We demand equal Rights.....sometimes!!!

[MarillionFan]

Well I admit that is a good point, however that would apply to some people regardless of when you make the introduction date, surely?

No. If you adopt a plan of killing all newborn girls for the next five years you can then implement it in the future safe in the knowledge that there will be no complaints.

[SueEllen]

Well I admit that is a good point, however that would apply to some people regardless of when you make the introduction date, surely?

According to the male* pension experts I've watched on TV since Friday you need at a minimum of 10 years to put a change in so people aren't disadvantaged with their pension planning i.e. when you move your investments from say shares to cash, or move from full-time work to part-time work.

Hence all us younger people knowing we are going to retire at 66-68 aren't disadvantaged if they tell us now that we can't officially retire until we are 69 now but will be if they turn around when we are 62 and tell us we can officially retire at 70.

*Sorry the female ones have just made me switch off as they just moan it's unfair without explaining why.

[shaunbhoy]

How about we stop paying Pensions to Alzheimers sufferers? They won't notice anyway, and their money can be split between those who are still compos mentis to take up some of the slack?

Just a suggestion.............

[doodab]

I think the answer is to phase it in so that people who are 50 now still retire when they expect, people who are 48 will retire a year later and so on down to 40 year olds who will retire the full 5 years later.

The advantage of this scheme is that it can easily be extended to school leavers who will be retiring in their mid 70s.

[SueEllen]

No. If you adopt a plan of killing all newborn girls for the next five years you can then implement it in the future safe in the knowledge that there will be no complaints.

Since women under 56 will be retiring at the same age as men there isn't a reason to kill baby girls.

[Old Greg]

How about we stop paying Pensions to Alzheimers sufferers? They won't notice anyway, and their money can be split between those who are still compos mentis to take up some of the slack?

Just a suggestion.............

They'll own go and spend it on Alzheimer's drugs.

[shaunbhoy]

According to the male* pension experts I've watched on TV since Friday you need at a minimum of 10 years to put a change in so people aren't disadvantaged with their pension planning i.e. when you move your investments from say shares to cash, or move from full-time work to part-time work.

Hence all us younger people knowing we are going to retire at 66-68 aren't disadvantaged if they tell us now that we can't officially retire until we are 69 now but will be if they turn around when we are 62 and tell us we can officially retire at 70.

*Sorry the female ones have just made me switch off as they just moan it's unfair without explaining why.

But don't these changes only really impact the State Pension anyway? Nobody gets the chance to do much planning over that anyway...........except wayward Chancellors like Gordon, who wisely chose to invest it so prudently into single mums and various other immoral yet costly parts of the Welfare State.

[SueEllen]

I think the answer is to phase it in so that people who are 50 now still retire when they expect, people who are 48 will retire a year later and so on down to 40 year olds who will retire the full 5 years later.

The advantage of this scheme is that it can easily be extended to school leavers who will be retiring in their mid 70s.

Problem is the cost of it.

There aren't enough young people to support pensioners who are living whether in good or bad health for 35 years without working. Pensions where designed for people to live about a maximum 6 years after they stopped working.

[SueEllen]

But don't these changes only really impact the State Pension anyway? Nobody gets the chance to do much planning over that anyway...........except wayward Chancellors like Gordon, who wisely chose to invest it so prudently into single mums and various other immoral yet costly parts of the Welfare State.

Indirectly they impact public sector pensions, private pensions, mortgages and insurance related to earnings i.e. PHI. Insurance companies and pension companies relate their age limits to the state pension age.

Also I've met people (mainly in the finance industry) who actually do proper pension planning for themselves.

[doodab]

Problem is the cost of it.

There aren't enough young people to support pensioners who are living whether in good or bad health for 35 years without working. Pensions where designed for people to live about a maximum 6 years after they stopped working.

OK well there you go then. Let people retire whenever they like, after 6 years they can either support themselves or top themselves. That would save the NHS a fortune as well.