Changes in retirement rules will not unfairly penalise women in their fifties, Steve Webb, the pensions minister, said yesterday.
Mr Webb told the Liberal Democrat conference that he would compromise on changes in the retirement rules to equalise the pension age for men and women.
Campaigners say the proposals for a universal state pension age of 66 by 2020—six years earlier than was planned—mean many women face an unfairly sharp rise in their retirement age.
Currently, women can claim their state pension at 60, whilst men must wait until 65.
What possible justification—given the plethora of equality laws now in the workplace—can the government have for this situation still existing?
It's very simple: if women want to take their pension five years before men, they should get a reduced payout (since they have paid less in). Or the pension ages should be equalised now.
Oh, and before anyone starts up with "but, Devil, but you can't break contract law", please remember that there is no contract with the state—did you sign anything? No. Were you given a mandatory "cooling-off" period? No—which is why the bastard government can keep changing the tax rates.
If draconian equality laws is the way that we are going to go, I demand total equality of pension rights: raise the pension age for women right now, or pay them less.
We will then be one step closer to A Fair And Just Society*.
* A.K.A. "Utopia", "The Progressive's Dream", or "Hell".