Tory scum increase pension age - again!!

atush

Koicarp wrote: »

That's nothing to do with government of any colour, nor is it about death rates. It's normal medical practice to assess whether action will cause more risk than in-action. If you disagreed at the time you could have sought further medical opinion.

It has everything to do with death rates as listed by the local trust. And nothing to do with the outcome, as any older person is of higher risk with anesthesia of any kind which means that in local hospitals they are routinely denied treatment on this basis even if they want it.

As not the child but an Inlaw, my conerns were not taken into acct despite the fact I was a health professional. I was also barred from making a formal complaint as not a blood relative. Since then, the trust was slammed by a report saying what I did- they were trying to cover up high death rates and poor practice. All overseen under Labour.

lemontart

they have not increased age again, this has been the case for some time now I am 50 and cannot claim pension until I am 66 all they are planning to do is to bring the reforms forward which according to all the online calculators does not alter when I can retire at present...............but given the state of finances I do not expect to ever retire and to be able to pay my bills but I have been aware of this for at least 2 to 3 years,

http://www.pensionsadvisoryservice.org.uk/state-pensions/state-pension-age-calculator?

Gracchus_Babeuf

vax2002 wrote: »

What was the age of the last 4 people you knew who died ?

Dying has nothing to do with it - ageing has. Just because there are medicines and treatments that keep you alive until 100 these days doesn't make you age any less quickly. A modern 65 year old is as old as a 65 year old of 1930.

Gracchus_Babeuf

zagfles wrote: »

If you're already 65 you're unaffected.

And why would you need to drawdown £50-60k to replace one year's less state pension of around £5k?

Exercise your few brain cells. Because I have a private pension that I am targeting to give me around £20-22k a year, so that figure is the income I'm seeking, and the state pension (which, including, S2P would be closer to £7,500 than £5,000) would be part of this total.

Gracchus_Babeuf

zagfles wrote: »

My post concerned "income tax rates". Not the "tax take".

The previous ranter was on about income tax:



When it was Labour who reduced the basic rate of income tax to lowest rate in recent history - 20%, and maintained the lowest top rate in recent history - 40% - for all but one month of their 13 years in power.

But I don't expect facts to get in the way of clueless rants...

True, but then Tory Blair was never really Labour, was he?

atush

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

Dying has nothing to do with it - ageing has. Just because there are medicines and treatments that keep you alive until 100 these days doesn't make you age any less quickly. A modern 65 year old is as old as a 65 year old of 1930.

True aging and the diseases one gets are due to lifestyle, genetics, and the availablilty of good quality medical care.

And you aren't as likely to die of cancer if you are living a healthy lifestyle, have a good genetic history, and aren't one of the statistical unlucky. You could of course be run over at any time by the no37 bus if you don't look when crossing the road.

Sleeping with other men's wives, and then going hunting with them also carries a statistical risk of loss of life. Anyone for motorway driving at 110mph? Tombstoning?

Gracchus_Babeuf

sandsy wrote: »

I see no mention of increasing life expectancy and falling mortality rates in your argument. Over the last few years, life expectancy has been increasing at a rate of 2.5%-3% pa. The rate of increase is the fastest it's ever been. At age 65, a woman will now generally be expected to live beyond age 90 and men a bit under.

As the proportion of retirees grows and the proportion of workers shrinks, what else would you propose as a solution? Especially in a depressed economic scenario where the population are already suffering?

Just because some people live to enormously long ages doesn't mean that everyones does. My parents died at 75 and 78 of heart disease and cancer. You can lie with statistics, and governments who use statistics to prove arguments are the biggest liars of all.
A fairer system would be to still pay the state pension at 65 but limit it to a set period, eg. 25 years. Then means test it after that.

Gracchus_Babeuf

zagfles wrote: »

Strange how income tax rates were at historically low rates for virtually the whole of Labour's time in power then. But don't let mere facts spoil your rant...

Read my point about 'Tory' Blair - the guy positively worshipped Maggie Thatcher and hated the very idea of socialism.

Gracchus_Babeuf

kidmugsy wrote: »

The last Labour government announced the increase of the State pension age to 68. The only issue is how quickly it will be raised. So all this "Tory scum" stuff is rather stupid. And the reason is (i) the relentless increase in lifespan, plus (ii) the ruin of the public finances (by Labour, as it happens).

The present governent wishes to accelerate the pension age increase process, and no, I am not a fan of the previous Labour government either. My argument is that governments should give citizens the right to expect a 'living wage' to see them through retirement - the current state pension and S2P, which totals around £7,500 is less than 1/3 of the national average income - this is derisory. If they are going to increase the state pension age then at least we should be expecting a state pension of 50% of national average income, i.e. c.£13,000 a year.

Aegis

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

The present governent wishes to accelerate the pension age increase process, and no, I am not a fan of the previous Labour government either. My argument is that governments should give citizens the right to expect a 'living wage' to see them through retirement - the current state pension and S2P, which totals around £7,500 is less than 1/3 of the national average income - this is derisory. If they are going to increase the state pension age then at least we should be expecting a state pension of 50% of national average income, i.e. c.£13,000 a year.

Who would you like to pay for that? We're already facing a horrific budget deficit and have a highest marginal rate of 50% tax.