Any of you thought about changing gender to female to retire earlier? One dude did it.
Pretty good investment. For 75 CHF you get one year more of AHV/AVS.
4 Likes
He (well now itâs rather she) is right to do so. That is one more example that this age difference for ordinary AHV/AVS retirement has to disappear.
2 Likes
You can also use this ideocracy to avoid having to do military service or pay Wehrpflichtersatz.
6 Likes
And it comes with the entitlement to be mad at everyone that dead names you.
2 Likes
We should get rid of the gender alltogether. There is no need for it anymore.
4 Likes
From a biological view, yes. Humans that can make babys and those who canât. But from a legal view? Why shouldnât we all have the same rights?
3 Likes
Men canât get raped by law.
1 Like
I guess (s)heâll also have to get a lower salary then 
4 Likes
I think there is a lot more we donât know about. Getting rid of genders (from a legal perspective) would be a good solution IMO.
1 Like
Perhaps itâs because getting along in Swiss business necessitates frequenting strip clubs, like you suggested in the other thread 
3 Likes
Ok, I guess this is another topic where any reasonable discussion with Patron is futile.
9 Likes
Agree. The CEO of my last company, where I was a manager told me the women were bad at negotiating a salary raise. When he asked them, they didn`t say a %, so he gave them a lower amount than what he already had in mind, whereas the men always said e.g. 8%, from where negotiations started.
2 Likes
It isnât just retirement which is affected by a gender change (on paper). There are many discrepencies, and in the most extreme cases the differences can up to over 1 million francs in lost or gained income. You can find a good list of them here:
2 Likes
Honestly Iâm rooting for some of the people on this thread to try this âtrickâ. Would very quickly gain hands on experience on micro-aggression, being misgendered continuously, having people âassumeâ things based on your appearance or your stated gender, etc.
6 Likes
I would just like to make one small observation about something that is often overlooked when discussing normal retirement ages like here, and hopefully my comment leaves aside all considerations of politics, biology, identity, etc.
It is simply that, statistically speaking, (biological) women currently live on average longer than (biological) men. Thatâs a neutral fact observed throughout most of the world (and Iâm not even suggesting that this discrepancy has biological roots, and that it couldnât disappear over time). This is probably as uncontroversial as saying that smokers have a shorter life expectancy. Ultimately, this means that if men and women have the same normal retirement age under a given pension system, actuarially speaking the pension paid to the woman is expected to cost more on average. So if both get the same pension at the same age and pay the same contribution rate, someone is cross-subsidizing the other (and Iâm not even suggesting that a participant cannot openly accept this implicit âsolidarityâ, just pointing it out). Iâll let you figure out whether this means that women should have an earlier retirement age than men or later 
Furthermore, to those who believe that normal retirement ages should not be increased anymore, or at all for that matter, I just want to point out that, again, statistically speaking life expectancy has been increasing for decades, and is expected to continue to do so for a little while at least. Iâm not suggesting that itâs inconceivable to keep the normal retirement age as it is nevertheless (thereâs definitely the issue of healthy life expectancy vs total life expectancy for instance), simply that if we all live longer, and we prefer to keep the same retirement age, someone has to pay for itâŠ
3 Likes
From that view women should retire at 69-70. But this would only work if the roles were reversed. Imagine if men would live 4-5 years longer on average. They would decide tomorrow that men had to work till 69-70.
1 Like
I donât see much point in discussing whether or not things should be different. Many of these points are political and if they change, that happens very slowly. It is simply good to be aware of the legalities as they exist now, and how they affect your financial life.
3 Likes
Because nothing says âtaxation is theftâ better than fighting tooth and nail to make sure we can benefit the most from a social program paid for with payroll taxes instead of trying to make it shrink. 
Iâm genuinely interested, would his take be that stating a nominal amount (corresponding for example to an 8% increase) result in lesser results or was he mainly stating that women more often donât take upon themselves to suggest a high raise, assuming negociations would then occur, and either ask for a lower number or let to the employer the luxury to state whatever amount they want (including 0)?
1 Like
I donât get it. Changing your gender legally will not change a thing about those things? You donât have to change anything about you appearance to change your legal gender.
Most people gender you according to their perception (e.g.âpassingâ), so it doesnât matter at all how youâre registered.
Obviously this might be a bad thing to do from the perspective of trans individuals (havenât thought deeply about it).
Itâs also going to be really awkward to tell your employer (if you have to, which I donât know â I never provided my gender for previous employments). And the employer might also look down on you for taking advantage of a legal loophole.
Many reasons not to do it. Donât yet see a reason why âincreased discriminationâ would be one of them.
2 Likes