What on earth are you going on about. Of course as people live longer the social care bill is going to go up. Whats that got to do with whether the average 66-69 year is fitter than 50 years ago and capable of working.
No one is suggesting that the average 90 year old is capable of working.
Modern wonder drugs, and technology and equipment helps people stay alive and cope with life easier, does not mean they are fitter
Modern wonder drugs, and technology and equipment helps people stay alive and cope with life easier, does not mean they are fitter
Of course it does there are plenty of operations available today that would not have been available 50 years ago which mean someone who would have had to have given up their job no longer has to.
I'm still waiting for your evidence to support that the average 66-69 year old is not fitter than they were 50 years ago.
There does seem to be several issues or problems here that some people don't want to or are unable to face up to.
Any State Pension scheme in any major economy is a safety net, for those on working life low incomes that really don't have an option to boost by their own arrangements.
When it pays out is largely driven by mortality rates, ignore those and it will always run out of money. As people survive longer the pension has to be pushed back.
The only way to mitigate my second point, is to increase the pension pot, that might mean more from the employee during a working life, more from an employer, and means test the payment so it is only for those in need. This last point is going to niggle many as it will mean many perhaps the vast majority will pay for something they never get the benefit for.
As for the bit about older workers quitting to give jobs to the young that's not really a debate about pension provision,but another debate.
So long as someone is in a job, paying into the tax coffers, the age of who is doing doesn't matter.
Of course it does there are plenty of operations available today that would not have been available 50 years ago which mean someone who would have had to have given up their job no longer has to.
I'm still waiting for your evidence to support that the average 66-69 year old is not fitter than they were 50 years ago.
Were is your evidence to support that people are fitter than they were 50 years ago. A person using a mobility scooter to get about on because they have a mobility problem does not mean their legs don't work. it could be they get short of breath when trying to walk. 50 years ago they had no independence because they would have been pushed around in a wheelchair, but because that person today can get out does not prove they are fitter
Were is your evidence to support that people are fitter than they were 50 years ago. A person using a mobility scooter to get about on because they have a mobility problem does not mean their legs don't work. it could be they get short of breath when trying to walk. 50 years ago they had no independence because they would have been pushed around in a wheelchair, but because that person today can get out does not prove they are fitter
I'm not sure if you are simply on a wind up in this thread. look a footballer who suffered a cruciate ligament injury 20-30 years ago would never of played football again. now that person is out for about 9 months.
There are plenty of other conditions and ilnesses which 30-50 years would have meant someone giving up work which no longer applies.
It seems to me that you want to believe that everyone should want to or need to rely on the state to survive which is nonsense.
The simple reality is there is no evidence to support that the average 66-69 will not be able to work going forward over the next 20-30 years.
Also the retirement age was always going to go up to 68 which was introduced in 2007 so whats the big issue about moving it forward a few years and increasing it by a year.
Were is your evidence to support that people are fitter than they were 50 years ago. A person using a mobility scooter to get about on because they have a mobility problem does not mean their legs don't work. it could be they get short of breath when trying to walk. 50 years ago they had no independence because they would have been pushed around in a wheelchair, but because that person today can get out does not prove they are fitter
Not getting involved in the debate between u and Tim :cool: but just read and a bit suprised that you used the link when it also says this about age and health -
The statistics will no doubt be leapt on by ministers and Treasury officials, keen to justify moves to raise the pension age. However, the statistics also hide an uncomfortable truth: that the age dividend is mainly being reaped by the more wealthy in society. A recent ONS analysis found the difference in healthy life expectancy for 65-year-olds between the richest and poorest areas was almost five years.
In addition, north of the border the situation is not so rosy.
Between the periods 2005-07 and 2008-10 healthy life expectancy for 65-year-olds in Scotland actual fell.
For women, it fell from 11.3 to 10.8 years. For Scottish men it fell sharper still.
Whereas they used to be on a par with their English compatriots - having another 9.9 years of health life to look forward to - since then it has slipped to 8.6 years.
Northern Ireland and Wales continue to lag England in terms of healthy life expectancy for pensioners, although unlike Scotland both have avoided regression.
