SIR – There seems to be great deal of interest in the retiring age, with the latest being that pensioners should work past 65.
Reasons have been given to support this view, including we can’t afford to pay the required pension at this age, and some people want to work longer.
As I see it, we need people to retire at what would be called the natural age, for if they do not, and in effect all the workforce fail to move up a place, where are the jobs for the school-leavers?
We also need them to move on, so the more dynamic can push business forward, or we will stagnate with old ideas. However, we do need the more experienced, to hold the rash and bold in check, so 65 is a good age to fit both camps.
As to affordability, taken in isolation it makes some sense, but more broadly it loses its effect. If the pensioners do not retire and claim pension, then we could have the young without jobs claiming unemployment benefit.
Either way there is a cost, but I would say that making way for the younger to get jobs, is the most needful and beneficial.
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article