Should women pay higher PRSI than men?

Sleepy

After the nonsensical IMF suggestion of lower tax rates for women I got to thinking: shouldn't women be paying higher PRSI than men anyway?

Since, as a group, they live longer than men (and therefore collect pensions for longer) and are entitled to receive maternity benefits which their male counterparts have no entitlement to an equivalent of, the women of Ireland cost the state proportionally more in welfare payouts.

Since PRSI is a form of insurance, and it's legal to discriminate based on gender in that area (see car insurance), shouldn't there be a higher rate of PRSI (or premiums) for women since they're a "higher risk" category for that insurance than men are?

[thought a somewhat more light-hearted thread might be a nice change on this forum at the moment, I'm posting this a little tongue in cheek but I do think the logic is sound]

common sense brigade

I think both women and men should have the option to go on maternity leave. i.e the couple decide together who takes the leave or you can split it. The Irish system is out of date and extremely unfair to fathers. Also i do not think women should pay higher prsi.

Mr. Presentable

No, PRSI should not be higher for women. Neither should they be entitled to Welfare payments for a lifestyle choice, however.

cavedave

common sense brigade I think both women and men should have the option to go on maternity leave.

I don't think that word means what you think it means

common sense brigade

confused sorry. what do u mean?

optocynic

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

No, PRSI should not be higher for women. Neither should they be entitled to Welfare payments for a lifestyle choice, however.

I believe that statement too! But I find it strange that it is a view of fiscal responsibility that is darkly frowned upon here, but I have yet to meet a person face to face that disagrees with it.

Either way, it was an amusing and very tongue in cheek OP.
I feel a working couple should get help for childcare, so both can work.
It should always pay more to work!!

Mad Benny

cavedave wrote: »

I don't think that word means what you think it means

Thanks be to Jaysus on that one

I do agree with common sense brigade regarding Paternity Leave (I take it that's what you meant to say). If a mother wants to go back to paid employment then the father should be entitled to that time. It's not a holiday.

We needs lots of kids in the workforce when those of us that are 35+ retire. :cool:

common sense brigade

what i meant was if a woman gets 6 months maternity leave. the father should be able to do the maternity leave. if this is something the couple want and agree on. and the woman can return to work. or they can split it. the man do 3 months the woman 3 months. as i said only if the man and woman want that.

Sleepy

I agree on both the points of maternity leave being changed to parental leave and childcare being tax-deducatable (or some form of tax credit existing for it - perhaps in lieu of child benefit?)

That doesn't answer the other part of the equation though: a woman paying PRSI is statistically likely to receive more back in terms of the pension she'll receive on retirement than an otherwise equal man, shouldn't she therefore be paying more to reflect this?

common sense brigade

Is this the state pension you mean? I had maternity leave last year and i claimed back all my prsi when i returned to work. i know what your saying, cant argue with the logic!

optocynic

Mad Benny wrote: »

Thanks be to Jaysus on that one

I do agree with common sense brigade regarding Paternity Leave (I take it that's what you meant to say). If a mother wants to go back to paid employment then the father should be entitled to that time. It's not a holiday.

We needs lots of kids in the workforce when those of us that are 35+ retire. :cool:

Unfortunately, it is not the middle or upper class who are having the large amounts of kids. And dark as it is to say, lower income families tend to have kids that grow to be lower income too.

There is no incentive to have kids and keep working, if you consider the costs of childcare.

People say the fabled 'gap' between the lower and upper is too big. If we keep up the large welfare and no childcare help... it will only get bigger. As fewer 'better-off' kids arrive and go to college (for fees now), and take what remains of the 'good' jobs.

That movie Idiocracy is starting to seem less like a comedy!

Dannyboy83

There is some merit in what you say, although it could potentially be extended to genetic screening etc.
Discrimination is a bad idea, even if it's intended to create some type of balance - it never does - it just creates a new imbalance.

If crazy childcare costs are a barrier to women re-entering the workforce, then regulate childcare.
I mean, they do it with virtually everything else in the state, LOL.

common sense brigade

we need to have public creches. like school. you pay a nominal fee. i for one would agree with my childrens allowance being taken away if we had state creches with affordable childcare.and have childrens allowance given to the unemployed only. sorry for going off thread.

Sleepy

common sense brigade wrote: »

Is this the state pension you mean?

That's it exactly. A longer life expectancy after retirement means women can expect to receive more from the state in return for their PRSI contributions than a man can.

Jesus Wept

Good question OP. It shouldn't be considered cheeky or tongue in cheek or amusing though. It's not amusing that men can be discriminated upon based on gender in this country.

Either women should pay more prsi or other systems should be made equitable, the way things currently are is a joke.