The picture in Northern Ireland is static. For 65-year-old women in the region it rose slightly, from 10.7 to 10.8 years, while for men it dropped from 9.6 to 9.5 years.
For Welsh women there has similarly been very little change, rising from 9.9 to 10.0 years, but among Welsh men it has risen from 9.8 to 10.3 years.
Ed Jessop, Vice President of the Faculty of Public Health, said of the new UK statistics: "These figures are encouraging. They show that action on public health works. There is particular success for people living in England. "But the gap between the health "haves" and "have nots" has widened.
"There are many complex reasons for this, because our health is affected by a range of factors - not just what we eat or drink, and how active we are, but also our work, housing and access to all sorts of facilities.
"We need action now to address the root causes of these health inequalities."
Not getting involved in the debate between u and Tim :cool: but just read and a bit suprised that you used the link when it also says this about age and health -
The statistics will no doubt be leapt on by ministers and Treasury officials, keen to justify moves to raise the pension age. However, the statistics also hide an uncomfortable truth: that the age dividend is mainly being reaped by the more wealthy in society. A recent ONS analysis found the difference in healthy life expectancy for 65-year-olds between the richest and poorest areas was almost five years.
In addition, north of the border the situation is not so rosy.
Between the periods 2005-07 and 2008-10 healthy life expectancy for 65-year-olds in Scotland actual fell.
For women, it fell from 11.3 to 10.8 years. For Scottish men it fell sharper still.
Whereas they used to be on a par with their English compatriots - having another 9.9 years of health life to look forward to - since then it has slipped to 8.6 years.
Northern Ireland and Wales continue to lag England in terms of healthy life expectancy for pensioners, although unlike Scotland both have avoided regression.
The picture in Northern Ireland is static. For 65-year-old women in the region it rose slightly, from 10.7 to 10.8 years, while for men it dropped from 9.6 to 9.5 years.
For Welsh women there has similarly been very little change, rising from 9.9 to 10.0 years, but among Welsh men it has risen from 9.8 to 10.3 years.
Ed Jessop, Vice President of the Faculty of Public Health, said of the new UK statistics: "These figures are encouraging. They show that action on public health works. There is particular success for people living in England. "But the gap between the health "haves" and "have nots" has widened.
"There are many complex reasons for this, because our health is affected by a range of factors - not just what we eat or drink, and how active we are, but also our work, housing and access to all sorts of facilities.
"We need action now to address the root causes of these health inequalities."
I agree there are huge health inequalities between the rich/middle class and the poor, but what are the reasons for that? Statistically the poor are more likely to smoke, drink to excess, have an unhealthy diet and take less regular exercise. These are some of the main root causes that explain the difference in life expectancy (others included, such as housing, heating, stress, crime, misuse of drugs etc), but what can society do to address them?
There does seem to be several issues or problems here that some people don't want to or are unable to face up to.
Any State Pension scheme in any major economy is a safety net, for those on working life low incomes that really don't have an option to boost by their own arrangements.
When it pays out is largely driven by mortality rates, ignore those and it will always run out of money. As people survive longer the pension has to be pushed back.
The only way to mitigate my second point, is to increase the pension pot, that might mean more from the employee during a working life, more from an employer, and means test the payment so it is only for those in need. This last point is going to niggle many as it will mean many perhaps the vast majority will pay for something they never get the benefit for.
As for the bit about older workers quitting to give jobs to the young that's not really a debate about pension provision,but another debate.
So long as someone is in a job, paying into the tax coffers, the age of who is doing doesn't matter.
Most people are not going to have significant amounts of money from anywhere else as final salary pensions die, and for most people a small pension fund is a risk not merited by any reward for saving in it. The failure of stockmarkets to grow for 15 years and the recurring slumps in that period indicate that investment can, and will be, no solution for most people.
The big issue is that you can't sustain a growing aging population - without having an economy that grows fast enough to cover the additional cost, Pension payments that produce realistic sums will similarly only be possible from a higher wage economy. Governments have no policies for higher growth and are actively encouraging falling real wage levels for all but a few.
