But is this way of calculating still valid? Doesn’t it make the woman still financially dependent on her husband? In short, is this method of calculation egalitarian?
For Pierre Devolder, this is a calculation method that clearly dates from the past but which benefits both members of the couple. “Even if the amount is paid to the man, the woman will also benefit from this revaluation. The idea of household pension is to redistribute to the couple, not to the single man. And so, the woman also benefits.“
The question is therefore how the money is redistributed within the couple once it is paid to the man. “And this information is very difficult to obtain because it is the private circle“, answers Laurène Thil, economist and researcher at KULeuven.
“It is clear that with the household rate, the man earns more thanks to his wife. However, this does not necessarily mean that the woman receives less wealth in the end. From the moment the resources available to the couple are increased and returned to the man, the important thing for gender equality is to see how they are then redistributed. If they are shared, that’s fine, if not, it’s clear that women are losers… Yes, it’s about getting along!“
This means that the woman is financially dependent on her husband. “There is a globalization of income which means that you no longer have your own rights if you are the one, the one in this case, who earns the least“, reacts Dominique De Vos, president of the Social Security Commission of the Federal Council for Equal Opportunities for Men and Women. “It cements the dependence on the husband. Even if, it should be emphasized, they can separate and receive a divorced pension which, again, depends on the husband’s income.“
One of the solutions studied by these three experts would be the “splitting“Remember, this is one of the solutions that must be studied according to the government agreement.”The basic idea of splitting is to combine the pension of the two people and we divide in two“, explains Dominique de Vos who specifies that this raises a lot of other questions. “What do we put in this common pot? Legal pension? Additoinal ? Doesn’t this risk impoverishing households?“