Tory scum increase pension age - again!!

JoeCrystal

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

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.

That would be nice, it would meant my annual rate will not changed much if I retired on that income. :rotfl: I would rather see minimum wage to be increased rather than pension. Minimum wage is going up by mighty 2.5% this year. From £5.93 to £6.09 per hour. On other hand, I think state pension went up by 4.6% this year.

Gracchus_Babeuf

atush wrote: »

Well you can count on (if you dont drink, dont' smoke and have proper physical exercise each week) living to about 75 unlike your firneds who either lie about how much they drink, smoke, eat fatty foods and what and how young their own parents did.

My parents died at 57 and 68. Both smoked (mother who died at 68 smoked like a chiminey and also had type 2D). Father died 12-18 months after retiring and died of a brain hemorrage but he could have had this since he was young- no one knows). So I know the risk levels I face, unlike my OH whos parents died at 85 and 95.

My MIL at 95 was seen off by NHS budget cuts and poor practice as they refused to operate on a hernia "as she might die on the table" and screw up their death rates.:mad: Instead she died of CDiff caught there. :eek: Otherwise she might be alive still. Again, under Labour oversite.

The NHS has better things to do than keeping decrepit 95 year olds alive like vegetables, such as focusing on 60 year olds with heart disease and cancer. It's called prioritisation.

atush

Just because some people live to enormously long ages doesn't mean that everyones does.

That is because mortality rates take into acct those that die at birth, age 5, 15, 25 55 etc. They are AVERAGES and are used to look at overall policies. And people are living longer overall, no matter when your parents or mine died. 75-78 was considered prety good a fe decades ago. But now, things have moved on. You have a better than even's chance of outliving them both if you health is good now and we keep on pushing for lifesaving drugs to not be witheld by NICE on cost grounds only.

Gracchus_Babeuf

Aegis wrote: »

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.

Lower the 50% income tax rate threshold to £80k a year for starters, then introduce much higher council tax rates for those with huge and/or very expensive houses. At present the 50% rate only affects the top 1% of earners, and of those an even smaller number actually earn very substantially above that threshold.

ffacoffipawb

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

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

Ooh, I have misjudged the poor man then.

Gracchus_Babeuf

atush wrote: »

That is because mortality rates take into acct those that die at birth, age 5, 15, 25 55 etc. They are AVERAGES and are used to look at overall policies. And people are living longer overall, no matter when your parents or mine died. 75-78 was considered prety good a fe decades ago. But now, things have moved on. You have a better than even's chance of outliving them both if you health is good now and we keep on pushing for lifesaving drugs to not be witheld by NICE on cost grounds only.

All this is assumption and speculation. In the 1970s they said we would all live to 200 by now, cancer would be beaten we would all be going to work on flying cars like in the 'Jetsons' - I remember all those 'Tomorrow's World' programmes. In any case, great medicines do not prevent the ageing process, they merely postpone death, so that people will still have all the health conditions brought on by old age and still be expected to work. I can't imagine any sensible employer keeping 65+ staff for very long, especially in physical jobs.

atush

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

The NHS has better things to do than keeping decrepit 95 year olds alive like vegetables, such as focusing on 60 year olds with heart disease and cancer. It's called prioritisation.

You're just disgusting. She was an alive and lively person living in assisted living on our/her dime not the state. She was not a 'vegetable'or was she senile. She had a right to life saving care and was denied due to her age only. They tried that one on first (senility), and when I pointed out they were pumping her full of morphine for the pain no wonder she didn't know what day it was. When the medication was lowered they couldn't use the senile defense as she was perfectly lucid.

So go on, get into a traffic accident or something when you are over 80 and compis mentis and they can use the "oh they might die of anethesia" excuse on you too. That should be used with elective surgery only, not surgery needed to survive as untreated hernias always lead to infection. As would a ruptered spleen.

60 years olds with heart disease and cancer caused by overeating and drinking like a fish. They should be put at the end of the line.

vax2002

As we see the living longer debate does not actually ring true when we look at the ages of those around us dying, like all statistics they are complete and utter fabrications, but here is one.
only 48% of manual workers live to 67 and 34% to 70.
So we have been had by a bunch of lying thieving crooks.
Your pension money was wiped out when Gordon Brown waived African debt,,TWICE OVER.

Gracchus_Babeuf

JoeCrystal wrote: »

That would be nice, it would meant my annual rate will not changed much if I retired on that income. :rotfl: I would rather see minimum wage to be increased rather than pension. Minimum wage is going up by mighty 2.5% this year. From £5.93 to £6.09 per hour. On other hand, I think state pension went up by 4.6% this year.

Get yourself some skills and/or an education and you'll soon see your wages increase. This thread is about the state pension, not the minimum wage.

atush

Gracchus_Babeuf wrote: »

All this is assumption and speculation. In the 1970s they said we would all live to 200 by now, cancer would be beaten we would all be going to work on flying cars like in the 'Jetsons' - I remember all those 'Tomorrow's World' programmes. In any case, great medicines do not prevent the ageing process, they merely postpone death, so that people will still have all the health conditions brought on by old age and still be expected to work. I can't imagine any sensible employer keeping 65+ staff for very long, especially in physical jobs.

Bolloc*s. No one said we'd live to 200 in the 70's. 100 maybe. And hovercraft and moving walkways and robotics are all here like the Jetsons.

Health conditions can be caused by aging, but many/most are caused by how you choose to live your life and how strong your genetic coding is.