The only other source of finance would be to use wealth by allowing inheritances to pass down the generations without being destroyed by care home fees and inheritance tax. Grandparents houses then would become the pension funds for grandchildren and would be past on to successive generations. This wouldn't solve the problem for people in cheap areas or families with no home owners but most families do now own houses, and the average 2 up 2 down in outer London would easily fund a couple of grandchildren's pensions.
The problem with what you are all saying is that in fact all the actuarial calculations assume that the increased life expectancy which has taken place since the war, because of less smoking, better standard of housing, better drugs and antibiotics, and the NHS, (remember the NHS did not exist when many OAPs were children), will continue.
But it might well not continue. The NHS is slowly being privatised/dismantled, and housing standards for poorer people are worsening.
The statisticians have produced population projections to aid the government in its reduction in education and health provision.
We are being sold a pup. Why is it that with hugely larger economy, we can't, supposedly, continue with what is already the lowest cost health service in the industrialised world, when 30 years ago, we could afford it?
The current government are ideologically opposed to public health and education services. Nothing wrong with that as long as they are honest about it, but saying we can not afford it is just a lie.
We are being sold a pup. Why is it that with hugely larger economy, we can't, supposedly, continue with what is already the lowest cost health service in the industrialised world, when 30 years ago, we could afford it?
well you could, but why would you want to?
Many things have moved on since 1948 - why would you want to fossilise the National Health Service to circumstances that have changed in the past decades?
I am 55 worked since 16 been in current job (manual worker)with local council 24 yrs have been in hospital twice in last 2 yrs had 2 big operations on abdomen and require more surgery next year . AS a result I cant do my job and works have no re-deployment for me so It looks like I am going out via ill health retirement .
And to be honest I am not bothered my health is my prority and if I am entitled to sickness benefit I wont batter an eye claiming it I have paid into the system since I started work at 16 and only been unemployed 6 months in all that time . More people who do manual work will not be able to work into old age and its time the Government woke up and smelt the coffee!
I am 55 worked since 16 been in current job (manual worker)with local council 24 yrs have been in hospital twice in last 2 yrs had 2 big operations on abdomen and require more surgery next year . AS a result I cant do my job and works have no re-deployment for me so It looks like I am going out via ill health retirement .
And to be honest I am not bothered my health is my prority and if I am entitled to sickness benefit I wont batter an eye claiming it I have paid into the system since I started work at 16 and only been unemployed 6 months in all that time . More people who do manual work will not be able to work into old age and its time the Government woke up and smelt the coffee!
does any one in government know what manual work is as there job involves sitting on there a** in parliament or there office or walking around somewhere,
I am 55 worked since 16 been in current job (manual worker)with local council 24 yrs have been in hospital twice in last 2 yrs had 2 big operations on abdomen and require more surgery next year . AS a result I cant do my job and works have no re-deployment for me so It looks like I am going out via ill health retirement .
And to be honest I am not bothered my health is my prority and if I am entitled to sickness benefit I wont batter an eye claiming it I have paid into the system since I started work at 16 and only been unemployed 6 months in all that time . More people who do manual work will not be able to work into old age and its time the Government woke up and smelt the coffee!
Couldn't people that for manual work get an office job later in life?
Why would a company take on a older worker in a office with no experience, and pay them money when they could take on someone younger on less wage
MacDonald's have said that their outlets with people in their 60's have a 20% better output. also the 1 year pension these people would miss out on would hardly be huge so people would not need to be paid much to cover it and would probably only need to work part time
MacDonald's have said that their outlets with people in their 60's have a 20% better output. also the 1 year pension these people would miss out on would hardly be huge so people would not need to be paid much to cover it and would probably only need to work part time
Are you suggesting the someone who has done manual work and can no longer do it, works in MacDonalds for the extra year before their pension? Please say you are suggesting it for another situation, otherwise I will lose the will to live, and with my problems, I need the will to live.
MacDonald's have said that their outlets with people in their 60's have a 20% better output. also the 1 year pension these people would miss out on would hardly be huge so people would not need to be paid much to cover it and would probably only need to work part time
Well that's good then saying we are becoming a part time working country. Saying we already have 1 million people over 65 still working and 1 million young unemployed both numbers should keep increasing. Unless this country can create loads of paid jobs the balance will never be there.
