male female equality

With all the talk about male female equality. If females expect equal pay with men, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE TO WORK UNTIL THEY ARE 65 JUST AS THE MEN HAVE TO, after all stastics show they are in general fitter than men and LIVE LONGER too.

Why is this idea important?

With all the talk about male female equality. If females expect equal pay with men, THEN THEY SHOULD HAVE TO WORK UNTIL THEY ARE 65 JUST AS THE MEN HAVE TO, after all stastics show they are in general fitter than men and LIVE LONGER too.

Retirement age

It is clear that the age of retirement is to change due to the financial environment and the fact that people are living longer.

My point is that age is not the fairest milestone to use for allowing access to state pension. As the state pension is paid for by national insurance, then surely the quantity of national insurance a person has paid should dictate when that person is eligible to retire.

Why is this idea important?

It is clear that the age of retirement is to change due to the financial environment and the fact that people are living longer.

My point is that age is not the fairest milestone to use for allowing access to state pension. As the state pension is paid for by national insurance, then surely the quantity of national insurance a person has paid should dictate when that person is eligible to retire.

Retirement age

As it looks like the retirement age will increase – I think that with immediate effect or before legislation takes place that it is placed on the statute that employers no longer have the right to insist that people and in this instance men do not have to retire at 65 but have the right to retire when they want to after the age that the old pension commences.

I see a situation that men will be forced to retire at 65 but will not receive a pension until the normal pension age

Why is this idea important?

As it looks like the retirement age will increase – I think that with immediate effect or before legislation takes place that it is placed on the statute that employers no longer have the right to insist that people and in this instance men do not have to retire at 65 but have the right to retire when they want to after the age that the old pension commences.

I see a situation that men will be forced to retire at 65 but will not receive a pension until the normal pension age

Police to retire at the same age as other citizens

To get over the problem of red tape and form filling simply ensure police retire at 65 and not 55. At 50 they should be taken off the beat (or out of their cars) and given a desk job filling in the forms of their younger colleagues who would replace them on the beat. The younger police officers would use modern technology to send back reports so that the forms can be completed by the older officers.

Why is this idea important?

To get over the problem of red tape and form filling simply ensure police retire at 65 and not 55. At 50 they should be taken off the beat (or out of their cars) and given a desk job filling in the forms of their younger colleagues who would replace them on the beat. The younger police officers would use modern technology to send back reports so that the forms can be completed by the older officers.

Scrapping default retirement age

I fully agree with all who want to see this Government  repeal the DRA asap. It is obvious that the main opposition comes from the CBI and the Chamber of Commerce –not society in general- who seem intent on continuing this form of discrimination . Why do these bodies not look to the States or Canada where  basic human rights are being respected–including the right to choose to continue towork beyond the DRA if a person is capable and productive?

Vince Cable who is in charge of BIS is 67 and is able to continue to work. Should others not have the same right? 

 

Why is this idea important?

I fully agree with all who want to see this Government  repeal the DRA asap. It is obvious that the main opposition comes from the CBI and the Chamber of Commerce –not society in general- who seem intent on continuing this form of discrimination . Why do these bodies not look to the States or Canada where  basic human rights are being respected–including the right to choose to continue towork beyond the DRA if a person is capable and productive?

Vince Cable who is in charge of BIS is 67 and is able to continue to work. Should others not have the same right? 

 

work untill 60

Instead of putting pension age up to 70, it should go down to 60. All the jobs that come available can be filled by people who are now getting dole and benefits. instead of paying them who don't work, pay the people who have worked all their life and give them a nice "old age"

Why is this idea important?

Instead of putting pension age up to 70, it should go down to 60. All the jobs that come available can be filled by people who are now getting dole and benefits. instead of paying them who don't work, pay the people who have worked all their life and give them a nice "old age"

Abolishing forced retirement

It is really time to abolish a law that makes it possible for healthy and productive human beings to be forced to quit working at 65 even though they want or need to continue to work. Pensions and investments have been seriously eroded and many are struggling. The Civil Service scrapped forced retirement several years ago (c 600,000 staff!). An all party Commons committee recommended abolishing the default retirement age a few years ago. The Equality and Human Rights Commission also feels that the law is discriminatory -ranking alongside race, gender, religion- along with Age UK and many others. The US abolished it in the 1980s and Canada in the last decade–without any negative results!  Surely, everyone cannot be wrong. Why can't this Government make a decision that is in the best interest of the public rather than empty promises and study after study? The Treasury estimates an annual saving of c £3.5 bill. On both moral and financial grounds, it is time to quit stalling and actually doing something immediately that will benefit thousands now and in the future!

Why is this idea important?

It is really time to abolish a law that makes it possible for healthy and productive human beings to be forced to quit working at 65 even though they want or need to continue to work. Pensions and investments have been seriously eroded and many are struggling. The Civil Service scrapped forced retirement several years ago (c 600,000 staff!). An all party Commons committee recommended abolishing the default retirement age a few years ago. The Equality and Human Rights Commission also feels that the law is discriminatory -ranking alongside race, gender, religion- along with Age UK and many others. The US abolished it in the 1980s and Canada in the last decade–without any negative results!  Surely, everyone cannot be wrong. Why can't this Government make a decision that is in the best interest of the public rather than empty promises and study after study? The Treasury estimates an annual saving of c £3.5 bill. On both moral and financial grounds, it is time to quit stalling and actually doing something immediately that will benefit thousands now and in the future!

Stop government intervention in private pension payments

The Labour government raised the minimum retirement age to 55 years. This affects even private pension plans. Thefore, government legislation about the age at which private pension plans may be paid out should be repealed.

Why is this idea important?

The Labour government raised the minimum retirement age to 55 years. This affects even private pension plans. Thefore, government legislation about the age at which private pension plans may be paid out should be repealed.

Pension at 50

The last government introduced tax laws (2004 finance act) which prevent people from accessing private pensions before the age of 55. This should be change to allow people to access a pension which they have planned for their future

I am a member of a pension scheme which is well organised, well funded and has for many years paid a pension from the age of 50 to people forced to leave work because of redundancy. The trustees have been forced by current legislation to change the minimum pension age to 55. As this is a private scheme there is no cost to the public when people draw a pension from this scheme.

There is however considerable cost to the benefit system when a 50 year old member with a young family is made redundant, and now must rely on state support for 15 years as the pension he has paid into for 32 years is no longer accessible.

Why is this idea important?

The last government introduced tax laws (2004 finance act) which prevent people from accessing private pensions before the age of 55. This should be change to allow people to access a pension which they have planned for their future

I am a member of a pension scheme which is well organised, well funded and has for many years paid a pension from the age of 50 to people forced to leave work because of redundancy. The trustees have been forced by current legislation to change the minimum pension age to 55. As this is a private scheme there is no cost to the public when people draw a pension from this scheme.

There is however considerable cost to the benefit system when a 50 year old member with a young family is made redundant, and now must rely on state support for 15 years as the pension he has paid into for 32 years is no longer accessible.