Letter: Retirement choice
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.Sir: For a Government so publicly committed to the extension of 'choice', it seems odd that it should fix the retirement at all (leading article, 13 April). A simple solution would have been to allow both men and women to choose their own age of retirement from somewhere between 60 and 65 (say). The fact that the retirement age has been equalised at 65 shows that the overriding consideration is 'economy' - for which 'choice' has previously been used as a euphemism.
Yours faithfully,
GERARD M. BLAIR
Edinburgh
14 April
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments