The aging population

BleepinHell

lemonjelly wrote: »

I know this is an issue which a few mse-ers feel is an important economic issue.

The fact remains that as we age, the costs of supporting the elderly continue increasing, and that cost burden is placed upon those of working age (in the main). We all know that people are living longer. I assume we all accept too that more people are living longer, stretching that burden wider.

In addition to this, the significant volume of expenditure per person increases exponentially during the last 12 months of their lives. This has a huge knock-on impact on NHS budgets, including palliative care, home services etc.

Today we have news reports that councils will likely have to increases charges for home care services. I was interested in how many people this would affect.

Combine this with the fact that we have a great deal of vitriol generally aimed at young people nowadays, with 1 in 5 under 25's being out of work, and them generally being seen as workshy chavvy so & so's, I was amazed to learn that, for example, in Birmingham, more than two thirds of the over 50's in the area are economically inactive.:eek: (Defined in the study as: Economically active means anyone who does anything which puts money into the economy and this mainly refers to working, but it could be selling shares, or spending savings).

I read more details on this over the weekend, & this report is more detailed than the breif highlights I'm linking to below. It anticipates that areas in Staffordshire will have over 50% of their population aged over 50 by 2029, and areas of Warwickshire there are less over 50's who are economically inactive than Birmingham (less than 30%:eek:).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-11695154
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-stoke-staffordshire-11688268
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-11687146

Not looking good for our futures is it?

What does this say about how we're going to take our economy forward?

Value all thoughts...

No jobs for the young, The Lib-cons answer Lets keep the aged in work until they croak. When they could be making way for new blood
Why are the bosses not letting the government know that
they want a young vibrant enthusiastic workforce, not a tired decrepit load of coffin dodgers that are hanging on in there.
Whats going on?
Surely it cannot be to save paying the paltry state pension,
Or is it?

Loughton_Monkey

Radiantsoul wrote: »

The cost of waiting may be large, but I think you are incorrect that it is costless not to have a waiting list. The waiting list will exist because their are insufficient "doctor hours" available. Charging for doctors would reduce demand. Having more doctors would increase supply. But both have significant costs - consultants sat around doing nothing or people unable to afford medical treatment.
Queuing imposes a cost, but it is borne largely by those who have to wait and to an extend a person place in the queue depends on clinical need.

In such a large scale operation (excuse the pun) as the health service, there is very little chance of consultants etc. sitting around doing nothing. It is a matter of efficient deployment.

Yes, it might involve a few more doctors, but the cost would still be more than covered by the savings. This is a key reason why virtually all other countries have a better health service than us (source: WHO).

Take another - different example. Security at airports. This, again is where brainless "British Organisational Ineptness" applies. They can press buttons and know within 1%/2% how many people are flying on what day and at what hour. It takes, say, 2 minutes to process each person through the X-Ray etc.

Now it takes 2 minutes. It takes 2 minutes, whether you arrived at the machine after 1 minute in a queue, or two hours in a queue. Absolute fact! Simply by having 2 fewer machines operating, the queue builds up to 1 hour, two hours, 2½ hours.... Until such time as they eventually get more staff and then the queue maintains itself at about 2 hours all day long.

So now imagine (like the health serivce), it starts to need people going up and down the lines dealing with people who's flights are leaving any minute. Imagine (like the health service) it got so bad (simply for want of a couple more machines and operators) that queues were typically 4 or 5 hours, the number of staff, and systems required to identify all the 'urgent' cases needed would be horrific. Then all the airlines have to have similar systems to find everyone, delay planes where necessary.....

[I have seen this absolute chaos at times, and it really isn't funny].

suburbanwifey

I am not old, but all these comments about the elderly draining the system is annoying me to say the least! A lot of these 'old' people fought in a war so you would be free, all these old people paid their taxes and national insurance contributions all their lives...yet you resent the old and what they cost? How awful!

People are living longer, GOOD, and so they should and they have a right to. Most of us don't want to die and I bet if you asked any old person you meet if they wanted to, most of them would say NO.

