the plan is by 2016 all men must retire at 66 not 65 as now. but it leaves the question open for women, the retirement is going up for women at a slow rate but this policy seems either a cop out not to upset women voters, or very discriminatry. any thoughts.
mine is if its ok for the goose its ok for the gander
We've moved our female pension date from 60 to 65 (where the male date already was) over about 10 years and it's worked OK. Now we're increasing both from 65 to 67 over another 10 year period, no reason why it shouldn't work as well. The date should be the same for both sexes, whatever date it is.
Some grandfathering is still needed, because those in their 60s now had big differences in their ability to earn and save. When I commenced work (I'm 65 now) 18-year-old female minimum wage was (in proportion, can't remember the actual numbers) $150, adult female $300, adult male $450. Girls tended to lose their jobs when they married (pre-pill days) and rarely got educated past Year 9 or 10, so even if they managed to return to the workforce it was in a casual low-level job with no superannuation or savings plans on offer. I imagine things would not have been greatly different in the UK.
they were slightly differ, when married a woman payed little to no contribution, [called the stamp but national contribution was its title] i worked with many on this at the pay day tho payed more i came out with less. but my point was if they are changing the law then due to the equality law they should be changed to a level equal, I magine the outcry if they revesed it to women retire at 66 in 2015 and men by 2020 as they live longer and get more interms of amount back yet payed less in
oh im 57 and will be retiring at 66 seemingly, if i had a twin sister her retirement would at present be 2013 mine 2018