The aging population

ultrawomble

suburbanwifey wrote: »

No, with regards to Europe I'm not sure but i know that when I have been over in America, they pay a pittance in VAT compared to us and as far as I have been told by other people, the same applies to Europe..whatever they pay, I think 20% VAT is scandalous and is not the way out of the problems this country has, people will just buy less, which means jobs will be lost, more people claiming, its false economy and of that I am sure

Try following this link (it was behind my question):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

If people are going to insist on living longer, as it appears they are, then they'll have to work longer.

IIRC when the state pension was introduced, life expectancy for a worker at 65 was 18 months. Now it's about 20 years.

It might be unfair or horrid but life isn't fair and is sometimes horrid.

Maybe we shouldn't have banned smoking in the pubs :eek:

suburbanwifey

Generali wrote: »

If people are going to insist on living longer, as it appears they are, then they'll have to work longer.

IIRC when the state pension was introduced, life expectancy for a worker at 65 was 18 months. Now it's about 20 years.

It might be unfair or horrid but life isn't fair and is sometimes horrid.

Goodness me! If I had been born way back when and had been forced to pay National Insurance contributions for 40 years or more, to learn that they only expected to pay out for my pension for 18 months would infuriate me! 40 years of paying for 18 months of claiming? You are right, life is not fair and its the Govts who take from us that make it so...

I think 20 years of claiming for a pension you have paid into for 40 years is about right, thats what they were paying into it for...

But, i do get your point sadly and I just don't like the truth about how it all actually is, not the way it should be.

suburbanwifey

StevieJ wrote: »

Maybe we shouldn't have banned smoking in the pubs :eek:

They cut their own throats with that - less tax on ciggies going into their greedy mitts and pubs taking less money...serves them right, they get enough already

StevieJ

suburbanwifey wrote: »

No, with regards to Europe I'm not sure but i know that when I have been over in America, they pay a pittance in VAT compared to us and as far as I have been told by other people, the same applies to Europe..whatever they pay, I think 20% VAT is scandalous and is not the way out of the problems this country has, people will just buy less, which means jobs will be lost, more people claiming, its false economy and of that I am sure

The facts don't back you up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe

suburbanwifey

ultrawomble wrote: »

Try following this link (it was behind my question):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_of_Europe

LMAO holy (insert colourful word here lol) I am shocked!

Holds my hands up and waves white flag

Oh well, I've learnt something whilst being nicely put right LOL

StevieJ

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Goodness me! If I had been born way back when and had been forced to pay National Insurance contributions for 40 years or more, to learn that they only expected to pay out for my pension for 18 months would infuriate me! 40 years of paying for 18 months of claiming? You are right, life is not fair and its the Govts who take from us that make it so...

I think 20 years of claiming for a pension you have paid into for 40 years is about right, thats what they were paying into it for...

But, i do get your point sadly and I just don't like the truth about how it all actually is, not the way it should be.

It was age 70 then (1909) and none contributory, also means tested.

pinkteapot

Soylent Green is people!

michaels

So why on earth would you have paid in to a 'pension fund' rather than just saving normally?

irenee wrote: »

That may be so currently - BUT it most certainly was not the case when we were paying into our pension funds years ago

System

The population is not really ageing, because we keep updating what we mean by "old" as life expectancy and healthy life spans increase.

It would be better to express it as a percentage of average life expectancy, rather than basing retirement planning on arbitrary absolute age.

I would suggest defining "old" as beginning at 10% short of life expectancy.
Thus a caveman probably died at 20. He would have been old at 18, and when unfit to work would probably have had a pensionable life of about a week.

In the middle ages people lived to 40, so were old at 36.

50 years ago people died at 70, so a retirement age of about 63 was reasonable.

Now we live to 85, so retirement should be at 77.


Expressed in that way, the aged population always remains constant, and there will always be enough younger people to work to support them. It's only a man-made problem of definition.