Twiglet Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 So why does Merseyside have the lowest life expectancy? As I insinuated in my second post, a large number of people living in areas like Kensington don't work for a living or aren't otherwise affected by the national retirement age and these are the people who probably raise the average life expectancy. People who work in those areas can't afford to live in them. Raising the retirement age in those types of area would affect the wrong people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 Let's say you can retire in Southport at 68 but in Knightsbridge at 72. What's stopping someone in Knightsbridge renting a room in Southport for a month from their 68th birthday, getting their state pension but continuing to live in Knightsbridge? You'd need an army of bureaucrats to police this. You'd have to check up on everyone between the ages quite regularly. It would also prevent someone in a poor area retiring to a nice area if the age limit was higher where they wanted to go. And I'm sure life expectancy in Tower Hamlets is lower than in Mayfair even though they're only a few miles apart. Would you differentiate there? The whole thing's unworkable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeMaquis Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 As I insinuated in my second post, a large number of people living in areas like Kensington don't work for a living or aren't otherwise affected by the national retirement age and these are the people who probably raise the average life expectancy. People who work in those areas can't afford to live in them. Raising the retirement age in those types of area would affect the wrong people. There are council homes in every part of London, including the richest areas. London is split into boroughs of about 250,000 people each. The variety in income and wealth among those people will be massive. It will be widest in the richer areas where servants for example work for the ultra rich and may have live-in quarters. So a servant would have to retire later because they work for rich people. How is that fair? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stepman Posted October 27, 2011 Author Share Posted October 27, 2011 Let's say you can retire in Southport at 68 but in Knightsbridge at 72. What's stopping someone in Knightsbridge renting a room in Southport for a month from their 68th birthday, getting their state pension but continuing to live in Knightsbridge? You'd need an army of bureaucrats to police this. You'd have to check up on everyone between the ages quite regularly. It would also prevent someone in a poor area retiring to a nice area if the age limit was higher where they wanted to go. And I'm sure life expectancy in Tower Hamlets is lower than in Mayfair even though they're only a few miles apart. Would you differentiate there? The whole thing's unworkable. The present system is unfair also. A better system should be found. Life expectancy differentials by area is not a new concept but the tories know that they live in the better areas with higher life expectancy and so do not factor in the area.They should find a way of ensuring that people who live in areas with a high life expectancy work longer. They are killing people who live in low life expectancy areas . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stepman Posted October 27, 2011 Author Share Posted October 27, 2011 There are council homes in every part of London, including the richest areas. London is split into boroughs of about 250,000 people each. The variety in income and wealth among those people will be massive. It will be widest in the richer areas where servants for example work for the ultra rich and may have live-in quarters. So a servant would have to retire later because they work for rich people. How is that fair? Are you suggesting that the solution would be a cull of the elderly idle rich? Hmmmm........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 The present system is unfair also. A better system should be found. Life expectancy differentials by area is not a new concept but the tories know that they live in the better areas with higher life expectancy and so do not factor in the area.They should find a way of ensuring that people who live in areas with a high life expectancy work longer. They are killing people who live in low life expectancy areas . Yet people still persist in voting Labour! Vote Conservative! - Improve the area in which you live and increase your life expectancy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stepman Posted October 27, 2011 Author Share Posted October 27, 2011 Yet people still persist in voting Labour! Vote Conservative! - Improve the area in which you live and increase your life expectancy! Very droll I am sure anar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 What's it got to do with the Tories? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shane39 Posted October 27, 2011 Share Posted October 27, 2011 So why does Merseyside have the lowest life expectancy? They all got killed on Brookside! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stepman Posted October 27, 2011 Author Share Posted October 27, 2011 They all got killed on Brookside! Or got killed in police chases in stolen cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.