Are men worse off after pension-age changes?

IN RECENT weeks I have read many complaints from women that they have to wait until 67 — the same age as men — before they can draw their state pension. Men have waited for their pension five years longer than women since the 1948 Pension Act. This is despite the fact that, on average, they die five years earlier. Pressure from women’s groups resulted in their pension age being reduced to 60 in 1948 while men’s was set at 65. Hardly fair. The scheme has always been imperfect, and I had hoped that when they equalised it, I would receive a pension at 60. It was not to be. In 1995 women’s retirement age went up to 65, taking place in stages. As this was mooted more than 20 years ago, why are these women only just waking up to it? The retirement age has now been raised to 67, but this is unfair to men as well as women — and men don’t live as long. While waiting to reach 65, I lost out on £44,720, plus a small company pension of £9,600 — a total of £54,320. This is the true price of inequality that men have borne for decades. I am 71 and still working.

sTEpHEN FITZGERAld, porlock, somerset. one aspect of women taking their pensions at 60 was that it was a great help to elderly parents if their daughters could leave full-time work at that age. When men retire, they tend to join a golf club or bowling club or perhaps take on an allotment — most seem to regard it as a time to enjoy life. For many women, however, retirement means helping elderly relatives with visits to the doctor, hospital, shopping and housework, with time to call in for a cup of tea and a chat. the ability of retired women to support their family is a very important aspect of this time of life.

B. CRoCKETT, Cheltenham, Glos.