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] 1
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. 2
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
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)
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
- women have better health,
- women survive to much older age,
- women take more years off work, and
- 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.
- Against feminist entitlement bias: Gender equality requires women to retire older then men to have equal duration of retirement and years worked
On top of the gender bias in favor of women, the entire retirement system is flawed and bankrupt, like in most of the world. Too few young workers work for too many old pensioners.
The graphic here shows how 100 Japanese workers historically had to support 20 retirees, now about 150, and this will increase to 350!
The Fund provides a secure retirement for 25 years, but for cases where the person lives longer a mutual fund will be created to finance such cases. 15% monthly (7.5% by government and 7.5% by the government employees)[...], 0.42% would go to the general fund. The current Social Security has a deficit, for 2011 projected at R$ 57 billion. Today there are approximately 950,000 retirees to 1.1 million active government employees. For the system to support itself, the ideal would be a ratio of four active servants (which contribute at a rate of 11%) for each retiree.
26 Sep 2011 – Publicly financed retirement, or pension benefits, vary widely across the world. But as the U.S. and Europe consider fiscal austerity measures to …