A study has found that reforms that pushed back the age women can claim the state pension have not saved the taxpayer money, and it said that women who stay working into their sixties compensate by reducing the care they provide for their parents.
Researchers said in a report that for every woman working 30 hours a week in her sixties, it costs £5,600 to make up for the care she would otherwise have provided for older relatives.
It points to a serious downside to pension reforms that swept away women’s retirement age of 60 and pushed back the point at which women can claim the state pension by six years or more.
Academics led by Ludovico Carrino of King’s College London said that women in the United Kingdom who work more hours due to the rise in their state pension age reduce free caregiving to older parents, who get less overall care as a result.
The paper, presented at a conference of the Royal Economic Society, weakens ministers and civil servants assumption that later retirement benefits the country.
The study was based on more than 7,000 women aged 55 to 65 who were tracked from 2009 to 2018 in the Understanding Society project.
Many stayed working in their sixties which researchers said had a significant impact on the £130 billion-plus yearly cost of care for the elderly given free mainly by middle-aged daughters.
The study found the likelihood that a woman would give more than 20 hours a week of care to her older relative dropped by half if she worked after the age of 60, and a woman working 30 hours a week would decrease the care given to her parents by 330 hours a year.
That makes the cost of taxpayers of replacing the hours of care lost for each working middle-aged woman £5,600 a year, a sum determined from a standard pay rate for carers of £17 an hour.
The study didn’t account for the income for the nation generated by women working in their sixties who wouldn’t have been paying much less in income tax had they retired, and the report said parents who get less help from their daughters do not get more help from other family members or formal services as a counterbalance.
Consequently, care for older parents narrows when their daughters work longer due to deferred state pension age, and researchers said reforms could incorporate more free care for old people whose family carers have jobs, or subsidies for employers to allow adjustable hours for older workers who have caring responsibilities.
Although it’s not actually retirement age, it’s state pension age because there’s actually no retirement age in the United Kingdom, implementation of retirement went out with the dinosaurs.
But never the less many women can’t afford to retire to care for elderly relatives because they can’t claim state pension, particularly single women.
However, this then becomes sexist because why can’t a man provide care for the elderly, and why is it always women’s work?
Times are evolving and men should be stepping up to care for their elderly, and it appears that this research has been extremely sexist, and this is just gender typing and we women should be irritated by the lack of equality.
This is blatantly sexist because it says that a woman’s role is to care for the elderly, and it seems that only women are competent in caring for someone!