Are you suggesting the someone who has done manual work and can no longer do it, works in MacDonalds for the extra year before their pension? Please say you are suggesting it for another situation, otherwise I will lose the will to live, and with my problems, I need the will to live.
I'm pointing out that older people are capable of doing as good or a better job than young people in certain situations. Also if someone cannot do manual work due to heavy lifting etc then can't see what would wrong with a job in McDonalds part time It will all come Down to why manual work is not possible
Increasing pension age in line with life expectancy is hardly wild cutting. If people think these cuts are so unfair what cuts would people accept as it seems every cut is unfair.
The cuts that come across as unfair to me is to the disabled and others unable to work.
My dad has worked in electronics and computers for 40 years but now his eyesight is just starting to weaken in his early 60's, which isn't good news for someone who's needed good eyesight to do the job he's done all his life, looking at tiny computer board components. He's an inteligent man who got a First Class Honors Degree in the early 1970's and for him, the idea of being a cleaner or a shelf stacker in a local supermarket instead of retiring would be very soul destroying. Luckily, he doesn't have to work as long as the next generation will have to but it's an example of how your health starts to fail in your 60's and unless medical science is really pushed forward in the next decade, people in 'skilled jobs' may struggle emotionally with suddenly doing low skilled jobs if their health does fail in their 60's.
Tax evasion apparently costs the government billions - such as plumbers and decoraters not declaring tax - so where's the 'getting tough' stance in this area?
I'm pointing out that older people are capable of doing as good or a better job than young people in certain situations. Also if someone cannot do manual work due to heavy lifting etc then can't see what would wrong with a job in McDonalds part time It will all come Down to why manual work is not possible
McDonalds is very much high-pressure work when it's busy, not like working at B&Q, which is probably more relaxed and better for older people nearing retirement age.
My dad has worked in electronics and computers for 40 years but now his eyesight is just starting to weaken in his early 60's, which isn't good news for someone who's needed good eyesight to do the job he's done all his life, looking at tiny computer board components. He's an inteligent man who got a First Class Honors Degree in the early 1970's and for him, the idea of being a cleaner or a shelf stacker in a local supermarket instead of retiring would be very soul destroying. Luckily, he doesn't have to work as long as the next generation will have to but it's an example of how your health starts to fail in your 60's and unless medical science is really pushed forward in the next decade, people in 'skilled jobs' may struggle emotionally with suddenly doing low skilled jobs if their health does fail in their 60's.
Tax evasion apparently costs the government billions - such as plumbers and decoraters not declaring tax - so where's the 'getting tough' stance in this area?
My generation is expected to live longer. than your dads and these proposals are nothing new and are tge consequences of that. When I started work 20 years ago the talk was the average person of my generation would probably not get a pension so not sure what the shock here is. The system should always protect those who can't help themselves but going forwards those who can will have to do more.
If people are too proud to jobs like MacDonald's or other retail then suggest they make sure they save enough themselves as my parents did
As for plumbers and decorators maybe people should stop accepting the one price for cash wink wink that these people forward for payment
I'm pointing out that older people are capable of doing as good or a better job than young people in certain situations. Also if someone cannot do manual work due to heavy lifting etc then can't see what would wrong with a job in McDonalds part time It will all come Down to why manual work is not possible
You have not got a clue have you ? Why after working since 16 and paid into the system all this time having had 2 big ops and another shortly why would i want to work in mcdonalds. they are kids who have never had a job and are healthy let them work in mcdonalds!
Comments
Modern wonder drugs, and technology and equipment helps people stay alive and cope with life easier, does not mean they are fitter
Of course it does there are plenty of operations available today that would not have been available 50 years ago which mean someone who would have had to have given up their job no longer has to.
I'm still waiting for your evidence to support that the average 66-69 year old is not fitter than they were 50 years ago.
Any State Pension scheme in any major economy is a safety net, for those on working life low incomes that really don't have an option to boost by their own arrangements.
