Nothing equal about pension situation
WHEN a man put his efforts into a court case years ago demanding for equality with women regarding the pension age, I bet he had hoped that the men’s age would be lowered to 60.
Well it wasn’t, and thanks to him he has caused a fair few problems.
Some men think (and say repeatedly) that the new pension rules making women wait to collect their pensions, has made it more equal. So is it sour grapes that their age wasn’t reduced?
Yet again, we feel it necessary to point out that no man has had to wait six extra years for their pension (say from 65-71) at short notice.
No man has lost about £40,000.00 in having to wait. This wait has put women in danger of losing any savings they have, because they now have to live on them due to the fact they had aimed for 60 to retire (and perhaps look after their menfolk and families) but were given little warning of these changes. So the men (and the shops) will miss out, as some of the £40,000.00 may have been spent on them.
Young people will be unable to gain promotions in their employment (if they get a job), due to the older members of society having to hang on until the bitter end.
The pensioners will then be more worn out and a liability to the NHS, instead of enjoying a few years of freedom.
Why couldn’t it have been staggered a year at a time (60-61, etc), as it is being done now the magic age of 66 has been set as the new dateline?
It may have saved the
Government a lot of money, but do you think it will be spent on us? Just a thought...
No matter how you look at it, nothing is equal about this situation. Mrs T Newman
Gloucester