Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/t...e955fb2ea22509
(Shareable link from the Sunday Times, so hopefully will be readable to non subscribers)
Not going to raise taxes, but spending more money...
---------- Post added at 09:21 ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 ----------
If only women didn’t have to rake time off work to continue the human race...
(I actually agree with the equalisation of pension ages, just not how it was done)
|
What has women having babies got to do with it? If anything as I understand it, they now have (1 or 2) extra years to fill in any gaps.
You either equalize them or you don't. You can't exactly say you're going to equalize them in 50 years time. They would still complain they didn't have enough notice.
---------- Post added at 10:21 ---------- Previous post was at 10:18 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfman
I don't think anyone really agrees (Old Boy will no doubt surprise us here) with how the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition changed the rules in 2011 giving just three years notice to some of those affected.
Considering the original increase had a fifteen year lead-in period it isn't really adequate time for some of those preparing. That said, it isn't just women who are affected here men who prepared to retire at 65 in this decade found the increase from 65 to 66. While not being hit the same way as women these short notice changes are costing men thousands.
|
Men got exactly the same notice of the extra changes as women did.