When it pays out is largely driven by mortality rates, ignore those and it will always run out of money. As people survive longer the pension has to be pushed back.
The only way to mitigate my second point, is to increase the pension pot, that might mean more from the employee during a working life, more from an employer, and means test the payment so it is only for those in need. This last point is going to niggle many as it will mean many perhaps the vast majority will pay for something they never get the benefit for.
As for the bit about older workers quitting to give jobs to the young that's not really a debate about pension provision,but another debate.
So long as someone is in a job, paying into the tax coffers, the age of who is doing doesn't matter.
Were is your evidence to support that people are fitter than they were 50 years ago. A person using a mobility scooter to get about on because they have a mobility problem does not mean their legs don't work. it could be they get short of breath when trying to walk. 50 years ago they had no independence because they would have been pushed around in a wheelchair, but because that person today can get out does not prove they are fitter
I'm not sure if you are simply on a wind up in this thread. look a footballer who suffered a cruciate ligament injury 20-30 years ago would never of played football again. now that person is out for about 9 months.
There are plenty of other conditions and ilnesses which 30-50 years would have meant someone giving up work which no longer applies.
It seems to me that you want to believe that everyone should want to or need to rely on the state to survive which is nonsense.
The simple reality is there is no evidence to support that the average 66-69 will not be able to work going forward over the next 20-30 years.
Also the retirement age was always going to go up to 68 which was introduced in 2007 so whats the big issue about moving it forward a few years and increasing it by a year.
Pensioners enjoying more healthy years in retirement than ever before - Telegraph - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9506531/Pensioners-enjoying-more-healthy-years-in-retirement-than-ever-before.html
Not getting involved in the debate between u and Tim :cool: but just read and a bit suprised that you used the link when it also says this about age and health -
The statistics will no doubt be leapt on by ministers and Treasury officials, keen to justify moves to raise the pension age.
However, the statistics also hide an uncomfortable truth: that the age dividend is mainly being reaped by the more wealthy in society.
A recent ONS analysis found the difference in healthy life expectancy for 65-year-olds between the richest and poorest areas was almost five years.
In addition, north of the border the situation is not so rosy.
Between the periods 2005-07 and 2008-10 healthy life expectancy for 65-year-olds in Scotland actual fell.
For women, it fell from 11.3 to 10.8 years. For Scottish men it fell sharper still.
Whereas they used to be on a par with their English compatriots - having another 9.9 years of health life to look forward to - since then it has slipped to 8.6 years.
Northern Ireland and Wales continue to lag England in terms of healthy life expectancy for pensioners, although unlike Scotland both have avoided regression.
The picture in Northern Ireland is static. For 65-year-old women in the region it rose slightly, from 10.7 to 10.8 years, while for men it dropped from 9.6 to 9.5 years.
For Welsh women there has similarly been very little change, rising from 9.9 to 10.0 years, but among Welsh men it has risen from 9.8 to 10.3 years.
Ed Jessop, Vice President of the Faculty of Public Health, said of the new UK statistics: "These figures are encouraging. They show that action on public health works. There is particular success for people living in England.
"But the gap between the health "haves" and "have nots" has widened.
"There are many complex reasons for this, because our health is affected by a range of factors - not just what we eat or drink, and how active we are, but also our work, housing and access to all sorts of facilities.
"We need action now to address the root causes of these health inequalities."
I agree there are huge health inequalities between the rich/middle class and the poor, but what are the reasons for that? Statistically the poor are more likely to smoke, drink to excess, have an unhealthy diet and take less regular exercise. These are some of the main root causes that explain the difference in life expectancy (others included, such as housing, heating, stress, crime, misuse of drugs etc), but what can society do to address them?
Most people are not going to have significant amounts of money from anywhere else as final salary pensions die, and for most people a small pension fund is a risk not merited by any reward for saving in it. The failure of stockmarkets to grow for 15 years and the recurring slumps in that period indicate that investment can, and will be, no solution for most people.
The big issue is that you can't sustain a growing aging population - without having an economy that grows fast enough to cover the additional cost, Pension payments that produce realistic sums will similarly only be possible from a higher wage economy. Governments have no policies for higher growth and are actively encouraging falling real wage levels for all but a few.
