Anonymous 2 needed this 'Off the Record'

Anonymous - but a female comment at last. Spare a thought for those currently still working and over the age of 65 - quite common for females who have interrupted careers and lower pay, meaning no or lower pension income. Although we are told we are highly valued staff due to experience and capabilities, our employers are also scared of never getting rid of us, now that the phasing out of default retirement age has been confirmed. So they are doing it quickly with 6 months notice and while they still can with no pay out or repercussions with a tribunal.

The introduction of this change should have been better thought out to protect the employment of the likes of us, or at least delayed, so that employers had time to make preparations for it with relevant staff. How are these people going to get further employment when in their 60s and in a recession?

It might be considered that these elderly people losing their jobs as a result of phasing out default retirement age is good in a recession, because it will free up jobs down the line for youngsters currently on benefits. But many ( especially women) forced into retirement ahead of the Default Retirement Phase Out date will be in need of income to live, as the state pension is not even a "living wage." So they will end up on benefits. This means there is a small section of elderlies who most definitely will not benefit from the phase out of retirement age, simply because of the way it is being done.

David Rowse - once upon a time couples' income was combined before taxation in the UK too until some time in the 1980s.