The Daily Mail calls them "pension-pot gold diggers." But shouldn't we be concerned that women in their 50s are forced to rely on their partners' pensions?by Faith Eckersall / September 25, 2017 / Leave a comment
For richer for poorer, in sickness and… who cares? If a survey published this week is anything to go by, it’s the richer bit that is increasingly beginning to concern women who decide to marry or re-marry later in life.
According to the Daily Mail these women are the “pension pot gold-diggers,” the nearly 25 per cent of midlife females who admitted to pollsters Opinium that money was a key reason in their decision to tie the knot, rather than co-habit.
Forty-five per-cent of the 1,000 women aged 55 plus who were polled in June for Investec Wealth & Investment said their biggest financial consideration in deciding to walk up the aisle was the automatic right to a husband’s pension pot if they either split up or were widowed.
Their second most important financial consideration was guaranteed inheritance rights, cited by just over a third of the women asked.
The image conjured up is of hard-working men innocently falling prey to grasping harpies who only care about their net financial worth.
But I suspect that what’s really going on here is even more unpalatable.
What this survey seems to show is that in 2017 women are, out of perceived financial necessity, making the kind of decisions their mothers may have had to make in 1957. In short, relying on a man to secure their financial future.
Given everything that’s happened, why wouldn’t they?
Because of part-time work, because of the credit-crunch—which disproportionately affected women—and because of the gender pay gap, which means that women are still paid 18 per cent less than men for doing the same type of work, too many women appear to be facing financial futures that are very bleak indeed.
We’ve seen the plight of the WASPI Women (Women Against State Pension Inequality)—our older friends or sisters thrown into fiscal limbo by governments that only like a one-way equality street: one in which women’s retirement ages have been hoicked up to match those of men.
Nothing wrong with that. But with no consideration for how these women are going to exist for up to six long years before the state pension they thought they were going to receive drops into their bank account, it’s produced a dire situation for some.
We’re also the generation who’s been…