The only other source of finance would be to use wealth by allowing inheritances to pass down the generations without being destroyed by care home fees and inheritance tax. Grandparents houses then would become the pension funds for grandchildren and would be past on to successive generations. This wouldn't solve the problem for people in cheap areas or families with no home owners but most families do now own houses, and the average 2 up 2 down in outer London would easily fund a couple of grandchildren's pensions.
But it might well not continue. The NHS is slowly being privatised/dismantled, and housing standards for poorer people are worsening.
The statisticians have produced population projections to aid the government in its reduction in education and health provision.
We are being sold a pup. Why is it that with hugely larger economy, we can't, supposedly, continue with what is already the lowest cost health service in the industrialised world, when 30 years ago, we could afford it?
The current government are ideologically opposed to public health and education services. Nothing wrong with that as long as they are honest about it, but saying we can not afford it is just a lie.
well you could, but why would you want to?
Many things have moved on since 1948 - why would you want to fossilise the National Health Service to circumstances that have changed in the past decades?
And to be honest I am not bothered my health is my prority and if I am entitled to sickness benefit I wont batter an eye claiming it I have paid into the system since I started work at 16 and only been unemployed 6 months in all that time . More people who do manual work will not be able to work into old age and its time the Government woke up and smelt the coffee!
does any one in government know what manual work is as there job involves sitting on there a** in parliament or there office or walking around somewhere,
Couldn't people that for manual work get an office job later in life?
Why would a company take on a older worker in a office with no experience, and pay them money when they could take on someone younger on less wage
MacDonald's have said that their outlets with people in their 60's have a 20% better output. also the 1 year pension these people would miss out on would hardly be huge so people would not need to be paid much to cover it and would probably only need to work part time
Are you suggesting the someone who has done manual work and can no longer do it, works in MacDonalds for the extra year before their pension? Please say you are suggesting it for another situation, otherwise I will lose the will to live, and with my problems, I need the will to live.
Well that's good then saying we are becoming a part time working country. Saying we already have 1 million people over 65 still working and 1 million young unemployed both numbers should keep increasing. Unless this country can create loads of paid jobs the balance will never be there.
I'm pointing out that older people are capable of doing as good or a better job than young people in certain situations. Also if someone cannot do manual work due to heavy lifting etc then can't see what would wrong with a job in McDonalds part time It will all come Down to why manual work is not possible
My dad has worked in electronics and computers for 40 years but now his eyesight is just starting to weaken in his early 60's, which isn't good news for someone who's needed good eyesight to do the job he's done all his life, looking at tiny computer board components. He's an inteligent man who got a First Class Honors Degree in the early 1970's and for him, the idea of being a cleaner or a shelf stacker in a local supermarket instead of retiring would be very soul destroying. Luckily, he doesn't have to work as long as the next generation will have to but it's an example of how your health starts to fail in your 60's and unless medical science is really pushed forward in the next decade, people in 'skilled jobs' may struggle emotionally with suddenly doing low skilled jobs if their health does fail in their 60's.
Tax evasion apparently costs the government billions - such as plumbers and decoraters not declaring tax - so where's the 'getting tough' stance in this area?
McDonalds is very much high-pressure work when it's busy, not like working at B&Q, which is probably more relaxed and better for older people nearing retirement age.
My generation is expected to live longer. than your dads and these proposals are nothing new and are tge consequences of that. When I started work 20 years ago the talk was the average person of my generation would probably not get a pension so not sure what the shock here is. The system should always protect those who can't help themselves but going forwards those who can will have to do more.
If people are too proud to jobs like MacDonald's or other retail then suggest they make sure they save enough themselves as my parents did
As for plumbers and decorators maybe people should stop accepting the one price for cash wink wink that these people forward for payment
I don't how old you are or what you do for a living but I have never heard so much rubbish in my life!
You have not got a clue have you ? Why after working since 16 and paid into the system all this time having had 2 big ops and another shortly why would i want to work in mcdonalds. they are kids who have never had a job and are healthy let them work in mcdonalds!