If more money and focus were spent on men's health, men wouldn't have a shorter life expectancy than women, there is no good reason I know of as to why this should be the case and be accepted as just how it is.

common sense brigade wrote: »

I think both women and men should have the option to go on maternity leave. i.e the couple decide together who takes the leave or you can split it. The Irish system is out of date and extremely unfair to fathers. Also i do not think women should pay higher prsi.

Pretty certain this isn't possible in this country.

angelfire9

common sense brigade wrote: »

we need to have public creches. like school. you pay a nominal fee. i for one would agree with my childrens allowance being taken away if we had state creches with affordable childcare.and have childrens allowance given to the unemployed only. sorry for going off thread.

I agree
It would remove one of the back to work barriers that mothers face if there was a government creche system to take kids too young for school for a nominal fee

As for the topic at hand
I can understand the logic behind it and agree with the theory but would it not be discriminatory??

As for maternity/paternity leave
I'd LOVE IT if my hubby could get leave to mind the babs for the first 3 months and let me work think of all the nappy changes i'd avoid

ardmacha

The madness was that in the UK until fairly recently women retired earlier than men although they lived longer! Ireland had fairly sensible policies in this regard.

Sleepy

The-Rigger wrote: »

Good question OP. It shouldn't be considered cheeky or tongue in cheek or amusing though. It's not amusing that men can be discriminated upon based on gender in this country

Either women should pay more prsi or other systems should be made equitable, the way things currently are is a joke..

TBH, I agree. I'd be in favour of an absolute removal of references to gender from *ALL* legislation, from maternity entitlements to age of consent, rape issues etc.

If more money and focus were spent on men's health, men wouldn't have a shorter life expectancy than women, there is no good reason I know of as to why this should be the case and be accepted as just how it is.

You think? I've never seen a reason given for the gap in life expectancy between men and women and, tbh, just put it down to biology and, specifically, testosterone levels in young men making them more likely to come to untimely deaths.

Pretty certain this isn't possible in this country.

Not under current legislation but nothing stopping that being changed afaik?

angelfire9 wrote: »

I can understand the logic behind it and agree with the theory but would it not be discriminatory??

Is the current system not discriminatory if men are paying the same to receive less?

ardmacha wrote: »

The madness was that in the UK until fairly recently women retired earlier than men although they lived longer! Ireland had fairly sensible policies in this regard.

Surely you mean, less ridiculous rather than fairly sensible? We don't do sensible policy in Ireland!

jimmycrackcorm

I agree with the OP. There's also a case to make for employers, that women who invoke higher costs through sourcing replacements for maternity leave, should be paid lower to compensate for this.

In theory a hospital, with a very high percentage of female nurses, should be able to tap into a panel of replacement staff at the same pay rates, for the purposes of covering maternity. In practice though they may have to employ temporary agency staff at a more expensive rate.

Mad Benny

Points against..

Not all women want or do have kids.
Men typically live longer when married than those that remain as bachelors.
Women provide a vital service to an economy by producing future workers.
Having women in the workforce provides a balance and a different point of view.
Children's needs are better served when one parent cares for them full time in their first two years.

Any changes in taxation that would adversely effect any of the important contributions that women make would also have a cost. It's not just a monetary cost but also a social cost.

Sleepy

Mad Benny wrote: »

Points against..

Not all women want or do have kids.

Doesn't change the fact they're statistically likely to cost more to provide with a pension.

Men typically live longer when married than those that remain as bachelors.

More an argument to charge married men more PRSI than single men than an argument against the OP.

Women provide a vital service to an economy by producing future workers.

Not on their own they don't.

Having women in the workforce provides a balance and a different point of view.

Different <> better.

Having women in the workforce is desirable but this doesn't mean they should be subsidised by their male colleagues.

Children's needs are better served when one parent cares for them full time in their first two years.

Agree entirely. No reason that any inducements towards this should be gender based though. In fact, I'd argue that the status quo directly hinders gender equality.

Any changes in taxation that would adversely effect any of the important contributions that women make would also have a cost. It's not just a monetary cost but also a social cost.

I don't see your point here unless you're suggesting that gender discrimination against men is a good thing for society?

Mad Benny

I can't argue with any of your responses Sleepy. If you agree that parental leave should be optional for either parent then it's possible for a woman to work through her pregnancy and then go straight back to work after the baby is born while the father takes leave. Its fair in my mind that women should benefit by our taxation or social welfare system for the contribution that they have made. It's not an easy job being pregnant!

sollar

ardmacha wrote: »

The madness was that in the UK until fairly recently women retired earlier than men although they lived longer! Ireland had fairly sensible policies in this regard.

I think greece is 55 for women and 60 men. We should be striving for equality in all areas tax, retirement and prsi included.

Mr. Presentable

Mad Benny wrote: »

Points against..

