Why are women being punished?

[anotheoldgit]

http://www.dailymail....k-women-15k-each.html

Since it has become obvious that the age when one receives a state pension is to rise so as to contend with ever-increasing longevity.

The state pension age for women will go up from 60 to 65 in 2018, then the pension age will then rise to 66 for both men and women in 2020, eventually reaching 68 in the years ahead.

So why are the Women complaining, it's all in the name of equality.

[ChuckFickens]

Your title is a little confusing/misleading on this one!

I agree though, it should be the same for both sexes.

[237SJ]

You`ve just answered your own question. It`s all in the name of equality.

[wolf63]

AOG - sarcasm doesn't come across well on the internet.

;-)

[Gromit]

Old people are living too long and the state cannot afford to pay for them. So, as life expectancy increases, the retirement age increases. Unless you were one of the lucky ones.

[sophie_1003]

I've said this before on another post about pensions; despite men pitching in more in housework and childcare compared to a few years ago it is my bet that in the majority of households it is women that do most of this work in addition to holding down full time jobs. Therefore women deserve to retire with state pension a few years earlier than men as they are likely to have worked harder in their homelives in addition to working in jobs than their male counterparts.

[237SJ]

I don`t see what women do in the household should have any bearing on how they`re rewarded in their working lives. They choose to do more in the household and how would that have any bearing on working women who have never married/had kids?

[The-HouseHusband]

It is a fact that women live longer than men, so in the interest of all involved maybe women should retire after men to even things out!!!!

[sophie_1003]

'Choose'? How so; if a man and woman decide together to have children but then it ends up being the woman who fulfills most of the childcare role how is that a choice; she can't force her partner to take over! I acknowledge that in some cases men and women who live together share the home chores and childcare equally but in many it is still women who are expected to have a full time job and complete more than their fair share of home jobs.

[Old_Geezer]

We do not have 100% employment. The rational action was to lower the pension age for men not raise them for women. Get folk off of welfare and into work. But I guess that was too sensible. More authority idiocy for the rest to despair at

[237SJ]

I say choose as in the choice of their home environment with regards to their work. Example, a married woman runs a home and has a full time job so (as she is busy running a home) she gets to retire at 65. Her single, childless colleague has made the same pension contributions and worked alongside her for x amount of years has to retire at 66 because she`s had a quieter home life.

[youngmafbog]

Equla rights are equal rights. You cannot cherry pick.

Due to living longer we all have to work longer, including civil servants and women. No we dont have 100% employment, no one does in the western world and this will not actually make a bit of difference. Send all the foreigners packing if you want to make a difference.

[Old_Geezer]

Due to living longer we do not have to work longer. There are only so many jobs at any one time, and it makes no sense to force those who have already worked to keep on and on, whilst others who have not had the chance to contribute are still on welfare. At any time those in work cover the costs of society for all regardless who is working. I don't know who benefits from this misinformation that we all have to work longer, if I did I'd know why they perpetrated the hoax.

[anotheoldgit]

Sorry if I misled anyone, my headline was in answer to the Daily Mail headline, 'Don't punish women'.

My question however was in my last sentence.

Hope this has helped to clear things up?

[anotheoldgit]

pixi-

/// would it have been equally equal if they brought down mens pension age to that of women? or what it used to be? ///

That would be most welcome to some I am sure.

Especially if it carried with it the back-pay in pension.

[anotheoldgit]

sophie_1003

/// I've said this before on another post about pensions; despite men pitching in more in housework and childcare compared to a few years ago it is my bet that in the majority of households it is women that do most of this work in addition to holding down full time ///

/// Therefore women deserve to retire with state pension a few years earlier than men as they are likely to have worked harder in their homelives in addition to working in jobs than their male counterparts.///

That is a huger generalisation from a feminist point of view.

Most modern men take an equal part in domestic chores, plus many jobs around and outside the house that women don't usually do.

Many men usually have much more manual jobs and work longer hours at them, than their female counterparts.

Women in the past have enjoyed the privilege of retiring 5 years earlier than men, although men are more likely to die before women.

[rov1100]

There;s going to be a few NI stamps missing from their contributions. What employer in their right mind would employ geriatrics even if they were only paid the minimum wage.

The problem with the current system if you have no money, no job, no savings you will be able to get a full pension which is denied to those who have been thrifty and worked hard for most of your life.

[Old_Geezer]

But whether they have worked on not, what is the option of not paying a living amount to our older citizens? Let them starve on the streets? And even if you wanted to pay different levels of pension, can you distinguish between someone who was unfortunate not to find much work from someone who deliberately avoided employment? Could any such investigation prove financially viable anyway? Seems to me the only civilised option is to pay everyone an amount they can live on, as a right of being a citizen. Those who were fortunate to be able to, and chose to, can top up from their own pension investments.

[emmie]

actually what about the fact of women who have been unable to pay as much into their pensions, or that men still earn more than women, that there is still inequality between the sexes. I am not saying that women shouldn't retire at the same time, but there are lots of factors that come into play, and it isnt as plain as you have painted. Most of the women of my acquaintance have been the sole breadwinner, looked after children home, and had full time careers, and the disparity is between women, because it would seem that the proposals differentiate from when you were born, what month year, i would be retiring in 2050 at this rate.