The aging population

Loughton_Monkey

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Ask an old person, STAMP was and is for your pension.

It certainly was. And still is. A "Stamp" qualifies you to receive one.

This is totally and utterly different from the concept of your NI being "invested" for your pension. The money you paid on NI went directly to pay pensioners of the day, plus lots of other things.

An extra "Stamp", though, gave you another 'year'. Collect 44 years, and you had "Full" pension. [39 for women who retired earlier].

I never heard a great "Whooppee" when the number of stamps required went down to a mere 30.

But I must repeat. National Insurance has never been an individual's "fund" for their retirement. Many people may be slightly confused with the concept of 'State Second Pension' or 'Higher Rate Pension' or even (as I can remember) 'Graduated Pension'. All of these 'behave' like 'saving for pension' in that payments into these give you qualification for "Additional State Pension". But they didn't 'fund' for it.

Loughton_Monkey

suburbanwifey wrote: »

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....

I understand where you're coming from. If there are 'millions' in this state, then I certainly would not envy them. However - up to the current round of 'cuts' at least - I perceive that such people continue to qualify for not only state pension, but extra benefits as well. Hence, to a very large extent, the same 'lifestyle' can exist after retirement.

For those for whom this was (is) not the case, then by definition thay must be earning rather more than basic benefits. In those cases, saving just a very small proportion would have provided extra spending money well into retirement.

Loughton_Monkey

blueboy43 wrote: »

Look, walk round any old graveyard in England and look at the headstones.

Infant mortality in 1840 would have been about 20-25%.

For arguments sake I'll use 25%.

That means if 4 people were born and one died at birth, the other 3 would have to live to 53 years, to get a life expectancy of 40 years (159 years divided by 4 people).

Trust me, you would have to go way, way back in history, before 40 would be considered old.

Agreed. This is where "Average Mortality" can be a bit misleading.

In fact 25% infant mortality in the early 1840's is probably understating it. Certainly for 'poor' people, I find in my own family, that it was typically 7 out of 8 children lost (extreme), 5 out of 10 (fairly normal), 3 out of 10 (extremely lucky).

So stripping out these children, the mortality of, say, all 20 or 25 year olds was fairly high. OK not quite as high as today, but living into 80's and even 90's was quite common and 'normal'.

treliac

RenovationMan wrote: »

Just read the first page, so apologies if someone else has already made this point.

Whatever happened to people looking after their own elderly relatives? My Mum and Dad were struggling financially and struggling to maintain their house and so they moved in with us, albiet in a granny annexe attached to our home. This weekend saw myself, Dad and Daughter raking/sweeping up leaves that had fallen onto our path/drives and lawns (our house is practically in a forest and we were knee deep in leaves).

We had three generations of the family working together and enjoying each other's company. Lovely.

I simply don't understand why more families dont pool their resources and live together like this, instead of expecting the state (aka poorly paid and trained strangers) to look after the people who gave them life and nurtured them for years, while at the same time moaning that they are being 'diddled' out of their inheritance because their parents home is being sold to fund said state care.

I understand your point and you paint a lovely picture of family harmony. However, for most this is not the case. By the time elderly people start to need support and care they are becoming very demanding, of time if not emotionally.

It is incredibly difficult for most people to provide personal intimate care for their frail parents (who may have become incontinent, confused, unsteady on their feet and a great deal worse) as it is for the parents to receive it from their children and care needs would not be so high at the time they moved in. It can reach the point where they need 24 hour care and supervision, so cannot be left on their own.

That's alongside having to hold down paid jobs and help teenage children through turbulent times.

The pressures on most peoples lives just do not allow for even greater responsibilities, at least unless huge sacrifices are made. And, though some are able to do it, the majority are not prepared or able to cope.
....

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

CLAPTON wrote: »

no-one in their 60s started work legally at 14; the school leaving age became 15 wef 1947 and then raised to 16 wef 1972

which means that only the over 78s started work at 14.

Which means they've still been working a lot longer than todays youngsters who don't even think of proper work till leaving university.

Torry_Quine

CLAPTON wrote: »

no-one in their 60s started work legally at 14; the school leaving age became 15 wef 1947 and then raised to 16 wef 1972

which means that only the over 78s started work at 14.

I have a relative who left school at 14 and is not yet 78. It looks like it wasn't strictly adhered to.

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

RenovationMan wrote: »

Just read the first page, so apologies if someone else has already made this point.

Whatever happened to people looking after their own elderly relatives? My Mum and Dad were struggling financially and struggling to maintain their house and so they moved in with us, albiet in a granny annexe attached to our home. This weekend saw myself, Dad and Daughter raking/sweeping up leaves that had fallen onto our path/drives and lawns (our house is practically in a forest and we were knee deep in leaves).

We had three generations of the family working together and enjoying each other's company. Lovely.

I simply don't understand why more families dont pool their resources and live together like this, instead of expecting the state (aka poorly paid and trained strangers) to look after the people who gave them life and nurtured them for years, while at the same time moaning that they are being 'diddled' out of their inheritance because their parents home is being sold to fund said state care.

We look after our own in our family too,we've never ever used a care home for any of our relatives.
We employ a nurse if and when we need one but never could we put our own flesh and blood in the hands of a stranger.
I suppose to us it's just natural and it is'nt an inconvenience but I suppose it would'nt suit some people or indeed their life style.

Torry_Quine

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

We look after our own in our family too,we've never ever used a care home for any of our relatives.
We employ a nurse if and when we need one but never could we put our own flesh and blood in the hands of a stranger.
I suppose to us it's just natural and it is'nt an inconvenience but I suppose it would'nt suit some people or indeed their life style.

Good for you but for many of us that just wouldn't be an option. It is nothing to do with inconvenience or lifestyle but due both to the needs of the relative in question and the fact that they would not even be comfortable with getting personal care from us. Never mind we know we made the right decision!

As to your other point not all children go to university and many leave school straight into work at 16.

Oldernotwiser

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

I suppose to us it's just natural and it is'nt an inconvenience but I suppose it would'nt suit some people or indeed their life style.

Although I agree with your sentiments, I'm sure I've read posts from you where you've said that you've never worked outside the home. If that's the case then that's a totally different situation from most women and doesn't really qualify you to be quite so sanctimonious about it.

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Although I agree with your sentiments, I'm sure I've read posts from you where you've said that you've never worked outside the home. If that's the case then that's a totally different situation from most women and doesn't really qualify you to be quite so sanctimonious about it.

I'm hardly being sanctimonious just stating a fact about the way we tend to our family,since I was commenting on a post someone else had made about theirs.
We all take time in our family to do our bit,even the women who do go out to work.
Also no I've never worked outside the home for money,but what has that got to do with anything.
I do volunteer work,have done for years in a hospice and also at a day center so I do contribute something and for nothing.
Or is that being sanctimonious too.