VERSION|0.5.1|NAME|Steve|DATE|1385731255|CONTENT|I agree with that Andym. What I was disagreeing with was the idea that pensions should be maintained as they were signed up for, 20, 30 or 40 years ago. And I agree also with Edwin that it is not the fault of the pension recipient. Fault is irrelevant. Equally irrelevant are the pension holiday decisions, except as historical arguments. What was done was done. It was wrong when life expectancy was 72. It is doubly wrong now.

We have a situation now that is what it is. It needs to be dealt with, and it won&#039;t be dealt with by Tories calling people greedy, nor by unions arguing that people signed up to retire at 60. The balance age seems to work out at 67 (assuming life expectancy doesn&#039;t keep getting ever higher).

I took out a pension when I started work, with an intended retirement age of 55. I think 65+ is now a better guess for me. I have nobody to argue with about this, nobody to blame either, only a choice based on what annuity I will be able to afford at 55, 60, and 65. Pensionable age has historically been defined as a time AFTER starting work (40 years). A definition based on time BEFORE average life expectancy, or on a proportion of the two, would work far better.|IP-ADDRESS|217.36.222.79|MODERATIONFLAG|