Moves planned to ease women's pension fears
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Ministers are planning moves to ease the pain on women in their 50s caused by the Government's decision to raise the age at which people qualify for the basic state pension.
MPs yesterday voted in favour of the proposals to equalise the state pension age for men and women at 65 in 2018 and to raise the qualifying age to 66 for both sexes two years later.
Iain Duncan Smith, the Work and Pensions Secretary, said he was "willing to work to get this transition right," adding: "I am quite happy to look at transitional arrangements. I don't rule out discussion."
Despite Mr Duncan Smith insistence that ministers were committed to the plans, his officials have started to look at other options in order to prevent women in their late 50s seeing their retirement plans disrupted by the change.
But the Treasury is insisting that any alternative proposal should not cost extra money, and one option is to bring forward the state pension age for both men and women.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments