- When asked what financial policies would make them most likely to vote for a party, the most popular policies among women were keeping the triple lock (34%), followed by cutting council tax (27%), and pledging not to increase the state pension age (25%).
- The top two matched the answers from men, but men put raising taxes to pay for the NHS and cutting income tax ahead of state pension age promises.
- In the Conservative manifesto, pledges for women and their money focused on investing in female entrepreneurs. Labour focused on rights for women in the workplace and cohabiting couples. It also said it would take, unspecified, action to reduce the gender pay gap.
- Neither manifesto mentioned the gender pension gap, which we want them to prioritise.
Figures from a survey of 2,000 people by Opinium for HL in April 2024
Sarah Coles, head of personal finance, Hargreaves Lansdown:
“As ever, there’s no great mystery about what women want from this election. Anyone who asks and listens to the answer will get a very clear picture. Our research shows that women are worried about how far their money needs to stretch – especially in retirement. It’s why two of the three things that would make them vote for a party relate to how much state pension they’ll receive and when they’ll get it. They’re also worried by council tax, partly because it’s not reduced to reflect the fact they tend to be on lower average incomes than men, and it’s on the rise.
Unfortunately, while there were positive developments in the manifestos for women – including investing in entrepreneurs and supporting women’s rights at work – there was nothing on the gender pensions gap. It’s not too late though. Whoever is elected can seize the opportunity to help women make a dramatic difference to their financial resilience later in life.”
Solving the long-term problem
Helen Morrissey, head of retirement analysis, Hargreaves Lansdown:
“Whoever is elected has an opportunity to make a real difference to the money women have in retirement. It’s not just a question of pledging consistency in state support, the long-term solution also needs to address the shortfalls in the system that build a gender pensions gap throughout their lives. By ensuring women have the savings they need to fall back on, they won’t have to worry about any potential government pulling the state pension rug out from underneath their feet.
The gender pensions gap is much bigger than the gender pay gap, at an eye-watering 35%. It will ultimately be resolved through tackling the gender pay gap, so it was positive to see it merited a mention in the Labour Party manifesto.
However, in the interim, there’s more that can be done. Some of it comes down to the information women receive about their pensions at key times. So, for example, many don’t realise the impact of career breaks on their pension, and they don’t realise the difference it can make if they or their partner continues to pay into their pension while they’re not working.
In order to get the full state pension, you need 35 years’ worth of National Insurance contributions. If you’re taking time off work for caring responsibilities for a child, you can receive National Insurance credits to fill these years instead. However, because the credits are linked to claiming child benefit, there’s a real risk they miss out. Some parents don’t claim child benefit at all, because they’re on a high income and have to pay it back, while sometimes the working parent makes the claim, so the non-working parent doesn’t automatically receive the credit. This confusion could be removed if the right for non-earning parents to receive NI credits was linked to the registering of the birth instead – which all parents have to do within 42 days of the child being born
Your partner can make contributions to your pension while you’re not working, but at the moment they’re limited to tax relief on £2,880 a year – taking the full contribution to £3,600. This limit was introduced way back in 2001, and hasn’t increased by a penny since. If it had risen with inflation, it would be £6,530, so the limit needs to be revisited. The amount of money people need in retirement is increasing with inflation – so the amount that can be contributed tax-efficiently while you’re not working needs to do so too.
Inflation-linked rises in thresholds should be a given. Pensions are something we all need to be in for the long haul, so we need stability and predictability in areas such as pensions taxation, so people have the confidence in their retirement planning that they need.”
