Recently, my friendly banker suggested that my financial options are dependent on my "time horizon" which, she informed me, is not very long. This really got my attention as I have yet to turn 60!

Does my banker know something about my health and genetic heritage that I don't know? Or is it more likely that bankers are slow to understand that Baby Boomers are demanding a new form of retirement while also fighting age discrimination?

For the record, I have absolutely no intention of retiring any time soon. In fact, I am just getting into my stride warming up, as it were, for the exciting years ahead. As for my genetic heritage, my dear Mum died last year just before her 92nd birthday, and she lived five years longer than her mother. This means I might just have another 30 to 40 years ahead of me. And that, by my definition, is not a short "time horizon".

In all fairness, I understand my banker's position. Using the old paradigm of retirement, she may think I am going to shut down all systems and give up work the minute I turn 65. Perhaps she thinks I am going to live out the next 30 or 40 years on my meagre savings, leaving just enough to pay funeral expenses.

For older Bermudians especially, being able to cover the funeral costs and leave a homestead for the next generation was the ultimate goal. The bad news is that many are now house-rich and cash- poor, with little or no quality of life unless family members help support them. The good news is that, in this new millennium, Baby Boomers have no intention of following their parents' model of retirement.

By their numbers, Baby Boomers created a wave of change that influences the way we live, work, have and raise families, and now think about retirement. They are just beginning to retire and are opening new businesses, starting new careers, travelling the world and giving back to those less fortunate. For many of them, retirement is not about maintaining the status quo. It is about fulfilment of dreams and living a meaningful life.

Many Boomers will work long after the illusionary (or should I say delusional) retirement age of 65. But, and this is a very big but they want to work. They have health, knowledge, skills, energy, work ethic and determination to see the job done. Even more important, they have been through all the stages of false starts in jobs that they didn't like or that didn't suit their skill sets. They have already self-selected into careers that they are passionate about and where they can make a difference.

Apart from health, age discrimination is a major barrier to Baby Boomers' dreams and future wellbeing. Forced retirement and withdrawal of health insurance benefits are the most common forms of discrimination, but discrimination is a two-way process of for and against. It comes in many forms, and includes those discounts offered in the way of land tax and car licence fee waivers, "seniors' days" at retail outlets, and much more.

Examples of discrimination against seniors take place in the finance sector where age limits the ability to obtain a loan or a mortgage, and includes the mandatory testing that is required to renew a driver's license at age 65 whether or not the person has a perfect driving record and is in good health.

On the other hand, an example of discrimination for seniors came in the mail recently from an organisation offering 'free legal advice' to anyone over the age of 50. This implies that all those over the age of 50 are somehow less able to manage their own affairs than those aged less than 50 and this simply is not the case. Free legal advice is needed by those who cannot afford to pay for it, not by persons who happen to be aged 50 or older.

Unfortunately, the more we discriminate for those aged 50 and above, the more this age group will be discriminated against. If we are willing to accept age-based financial 'breaks' even if we don't need them, then we have to accept age discrimination in employment, housing, health care, banking and much more. We can't have it both ways.

I will be grateful if my "time horizon" lasts another 30 to 40 years as long as I am living a meaningful life that excludes discrimination based on my age. Age discrimination ultimately limits opportunities and diminishes older people when, in fact, we have so much to offer.

Marian Sherratt is president of SORCOS, a social research and consulting firm. She writes on issues concerning our ageing population each month in The Royal Gazette. Send e-mail responses to m.sherratt@sorcos.com">m.sherratt@sorcos.com