Your Views: Men will also suffer from Coalition's pension changes

Click to follow
The Independent Online

In his comment last week, Simon Read said that "women are worst hit by the Government's change of plan". While I accept that women will be the biggest losers and have many legitimate grouses against a system that financially penalises them, it is wrong to give the impression that men too have not been losers when it comes to the State pension age.

I will be 65 in December and the fact is that I have contributed an extra five years to receive my pension. A woman of my age would already have received her pension for almost five years, which is roughly worth £5,000 a year or £25,000. Where is the fairness in that? To make a man wait for five extra years when fit and healthy women are getting their State pension is unfair.

The losers are men of my age so please do not try to convince readers that it is just women who are hit by the pension changes.

Clifford Evans

Fishguard, Pembrokshire

Independent or cynical?

Why do you use Hargreaves Lansdown – a company that sells financial products – to produce the Analyst column? Perhaps we could have a column written by a more cynical commentator? For example, you never see investment trusts mentioned because Hargreaves Lansdown do not sell them. I cannot remember the last time I saw any mention of them in The Independent even though their costs are lower.

Nigel Long

by email

Simon Read replies: Mark Dampier's Analyst column (opposite) is always fascinating. He often reports on funds run by managers he meets, which gives him an unique insight. He is cynical and certainly doesn't always recommend funds. He has, on occasion, featured investment trusts but I agree that it's time to feature them again in the section, which we will do in the future.

Pensions and the future

If you're out of work and 50 or older, how can you save for a pension? We are heading towards a new poverty gap for older people. The prime age to save for retirement seems to be when you're 20-49. Do we need to recalculate pension contributions on the presumption of a 30-year work span, and a very uncertain final 15 years? It's fine talking about saving for the future, but an absence of salary does mean an absence of future investment. Has Mr Osborne taken account of this in his changes to the pension system?

Robert Leivers

Church Stretton, Shropshire

Tell us what you think. Email or write to Simon Read, The Independent, 2 Derry Street, London W8 5HF

Looking for credit card or current account deals? Search here