(Reply).
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
|
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
| 21 |
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
For me being born in 1960, I was eligible for a pension at age 65. Such is the lot of being male - you die years earlier, and you got paid a pension later. (They've fixed the second part, but not the first. With luck, they might even bring women's earnings to parity one day, too.)
Given those proposals, I will hit 65 right in the middle of the the 'raise to 66' period, so it's possible I might retire at 65 - the same age I could have expected when I was born.
I think I'd rather have your problem. Because that'd mean I was 10 years younger.