Originally posted by stokeragree, don't know about the law but they're violating the mens' right to be treated equally.
well said .. but does it break the equality law disciminating against men by increasing there age of retirement while delaying womens,even tho they on average live 5 years longer so in efect get aprox 10 years pension above there male equiverlent . this may change but if twins had been born 1952 one female the other male and lived worked thier time the female gets more from the state having payed less into.
china has similar treatment. 5 years difference, i think.
Originally posted by stokerI think the reason why men and women are affected different by the change is partly due to a historic difference and partly due to a wish to let people gradualy adjust.
well said .. but does it break the equality law disciminating against men by increasing there age of retirement while delaying womens,even tho they on average live 5 years longer so in efect get aprox 10 years pension above there male equiverlent . this may change but if twins had been born 1952 one female the other male and lived worked thier time the female gets more from the state having payed less into.
Historically men have had a later retirement age, originally women were viewed as fragile and mabye not really suited for working (appart from at home) at all. Also we don't have to go far back to find a time where womens expected life time were shorter than mens.
Today men still have a later retirement, I don't know how it works in UK, but lets for sake of argument say that it's 64 for men and 62 for women.
Here is then how the gradual change look for the two sexes, Men have to step up from 64 to 66 in 6 years till 2016, women have to step up from 62 to 66 in 10 years till 2020.
That means women have a steeper step up.
But is it fair, not realy men still retire later at least till 2020, I will maybe get back to an attempt at what would be fair in a later post.
But for now lets just finish by noting that goverment pension schemes are not aimed at fairnes in a strictly mathematical sence, they are funded by non proportional taxpayments by todays taxpayers and distributed proportionally to yesterdays taxpayers.
Originally posted by Wajomaa skipping CD 🙂 I like that one.
And you're a skipping CD, all those that believe in the official retirement age should sign up for the official retirement age and leave those that would like to take their own chances (i.e. decide for themselves) alone.
But your post does not contribute to the discussion in any way.
As I noted "I on the other hand think that it is a key area of responsability for society to ensure that everybody can enjoy a bit of old age, regarless of how fortunate their finances stand at the end of their work life."
As I am the well meaning majority (take that as a definition) it becomes the boundary condition for a discussion of how we can reform pension systems including the funding.
There is no contribution in standing on the side line and yelling NO NO.
[i..it has been in the uk 65 for men and 60 for women. it is going to slowly rise for women but my point is before women get to the equal age of 65 mens go up to 66. this seems to break the laws yet even when ive written to politians ive no reply, contacted the equal commision and they have only sent a acknowledgement back and that was six months ago. seems they both want it swept under the carpet.
Today men still have a later retirement, I don't know how it works in UK, but lets for sake of argument say that it's 64 for men and 62 for women.
.
.