What has crippled this country is Labour creating a welfare state that made it financially better for 'certain members' of society to pump out kid after kid and then another kid, without marriage (they get more money if they live apart!) and basically making life on the welfare system pay more than life at work!

The old people of this country deserve higher pensions than the pittance they get and they deserve more than the millions of single mothers out there who do nothing to contribute to this society apart from bleed it dry.

The elderly of our society should be proud to live longer, and long may they, shame on any young person who thinks otherwise, YOU will be old one day! as will us all.

:mad:

Loughton_Monkey

suburbanwifey wrote: »

I am not old, but all these comments about the elderly draining the system is annoying me to say the least!

Whoa.

As an 'older' person myself, I don't see an awful lot of 'blame' on the elderly themselves. More, I think, a reasonably factual observation that health costs clearly go up with age, and that there are fewer tax payers to support it. This is different from accusing old people themselves for 'draining the system'.

As you so rightly point out, the vast majority of us will be 'old' one day, and I know of no-one who doesn't believe good care should be available.

The miserable size of basic State Pensions tends not to be the biggest cost in society, but it is a reasonably large and increasing in cost all the same.

But it has to be said that being 'old' is usually no excuse for poverty.

The 'sins' of not saving for retirement are committed (or should I say 'serially' commited) for 20 or 30 years of life when young. It is, to me, a serious matter of debate the extent to which sympathy is owed to a person (however old) who simply spent every penny and now has nothing other than what is paid by the taxpayer.

suburbanwifey

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

Whoa.

As an 'older' person myself, I don't see an awful lot of 'blame' on the elderly themselves. More, I think, a reasonably factual observation that health costs clearly go up with age, and that there are fewer tax payers to support it. This is different from accusing old people themselves for 'draining the system'.

As you so rightly point out, the vast majority of us will be 'old' one day, and I know of no-one who doesn't believe good care should be available.

The miserable size of basic State Pensions tends not to be the biggest cost in society, but it is a reasonably large and increasing in cost all the same.

But it has to be said that being 'old' is usually no excuse for poverty.

The 'sins' of not saving for retirement are committed (or should I say 'serially' commited) for 20 or 30 years of life when young. It is, to me, a serious matter of debate the extent to which sympathy is owed to a person (however old) who simply spent every penny and now has nothing other than what is paid by the taxpayer.

Ok, let me ask you this:

Millions in our society today are in work and they cannot afford to live...the cost of living is so high for many that simply putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads is a struggle, and these are the people who work. Where do they or are they supposed to find the money to save? Its a serious question....

Old people who have paid their way in life have already saved for their retirement, by paying National Insurance and Tax all their lives.....they have saved for and paid already for their pensions...they do not and will never get back what they have paid into the system.

So, if most of the country (according to the media) is struggling to survive, millions have lost their jobs, been made redundant etc..where are the young, the middle aged or the old supposed to find the money to save?

Manual_Reversion

An interesting debate, with interesting points made from all angles.

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Millions in our society today are in work and they cannot afford to live...the cost of living is so high for many that simply putting food on the table and keeping a roof over their heads is a struggle, and these are the people who work. Where do they or are they supposed to find the money to save? Its a serious question....

In your case above, that's exactly what the state pension is for. A safety net for those who cannot or will not save for their own retirement. It's state benefits whether one likes it or not, just has a different name, i.e. pension.

Loughton Monkey makes very good points to my mind, particularly this:

QUOTE
The 'sins' of not saving for retirement are committed (or should I say 'serially' commited) for 20 or 30 years of life when young. It is, to me, a serious matter of debate the extent to which sympathy is owed to a person (however old) who simply spent every penny and now has nothing other than what is paid by the taxpayer.
UNQUOTE

As an anecdote, I work for a company that provides around 15% gross pay into a pension, but dependent on the individual paying roughly the same. No employee contribution >> no pension provision (other than state), full stop. The majority of our employees don't join in or indeed have any interest!

So to that extent I agree with Loughton Monkey, that it's difficult to sympathise with those who P1ss away the opportunities they have when young to make hay when the sun shines, and who later complain about how the state pension doesn't allow them the lifestyle they've been used to.

