I am also appalled by the way we are being portrayed as greedy and selfish and uncaring towards the generation below us. This is a lie – we paid in all our working lives to provide a pension for those who had retired before us, many of whom had contributed very little in national insurance contributions but still got their pensions, thanks to us.
At no time do I ever remember begrudging them their pension – or there being a sustained campaign by the government and media aimed at antagonising us because we were paying in for someone else to benefit.
Young people need to be in work – if we were allowed to retire as promised when we started work at the age of 60 this would free up many jobs for young people to take on. This would, at a stroke, reduce the benefits budget, increase revenue from income tax, and reduce unemployment among younger people.
The government seems unable to decide how much it will cost to honour the promise made to the 1950s women when we started work that we would retire at 60. It varies from minister to minister and press release to press release – but the savings in unemployment benefit and housing benefits are never included in their calculations.
Many 1950s women have more years of national insurance contributions required for a state pension and do not benefit a penny from working more years, often at a great cost to our health and wellbeing.
Former Waspi campaign member
First law of insurance
Regarding the story, “PFS calls for in-depth analysis of PI market” (July 2): Actually professional indemnity is a very simple concept.1. You have got to have it.2. Therefore they can charge what they like.3. If you claim you probably will not be able to renew or it will cost you two years’ profits.4. They will do their best to repudiate the claim for the most spurious of reasons, but this will still result in point three (above) anyway.
This actually proves Katz’s first law of insurance: we will take the largest premium we can and if you claim we will do our best to repudiate.
Regarding James Coney’s article, “Marketing Win” (June 27): Mr Coney is suggesting that Lifetime Isas have been a success. I would beg to differ. For one thing I would not say 286,000 accounts is a success, after more than two years. The likely reason is there are hardly any providers of the Isa, whether you are looking for a cash Isa or an investment Isa. I would have thought the government should have insisted that all providers that offer traditional Isas have to offer Lisas. After all, providing Isas is being given a licence, therefore that privilege should not mean providers can cherry pick which type of Isa they offer.