The lack of pensions savings of most women will cause particular problems in the next few years, as women have to wait longer before they receive the state pension, according to critics of Government policy.
Eh?
Ms Reeves said that there were now 500,000 women, born between September 1953 and March 1955, who will have to work at least a year longer than they previously would have done under the previous plans.
Erm, working longer is a solution to not having a sufficient pension, not a problem with it.
You\’ll be earning more money and not drawing on your pension, perhaps even being able to add to it…..
That’s what it is saying – you will need to work a year longer to make the sums work?
I think the wider point is the reneging on the deal: being made to work longer.
But if women do have inadequate pension provision, working another year will both allow them to build up more pension and reduce the time they will need to be supported by a pension.
It’s the triumph of Feminism and the EU – rules that require the end of age discrimination between men and women for state pensions. Everyone on the side of the Forces of Progress must cheer, or be guilty of hypocrisy or stupidity.
I know the idea of women being paid the same as men or getting the same monly pension is considered utterly absurd on this site, but there are of course very positive externalities for all of us in people still having children, so I think we need to be a little more creative.
Matthew, women were getting a better deal than men on State Pension – starting at 60 rather than 65, and qualifying with a lower minimum number of years of contributions. Now it’s en route to being unisex, so they lose.
Yes, but part of the reason they make less contributions is they don’t get paid if they are looking after children?