I got the same tax allowance as my girlfriend at the time, same salary but I got less take home each month thanks to widow's pension I paid and she didn't and neither of us would have benefited had either of us died.
Paying discriminatory pension contributions has nothing to do with tax allowances. they are completely seperate issues and conflating them to attack posters is childish. You are conflating different issues ... whataboutism.
I have always received the same salaries as women doing the same job (although in one job direct comparison was limited as there were far more women in senior positions).
If anybody is "lashing out" it's you. Nobody has accused WASPI women of being 'bar stewards' who lived under a rock and should STFU". Go check with copilot.
Whoever you are 'cos you are not the person you are posting under.
The avatar was my aunt's, but this wasn't her name, no more than Psamathe is your own. So it's a petty point and attempt to discredit a poster who is pointing out some uncomfortable truths.
Honsetly, I didn't know about the Civil Service Widow's pension scheme. So I've asked regular Copilot free version because after you pointed it out, I thought I should know. The reply is interesting (if correct), so I'll replay that to you, to see what you think. Apparently from what it says you were paying 1.5% contribution in this employer scheme.
🕊️ Post-War Context and Widow’s Pensions
- Mass casualties and long-term injuries from WW2 meant many women were widowed young, often with children to support.
- The state responded by expanding widow’s pensions — but these were treated as unearned income and taxed at punitive rates. In fact, widow’s pensions were taxed at 50% after WWII, the highest rate at the time.
- This wasn’t because men were expected to die young due to war injuries per se — it was more about the scale of bereavement and the need to support surviving families, especially women who had lost breadwinners.
⚖️ Was It Fair?
From today’s perspective, it looks gendered and outdated — but it was based on the assumption that
men were the primary earners, and their wives would need financial support if widowed. The system didn’t anticipate female breadwinners or same-sex partnerships.
However:
- If a male employee remained single, he could claim a refund of WPS contributions upon retirement.
Apart from this, I'll replay something sometimes told to me by monkers. When at primary school, she had a teacher. He told the class that he hadn't intended to be a teacher. He'd been in the RAF during WW2 and shot down. As a consequence he'd been a prisoner of war, and a literal wooden leg and other injuries including burns. He told the class that he'd become a teacher due to the survivors rehabilitation programme. People like him were found employment within the Civil Service and such like. Monkers had a cousin in the same class. I remember hearing them talking about this teacher with a lot of respect and affection. Monkers also had an uncle who likewise was missing an arm. He was fitted with a job with the county council. Both of these men died young - presumably their widows received widow's pension. I will surmise that the two systems were linked.
