a specific case where I felt that this would be ok, whereas you are generalizing.

Anyway, since it turned out that this new law was meant for both sexes, I guess further discussion in pointless.

Quote from nevosopelo

The goverment has knocked off 9 years of work for women to qualify for state pension. That is from 39 years to 30 years.
Apparently men will have to work until they reach the age of 65. The 9 years change do not apply to men as I understand it at the moment.

It's my understanding that being a housewife or caregiver will actually count towards those 30 years also. Which means you don't need to set a foot inside the workplace to receive a full state pension.

I'd agree those who are unpaid caregivers to ill and disabled family members should be recognised, but I've not heard any official information about the growing number of men who are at home looking after kids being recognised. And who decides what the definitions of qualifying are? I can envisage a lot of women being rewarded for bone-idleness as the state seeks to increase it's dependants.

I know for a fact the retirement age is being increased to 68 in the UK, the main reason is to rectify the governments own ineptitude in squandering public money over a sustained period. Again, all the discussion I've seen only refers to men. If so, this would mean that women would receive a pension and benefits for 15 years longer (7 years longevity gap + 8 years longer working).