People Over 60 Could Be Charged For Prescriptions Under New Government Plans

[ECCOnoob]

1 hour ago, AKAMD said:

I agree but why must we work longer to do so? 

Lots of people are not working longer. That is the point. The days of dropping out of school at 13 and jumping into the world of work until retirement at 65 are long gone. 

 

For the next cycle of pensioners, work may not have started until at least 18 with even more not starting until their mid-20s. Generation University need to be paying in before they can draw out. So who's to say they are working longer. Compared to many people born in the 50s and 60s most of them will be working considerably shorter in both terms of hours and years of service.

 

Is it really that unreasonable to be looking at increasing the retirement age by merely 2-3 years when the beneficiaries of such pensions and benefits such as the OP raises could have saved up  to 5-10 years less contributions compared to their predecessors.

[tinfoilhat]

4 minutes ago, West 77 said:

ECCOOnoob already given an excellent answer.

Will only add it's not really fair for future generations if the government of the day don't act now to avoid burdening them with the shortfall problem.

 

Wow what an unbelievable question to ask.

 

I've come up with a solution for the increasing dementia problem and that is to shoot everybody on their 59th birthday.  Only problem is I doubt any political party would win a general election with that policy in their manifesto.

I didn't bring up leg amputation ecconoob did. For reasons best known to himself he thought we should factor that in in the same way we'd factor in 1-3 over 83 year olds will have dementia. I don't know why he brought that up.

 

Might be more than that in 20 years given lifestyles of the 40-50 bracket.

[the_bloke]

2 hours ago, AKAMD said:

I agree but why must we work longer to do so? 

Isn't that a no brainer? If more people live longer than ever before, that costs the country money. The state pension might feel like a small amount to an individual, but multiply it by the millions and it's suddenly a vast amount of money that needs to be paid for each year by taxes from people who work. If you increase the numbers of people who can claim the state pension by lowering the age to qualify, then taxes have to go up to pay for it. In addition, as the taxman no longer receives income tax from people who would have worked until 65+, you need to take more tax from those working to make up for the shortfall.

 

If you want a real life example of how a country is struggling to financially support it's retired population, look at Japan.

[tinfoilhat]

17 hours ago, West 77 said:

I understood the point ECCOOnoob made and to be fair to you I don't think you're really dim enough not to understand the point he made either.

Edited on request but the leg blown off was still a stupid analogy.

Edited July 7, 2021 by tinfoilhat

[apelike]

12 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

The fact he doesn't mind if people on low wages to work until they die.

I think you seem to have just invented some facts. I have just re-read the ECCOnoobs posts and nowhere does he mention low wages, and in anycase what has that got to do with the retirement age and prescription charges?

[ECCOnoob]

2 hours ago, tinfoilhat said:

I didn't bring up leg amputation ecconoob did. For reasons best known to himself he thought we should factor that in in the same way we'd factor in 1-3 over 83 year olds will have dementia. I don't know why he brought that up.

 

Might be more than that in 20 years given lifestyles of the 40-50 bracket

I brought it up, as you well know, as an extreme example of the sort of illness or injuries that could impact someone before or shortly after taking retirement.

 

The obvious point being,  we do not adjust the retirement age downwards just in case some people may end up getting an illness or injury during their retirement worsening their quality of life.

 

There has to be a balance based on how the majority of people will be. It is a clear trend that the majority of the next-generation of pensioners start work later, have far better work conditions and general health to their predecessors and are living longer.

 

Therefore it is obvious the pension entitlement age and any associated other benefit also has to be just as fluid to reflect such changes in circumstances.

 

20 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

The fact he doesn't mind if people on low wages to work until they die.

Please highlight exactly where I said that?

 

If not I suggest you retract it before it goes the way of your other more fruity post on this thread.

Edited July 6, 2021 by ECCOnoob

[tinfoilhat]

27 minutes ago, ECCOnoob said:

I brought it up, as you well know, as an extreme example of the sort of illness or injuries that could impact someone before or shortly after taking retirement.

 

The obvious point being,  we do not adjust the retirement age downwards just in case some people may end up getting an illness or injury during their retirement worsening their quality of life.

 

There has to be a balance based on how the majority of people will be. It is a clear trend that the majority of the next-generation of pensioners start work later, have far better work conditions and general health to their predecessors and are living longer.

 

Therefore it is obvious the pension entitlement age and any associated other benefit also has to be just as fluid to reflect such changes in circumstances.

 

Please highlight exactly where I said that?

 

If not I suggest you retract it before it goes the way of your other more fruity post on this thread.

But we aren't talking a small number of people who have dementia. And why isnt "some" enough, when it's a significant number? Do the we keep pushing the retirement age up until over half literally can't work because of dementia or any other age related illness? If not, why stop at 67, let's say 77 - we could do that today. We've members of the house of lords older than that, they pass legislation.  If we are going on average - let's say 81. Let's do it today, we'll save a fortune.

 

[El Cid]

15 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

But we aren't talking a small number of people who have dementia. And why isnt "some" enough, when it's a significant number? Do the we keep pushing the retirement age up until over half literally can't work because of dementia or any other age related illness? If not, why stop at 67, let's say 77 - we could do that today. We've members of the house of lords older than that, they pass legislation.  If we are going on average - let's say 81. Let's do it today, we'll save a fortune.

 

When the state pension was first introduced in 1909 the average age of death was 54, you had to live to 70 to get it though. Things have improved to the point where its no longer the Governments role to support the entire population for 25 years after their retirement.

[apelike]

22 minutes ago, tinfoilhat said:

But we aren't talking a small number of people who have dementia. And why isnt "some" enough, when it's a significant number? Do the we keep pushing the retirement age up until over half literally can't work because of dementia or any other age related illness?

Me bolded... But we are talking about a small number though. It's not a significant number in those under 65, but does increase with age with the percentage in 75-85 bracket being higher, already well into retirement. Age related illness is also in the higher age range as well simply because of better health care and living standards. The bit in bold is also a red herring as well as anyone with an long term illness that cannot work will be able to get benefits.

 

Quote

If not, why stop at 67, let's say 77 - we could do that today. We've members of the house of lords older than that, they pass legislation.  If we are going on average - let's say 81. Let's do it today, we'll save a fortune.

Me bolded... No they don't pass legislation and are there just to scrutinise it. MPs pass legislation and their average age is 50.

Edited July 6, 2021 by apelike

[tinfoilhat]

5 minutes ago, apelike said:

Me bolded... But we are talking about a small number though. It's not a significant number in those under 65, but does increase with age with the percentage in 75-85 bracket being higher, already well into retirement. Age related illness is also in the higher age range as well simply because of better health care and living standards. The bit in bold is also a red herring as well as anyone with an long term illness that cannot work will be able to get benefits.

 

Me bolded... No they don't pass legislation and are there just to scrutinise it. MPs pass legislation and their average age is 50.

My retirement age as it stands is 67 - I fully expect that to move to 70. You bolded age related illness - I never said long term, you did. 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2021 by tinfoilhat