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

BleepinHell wrote: »

No jobs for the young, The Lib-cons answer Lets keep the aged in work until they croak. When they could be making way for new blood
Why are the bosses not letting the government know that
they want a young vibrant enthusiastic workforce, not a tired decrepit load of coffin dodgers that are hanging on in there.
Whats going on?
Surely it cannot be to save paying the paltry state pension,
Or is it?

This is something I can't understand either,there's going to be a lot of people who will stay on at work and that's jobs lost for the young people starting out.
No matter how the government dress it up and try and be pro-active trying to force the unemployed to do menial work for benefits(funny how prisoners get treated better) there will never be enough work for everyone,yet they are making matters worse.
It must cost them just as much,if not more to pay for an unemployed family than a pensioner so what's the logic in it.
I don't think this government have any more of a clue than the last one to be honest and are going to do just as much damage.

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

suburbanwifey wrote: »

I am not old, but all these comments about the elderly draining the system is annoying me to say the least! A lot of these 'old' people fought in a war so you would be free, all these old people paid their taxes and national insurance contributions all their lives...yet you resent the old and what they cost? How awful!

People are living longer, GOOD, and so they should and they have a right to. Most of us don't want to die and I bet if you asked any old person you meet if they wanted to, most of them would say NO.

What has crippled this country is Labour creating a welfare state that made it financially better for 'certain members' of society to pump out kid after kid and then another kid, without marriage (they get more money if they live apart!) and basically making life on the welfare system pay more than life at work!

The old people of this country deserve higher pensions than the pittance they get and they deserve more than the millions of single mothers out there who do nothing to contribute to this society apart from bleed it dry.

The elderly of our society should be proud to live longer, and long may they, shame on any young person who thinks otherwise, YOU will be old one day! as will us all.

:mad:

Totally agree with you :T.

Loughton_Monkey

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Old people who have paid their way in life have already saved for their retirement, by paying National Insurance and Tax all their lives.....they have saved for and paid already for their pensions...they do not and will never get back what they have paid into the system.

This, sadly, is where the thinking breaks down.

It has never, ever, been the situation that Tax and National Insurance is a form of savings. For a start the majority of it goes to pay for Infrastructure, Education, Health, Police, Defense, Benefits, and some to pay for the pensioners of the day.

There has never been a secret about this. When I paid my first NI 'Stamp' the very last thing I thought this was doing was "save for my pension".

This is perhaps where the Government is starting to do something, by introducing compulsory pensions - in the NEST scheme as a last resort. But the trouble is it is only a tiny 3%.

suburbanwifey

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

This, sadly, is where the thinking breaks down.

It has never, ever, been the situation that Tax and National Insurance is a form of savings. For a start the majority of it goes to pay for Infrastructure, Education, Health, Police, Defense, Benefits, and some to pay for the pensioners of the day.

There has never been a secret about this. When I paid my first NI 'Stamp' the very last thing I thought this was doing was "save for my pension".

This is perhaps where the Government is starting to do something, by introducing compulsory pensions - in the NEST scheme as a last resort. But the trouble is it is only a tiny 3%.

OK, thank you for this information....helpful but still poses this question.....and in a way this information you have given me has distressed me further about this whole 'mess' - if National Insurance isn't about saving for your old age ie: Pension...its for Infrastructure, Education, Health, Police, Defense, Benefits - can SOMEONE tell me what the tax we pay is for ?? If you saw the amount of tax & national insurance that is taken from me, you would weep, more than most people earn in a week is taken from me in a week! What is the government doing with all the money it steals off me? and it is stealing because I don't choose to pay for those that choose to make a living out of having more and more children that will grow up to do the exact same as their parentage.

I think if people are being asked to pay into a private pension, then Nat Ins contributions should be stopped...you shouldn't have to pay twice. The workers of this country are bled dry...and it has got so much worse since Labour got in, no wonder the coalition Govt. are starting to do what they do...Pensioners should get more, workers should take home more of their pay...the new PM is doing what needs to be done....but hearing that National Insurance isn't for your pension....then they have no right taking it from me as well as the insane amount of tax they steal to fund the lifestyles of others who never work a day in their life/