This makes my blood boil (“Pensions — the real gender pay gap”, last week). When women wanted parity, the government raised their retirement age to that of men. This had a double-whammy effect for women born in the 1950s, who then had it adjusted upwards: my wife — and other countless hundreds of thousands — now has to wait until she is 66.
Because of this and previous governments’ reluctance to tackle this time-bomb, it has left these women at a disadvantage.
Consider that the BBC takes £8 off every licence payer to reduce the deficit in its pension scheme, to benefit stars paid millions annually. Consider that a large part of your council tax funds public-sector pensions.
Is it not time the government stopped making the majority responsible for the minority?
Alan Hall, via sundaytimes.co.uk
The equalisation of retirement ages corrected a long-standing discrimination against men. Retirement at 60 meant women enjoyed five years of pension (worth £30,000 today) that men did not get. Because of longer life expectancy, they benefited from a further three years or more.
Advertisement
As to private pensions, if women fare less well, it is still their responsibility.
“ihatearmchairexperts”, via sundaytimes.co.uk
When I had my first child, there was no concept of maternity leave, let alone maternity pay. When you got pregnant, you left, usually a month or two before the birth — it didn’t matter who you worked for. And with little or no childcare available, you couldn’t return to work afterwards.
Angela Barratt, via sundaytimes.co.uk
These average pension savings figures of £25,000 for a woman and £74,000 for a man won’t buy a pension worth having. For as long as Mark Carney runs a zero interest-rate policy and quantitative easing, pensions will be unaffordable for savers and for companies.
Thomas Malthus, via sundaytimes.co.uk
Toxic leases are a ticking bomb
I moved into a Renaissance village property just over two years ago and consider a) the lease is too short at 125 years; and b) the ground rent is unfair (“Ripped-off leaseholders, your saviour is waiting in the wings”, last week.) The terms are that the £250 a year ground rent increases every five years by accumulative RPI [retail prices index] rounded up to the next £10. Thus if the RPI averages 2% a year it is 10% — £25 rounded up to £30, leaving £280 to pay a year. In 2028 at the same rate of RPI it would be £350 and so on. I know it is not doubling but it will become very expensive at the end of a 100-year lease. A ticking time bomb that will affect future generations.
FM, Exeter, Devon
The situation of those affected by the disgusting toxic leasehold situation is not so difficult to solve. While not in its normal remit, the government could make a compulsory purchase order of the freeholds and sell to leaseholders at a fair share of the cost involved. Should any leaseholder not wish to purchase, the remaining leases would then be sold on to an ethical company with revised and reasonable increases, as is the norm. This would alleviate the situation at no eventual cost to the taxpayer.
Advertisement
Given the comments from some MPs, they should wish to be seen to be taking action against these rogue builders and landlords.
JM, Henley-on-Thames, Oxfordshire
One way to deal with these leasehold costs when a property is marketed would be a legal requirement to disclose a freehold conversion cost calculated on a statutory basis.
This calculation could be undertaken by the vendor or their agents and verified by the purchaser or their agents using a web-based calculating tool, which could be set up and maintained by the appropriate government agency.
The amount calculated would not have to be binding on either the landlord or the leaseholder, but it would at least help to make an easier comparison between similar properties that have different leasehold terms, or between leasehold and freehold properties.
Chris Shenton, by email
How many firms of solicitors have been sued by property buyers because their conveyancer did not explain the insidious nature of these leases?
JD Robinson, via sundaytimes.co.uk
Advertisement
Gardeners ought to pay and spray
Ali Hussain (“Water meters muscle in — and rain on my garden parade”, last week), seems to disregard the fact that our gas and electricity are metered: we pay for what we use, so why should it be any different with water? Charging for water on the rateable value of the property is ridiculous and old-fashioned — we should pay for the amount we use.
To save his hydrangeas, Hussain should get a water butt to collect rainwater, save bathwater if he must, but also use mulches to reduce water loss from plants. There’s plenty of advice for gardeners in case of drought.
JC, Matlock, Derbyshire
You don’t think you should pay by usage for your water? We have had meters for years — it’s just one of those things. Now we don’t water the grass, only new plants. We have rain barrels on all the downspouts to collect garden water.
Tim Locke, via sundaytimes.co.uk
Water isn’t a limitless resource. If you want to squander it watering your garden, why shouldn’t you pay more?
“hbw”, via sundaytimes.co.uk
Ali Hussain tells us that with a water meter we will pay roughly a penny a minute to run a tap, but almost twice that to use a hosepipe. Isn’t a hosepipe just a tap running through a long tube?
AW, Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancashire
Advertisement
Ali replies: Thames Water says using a hosepipe costs more as garden taps have a higher flow rate than ones indoors. Unlike the latter, they tend to be used at full flow too.
Hunter’s cup runneth over
It is always a pleasure to read Hunter Davies’s articles (“My single life is half as rich but it’s still cleaning me out”, July 23). However, to save money on coffees why does he not shop in Waitrose, where he can have a free daily coffee with a minimal purchase?
SH, Twickenham, southwest London
A little advice for Hunter regarding the tizzy he is getting into trying to find a decent coffee at a reasonable price: get a My Waitrose card and you can have a hot drink free each day. You do have to buy something; I usually buy a banana, for about 11p, and that’s one of my five a day!
I got one of Hunter’s books off the charity table at the hospital I volunteer at (you get a free lunch) — for 50p. What a bargain.
OF, Sherwood, Nottingham
Write to: Money, The Sunday Times, 1 London Bridge Street, London SE1 9GF
Email: money@sundaytimes.co.uk
Twitter: @ST_Money
We love to receive your feedback on stories and your views on any issues you would like us to investigate. Always include your name and address when contacting us. Letters may be edited.
Advertisement
Sign up here to get our weekly newsletter in your inbox every Monday.