Women Would Get 42% of Male Pension, if Unsubsidized! Brazilian Retirement Fund for Government Employees to Subsidize Women’s Earlier Retirement.

To reform the Brazilian retirement system, various plans are under discussion. All of them allow women to retire 5 years younger and/or with 5 years less of paid contributions to retirement funds.

Without subsidy, women would get 42% of male pension!

5 years less compounding in pension fund means women should get 65% of men’s pension.  Women live 20 years in retirement, men only 13, lowering women’s unsubsidized pension to 39% of male pension. (0.65 times 13/20). Even if women were retiring at the same age, they would get 65% of male pension, if paid according to insurance mathematics proportional to their input to the system and the expected payout. That is for women with equal salary as the men. If women earn less, and thus pay in less,  would further lower the expected payout, if normal insurance rules applied. The numbers might change a bit with more sophisticated math, but the differences are shocking, nevertheless.  Use your country’s life expectancy tables for 60 year old males and females, and years worked at age 60 or 65 by gender.  In countries where men retire at the same age as women, the differences get much smaller.

By this model, a woman with 55 years of age and 30 years of contributions, for example, might begin to receive retirement benefits. The same goes for other combinations, provided that the sum is 85. [55 + 30 in this example]
In the case of man, the age of 60 and 35 contribution, the employee could retire, for example. Also other combinations, keeping the sum of 95 years [ 60+35 in our example]

Men to subsidize women’s shorter work years and longer retirement years

Brazil now plans a capitalizing retirement fund for government officials.

"The biggest concern is the question of women. They contribute, but retire five years earlier. It is a capitalization fund, but they lose 35% to 37% in favor, because they would have five years unless the capitalization," admitted Gabas, who attended the lunch with the allied base.
But there is already agreement to another type of fund: The fund called survival. Would allocate a small percentage of the contribution to a special reserve, for cases in which living retired more years than the average time period for which stipulated and contribute. 

The only solution is for men to pay more. Nobody even considers to require women to work equally long as men, in order to justly equitably earn their own retirement benefits.

Another fund should be created to benefit women and federal police. The text states that both categories retire with 5 year less minimum contribution. "They are still entitled to retirement, but would have five years less capitalized and thus would have a big loss," said Gabas. The government’s contribution to this second fund is not yet clear, according to Vaccarezza. 3

Click here to see the complete table of nations' retirement ages

Women retire earlier, contribute less and live much longer. In Brazil and world wide.

They don’t even mention that women live about 4-7 years longer, thus exacerbating the financial advantages women have over men. You can see from the graphic that in most countries in the world, women retire at least 3 years earlier.

The difference between the survival rates of men and women remains large: while girls born in 2010 they hope to live 77.32 years, the rate among boys is 69.73 years, due mainly violent deaths such as accidents traffic accidents and homicide. […]

At age 22, the chance of a man dying was 4.5 times higher than that of a woman, considering last year’s data. According to year 2000 rates, the probability of male death at the same age was four times higher than for a female. (O Globo, Friday, December 02, 2011)

What_is_the_minimum_pensionable_age_for_women-There is no logical reason why women should retire earlier then men. It seems to stem from a historical artifact, that wives are 3-5 years younger then husbands. So in order to enjoy retirement together, the different retirement age was introduced. (anyone has better sources then hearsay for this explanation?)

Of course, only Human-Stupidity would would propose women to work 5 years longer, to finance the retired husband. So a woman could make up for the years she took off work during childbearing age. Women should retire 5 years LATER then men.

Only Human-Stupidity dares to say the mathematical and sociological truth: women should retire LATER then men, because

  1. women have better health,
  2. women survive to much older age,
  3. women take more years off work, and
  4. women contribute less years to retirement.

Then they would get equal number of years of pension benefit and equal number of financial contribution to the pension fund as men. Equal rights and equal obligations.

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Women Would Get 42% of Male Pension, if Unsubsidized! Brazilian Retirement Fund for Government Employees to Subsidize Women’s Earlier Retirement.” »
Women Would Get 42% of Male Pension, if Unsubsidized! Brazilian Re… » continues here »


Against feminist entitlement bias: Gender equality requires women to retire older then men to have equal duration of retirement and years worked

In Britain, as in most countries, women retire at age 60, earlier then men (age 65). A clearly blatant sexist discrimination.

Analysis from the Men’s Network showed that men live 13 years in retirement whilst women enjoy 20 years. No mention from Saga and Unions Together on that point?

Women live a few years longer (Interim Life tables), work shorter years (due to child rearing vacations), contribute less to retirement funds. Women don’t pay appropriately higher retirement contributions during their work life, rather men pay for women’s longer retirement. In Brazil, to get full retirement benefits, women need to contribute for 30 years, men for 35.

Men pay for female privileges in early retirement and shorter work life (due to sexist legislation)

It says EU law prevents it from increasing men’s pension age before women’s,

Amazing. Why would there be such a clearly sexist law discriminating against men?

but surely that is a reason to delay the increase for everyone until 2020 rather than punish women? It’s certainly no justification for increasing women’s pension age by even more than that of men.  
‘How could I foresee such a discriminatory bombshell?’| Telegraph

Rectifying or reducing 70 years of legally codified female entitlement and male discrimination is punishing women?

Today’s men have been indoctrinated with feminist religious dogma from kindergarten on (Generation Y, raised on nothing but feminism, will be a nightmare for men). Thus men, like sheep, swallow any absurd feminist entitlement attitudes and allow such drivel to be published.

Since 1948, state pension has been paid to women at 60 and men at 65, it is only in 2018 that this injustice against men will be rectified, some 70 years later. And Altmann says pension policy is always against women. Unbelievable. I wonder what the male members of Saga think of her ‘balanced’ statement.

A good look at this and other issues about the effect on the genders was produced by Mark Easton of the BBC.


Blatant large scale financial discrimination against men. Men paying women’s retirement benefits, and in exchange retiring later. Where are the million men marches for gender equality?

Equality means equality and men have been the most discriminated group when it comes to state pension age. For anyone to claim otherwise shows they have no sense or belief in what equality really means. They purposely only have one eye open. 

Why do men retire later then women

Wait, there is more! This article continues! Continue reading “Against feminist entitlement bias: Gender equality requires women to retire older then men to have equal duration of retirement and years worked” »
Against feminist entitlement bias: Gender equality requires women … » continues here »