I agree that public sector pensions should be reviewed. At the same time that salaries are reviewed to ensure that public sector workers get the same as their private sector counterparts. One reason the public sector has always accepted lower pay is that there is a better pension scheme. In the 1980s the pay gap widened even further. Now the Government are after pensions. Name and address withheld

Cushy job, good pay, protected employment? Sorry, as a civil servant I don't recognise this description of my job. As a frontline Department for Works and Pensions employee, my job is often difficult and stressful. After 20 years' service I still earn below the national average wage (executive officer). The Government will be axing over 100,000 of us between now and 2008. For nearly 20 years we have had on or below inflation pay awards. One of the only carrots keeping many of us motivated has been the existence of the civil service pension scheme. Let's face it, the private sector couldn't function without us. Henry Giles, Cambridge

All of us in the private sector have seen our pensions eroded away because of stock market falls and a Chancellor who robbed us of a sizeable part of our pension when he penalised the insurance companies and their tax rebate. Hence, the current pension shortfall for many of us. So why should the public sector be cushioned from the real world and expect the taxpayer and private sector to subsidise their pensions? Mike Freeman, Raunds, Northamptonshire

It is only right that public sector workers should fight to maintain their pension age of 60. By raising it to 65, the Government is failing to uphold their end of the bargain. However, the workers might not be so willing to stand by their end of the bargain - by dropping down dead at 75. The fact that we are all living longer is something to celebrate. It is only natural that this will have an impact on pension funds and it is naive to think otherwise. And it must be borne in mind, too, that it is the good work of the NHS which has contributed to the increased life expectancy of UK residents. They only have themselves to blame! Jonathan Howard, Henley on Thames

Whilst many in the private sector look at public sector pensions with envy, they certainly wouldn't envy the lower wages most receive. It is in everyone's interest that our elderly citizens receive a decent pension scheme; comfortable pensioners are less likely to be a burden on the state. As I see it, there are three ways to do this: raise taxes, encourage/force people to pay more, redirect existing resources to pensions. Tinkering with public sector schemes may save the odd billion here or there and appeal to 80 per cent of the workforce who are unaffected, but the problem should be approached with the appropriate political will discussing and explaining to the public all three options. It is worth noting that MPs have just voted themselves a rather generous scheme! Leigh Day, Mitcham, Surrey

I too am involved in the pensions industry and as trustee of schemes where companies have failed, the pain and stress of losing all or most or your pension in your late 50s or early 60s is hard to imagine. Therefore, there is little sympathy for public sector workers who "may" have to work longer to get 100 per cent of their entitlement when many of us are having to work longer to recover the damage done to our pensions entitlement. Whilst the Department for Works and Pensions understand our problem, the Government does not seem willing to fund the financial assistance scheme to a level that provides real hope for the future. Terry Monk, Camberley

The ageing of the population was not suddenly discovered a few years ago. It is part of a trend which has been understood and predicted for very much longer. The only reason that public sector pensions are under scrutiny now is because private ones have suddenly weakened or failed. And they failed for business reasons, not the ageing of population. It is simply the politics of envy and opportunity. Most people working in the public sector opted for its generally lower pay and prospects in part because they saw steady job security and a pension. Many also had a vocation to serve the public. Those who made that decision many years ago – to avoid the very vicissitudes of unpredictable markets now visited upon others -should not be penalised. David Martin, Gillingham

I'm not quite sure where Peter Crook is coming from (see below). Public sector jobs are not cushy or protected, and the pay is nothing to write home about for many. The average public sector pension is currently in the region of £3,800 per annum. I agree that you get a distorted view of the pension system when senior civil servants or local authority chief executives are publicised, but you hear the same thing about the private sector if somebody has hundreds of thousands of pounds put in their pension fund. When I joined the public sector, one of the conditions was to do with the contributory pension scheme. I cannot change the conditions I don't like. Why should my employer change the things they don't like? Peter Leslie, Crieff, Scotland

If directors of companies were compelled by law to belong to the same pension scheme as their employees, and forbidden to make alternative pension arrangements paid for by their companies, the number of defined benefit schemes in the private sector would not have reduced so dramatically. Mike Smith, Southampton

Index-linking? Gosh, wouldn't that be nice. My private pension was screwed down when my (very well known multinational) employer made me redundant at the age of 55, sending me on my way with a 20 per cent reduction for retiring early and a hollow assurance that "at your age you will easily get another job". Ha bloody ha. Now my annual - discretionary - increases allow my standard of living to fall behind inflation by around two percent every year. Index linking? Yes please. Hugh Clark, East Grinstead

As a teacher I am dismayed at the comments that tar public sector workers as greedy and having an easy life. They do not consider those who receive very generous child tax credits and child benefit allowances - some having never contributed a penny? Nowhere do they consider that I am paying tax to subsidise their lifestyle choice and in some instances, irresponsibility. If the Chancellor had not caused a black hole in pension funds through taxation and concentrated in taxing the absurb profits of oil companies and banks he could fund his pet projects and allow private and public sector works to enjoy a reasonable pension. James Sinclair, Peterborough