Men typically live longer when married than those that remain as bachelors.
.

Nah, it just seems longer

Sorry, Mad, couldn't let that one go

optocynic

Mr. Presentable wrote: »

Nah, it just seems longer

Sorry, Mad, couldn't let that one go

Damn, just beat me to it!
Wasn't it GB Shaw that said it first?:D

Sleepy

Mad Benny wrote: »

I can't argue with any of your responses Sleepy. If you agree that parental leave should be optional for either parent then it's possible for a woman to work through her pregnancy and then go straight back to work after the baby is born while the father takes leave.

Obviously most women can't return to work within 24 hours of having the baby but there's no good reason why maternity leave shouldn't be changed to parental leave to be divided between the parents as they see fit imho.

In most cases, the lower earner will take the majority of the leave. This should (though won't always) mean that the parent who contributes most to the economy is working longer.

It also reduces the disincentive for employers to hire women of child-bearing age imho.

Its fair in my mind that women should benefit by our taxation or social welfare system for the contribution that they have made. It's not an easy job being pregnant!

Why? As you said not all women have children so should we issue tax credits to mothers because they've chosen to give birth?

As the father of a two year old, from watching my partner during her pregnancy I'd agree that it's certainly not an easy job being pregnant. It's bad enough dealing with a pregnant woman tbh!

gizmo555

Sleepy wrote: »

You think? I've never seen a reason given for the gap in life expectancy between men and women and, tbh, just put it down to biology and, specifically, testosterone levels in young men making them more likely to come to untimely deaths.

That's part of the difference, but not all of it - not even most of it.

Even at 65 years of age, Irish women have a life expectancy of 19.8 more years, as opposed to 65 year old Irishmen's life expectancy of 16.6 years. (2006 statistics.)

The gap of 4.8 years at birth only narrows by about one third to 3.2 years by age 65.

The Corinthian

Personally, I do not believe that anyone should have to pay more PRSI or less tax based solely on their gender. Frankly the state should be looking to eliminate sexual discrimination and privilege, rather than add to it.

The question of whether we should apply the same standard to the private sector may another matter. Certainly car insurance has long been an excellent example of sexual discrimination for commercial reasons. Having said that, in some countries health insurance is higher for women for similar reasons (men may die younger, but women spend a lot more on health - probably related, tbh) - is this the case in Ireland?

And where does one stop with justifying sexual discrimination for commercial reasons? Not employing women, legally as opposed to unofficially, who fall in an age group likely to become mothers?

Ultimately whether it should be allowed or not is up to one's position on the free market and the principle of equality. Either way it should be applied equally though.

Sleepy

Your first paragraph sums up why I posted this topic 'tongue in cheek', The_Corinthian.

I'm not in favour of any discrimination or privelege but due to the logic behind the argument being sound I believe it's a useful thought exercise to encourage the removal of the gender descrimination inherrant in our current systems.

thebman

The Corinthian wrote: »

Personally, I do not believe that anyone should have to pay more PRSI or less tax based solely on their gender. Frankly the state should be looking to eliminate sexual discrimination and privilege, rather than add to it.

The question of whether we should apply the same standard to the private sector may another matter. Certainly car insurance has long been an excellent example of sexual discrimination for commercial reasons. Having said that, in some countries health insurance is higher for women for similar reasons (men may die younger, but women spend a lot more on health - probably related, tbh) - is this the case in Ireland?

And where does one stop with justifying sexual discrimination for commercial reasons? Not employing women, legally as opposed to unofficially, who fall in an age group likely to become mothers?

Ultimately whether it should be allowed or not is up to one's position on the free market and the principle of equality. Either way it should be applied equally though.

Well discrimination would be having all things equal between sexes as they aren't equal as shown by things like life expectancy.

I have no problem with this type of discrimination really as it is more based on the administration costs of implementing all this along with the when do you stop factor.

However, the state should ensure that it is a level playing field in all areas and not just areas where women are usually discriminated against which is the case in Ireland at the moment IMO when you look at things like the rights of a father and car insurance costs etc...

It seems if your a woman, the state believes it has to help you out but if your a man, screw you and that in itself is a sexist position. Of course behind the scenes, it mostly comes down to the lobby groups yet again that cause this and not malicious efforts by our politicians to discriminate against men given they are mostly men.

What we need is a government that doesn't pay so much attention to idiotic lobby groups.

The Corinthian

thebman wrote: »

What we need is a government that doesn't pay so much attention to idiotic lobby groups.

Or men's lobby groups, rather than complaining on Internet boards (and I point to myself as much as anyone else).

Question is, which is more likely to happen; politicians refusing to listen to lobby and pressure groups or men setting up our own? Both pretty unlikely as far as I can see.