Paying for care

[amateur51]

It's not helped by modern medicine. With life-expectancy increasing due to improved healthcare in terms of taking pills to 'fix' things that in days gone by would have brought about an earlier demise, those illnesses and infirmities that come with increasing old-age will manifest themselves more and more. In days gone by, they would not have done so as we would have been dead.

"Always look on the bright side of life"

[ahinton]

It's not helped by modern medicine. With life-expectancy increasing due to improved healthcare in terms of taking pills to 'fix' things that in days gone by would have brought about an earlier demise, those illnesses and infirmities that come with increasing old-age will manifest themselves more and more. In days gone by, they would not have done so as we would have been dead.

Ah, now there's a thought! I blame that rogue scam-ridden organisation commonly known as NHS, meself.

Seriously, though - the increased life expectancy to which you rightly draw attention has not come about and is not continuing purely as a consequence of "taking pills to 'fix' things", as you put it; better diet and lifestyle conduct, better general healthcare, the unstoppable development of medical research, better access to healthcare have all contributed and continue to contribute to it. Does it not occur to you that "hose illnesses and infirmities that come with increasing old age", far from "manifesting themselves more and more", are more likely at worst to begin to manifest themselves in many cases at a later age as a consequence of that greater life expectancy and at best to disappear altogether as a consequence of the outcomes of more medical research and better and more effective and sustainable treatment?

You appear almost to imply that increasing life expectancy is a bad thing (or at the very least not a good thing) and that there ought accordingly to be some kind of cap on it like the one that the Government has introduced on state benefits! Leaving aside that few would endorse what might arguably be seen as your quasi-proto-Malthusiams here, do you have in mind a maximum age to which people should live and, if so, what is it, on what specific grounds and what would you advocate should happen and at whose hands and how to those who've already reached their officially sanctioned use-by date but haven't yet had the decency to pop their clogs?

[ahinton]

"Always look on the bright side of life"

...but only up until a certain age after which one should apparently be unable any longer to look on any side of anything, it would seem; a particularly strange stance indeed for a Resurrection Man, wouldn't you say?...

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

You appear almost to imply that increasing life expectancy is a bad thing (or at the very least not a good thing) and that there ought accordingly to be some kind of cap on it like the one that the Government has introduced on state benefits!

When it condemns someone to years of dementia, maybe it isn't such a good thing. As for capping life expectancy, the government is surely doing this by increasing the retirement age to 68(+), which will surely cause health problems for many.

[ahinton]

When it condemns someone to years of dementia, maybe it isn't such a good thing.

Indeed it is not, but then dementia is not exclusive to the aged, its onset can sometimes be very slow and no one is advocating euthanasia for those who are afflicted with it. It's the quality of life that counts - and there are people of all ages whose quality of life is severley compromised not only by dementia but by a host of other medical conditions.

As for capping life expectancy, the government is surely doing this by increasing the retirement age to 68(+), which will surely cause health problems for many.

No. The Government is increasing "the state retirement age" only; it cannot and has no powers to increase "the retirement age", for that will and does vary from one working person to another and is a decision, however enforced by economic necessity in some cases, that only each working person can make. "State retirement age" relates only to the age at which state retirement benefit becomes payable and, as such, has no direct connection in practice with lifespan or how life expectancy might be affected by disease or other factors.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

No. The Government is increasing "the state retirement age" only; it cannot and has no powers to increase "the retirement age", for that will and does vary from one working person to another and is a decision, however enforced by economic necessity in some cases, that only each working person can make. "State retirement age" relates only to the age at which state retirement benefit becomes payable and, as such, has no direct connection in practice with lifespan or how life expectancy might be affected by disease or other factors.

My point is that the raising of the age when people can access their pensions (not just state pensions) means many people will have to continue working at a time when their health might make it unwise.

[ahinton]

My point is that the raising of the age when people can access their pensions (not just state pensions) means many people will have to continue working at a time when their health might make it unwise.

But one can access a pension at age 55 (I think) - it used to be age 50; it's only state retirement benefit that cannot be taken until several years later. The problem here, however, is that, just as there are many hundreds of thousands of people who receive sate benefits (other than retirement benefit) despite being in work and earning a small income therefrom, many people in receipt of pensions and many more also in receipt of state retirement benefit find that they have to continue to work in any case because they cannot make ends meet otherwise; some of these are dong so to help pay of their offspring's student loans as well as their own extended mortgages. There are also those who chose to work on past state retirement age despite not needing the income, as well as those below that age who choose to do so for the same reason.

One reason that the state benefit entitlement age is rising (not only in UK) is that the Government increasingly finds itself having to borrow towards funding that benefit and can less and less afford to fund it from other sources; there is no "pension pot" to draw on into which people have contributed throughout their working lives up to that age, so the benefit has to be paid for from other sources. This ever-increasing dilemma is further compounded by higher life expectancy by reason of which, were the state benefit entitlement age not to rise, increasing numbers of people might become entitled to state retirement benefit for periods of time greater than those before state retirement age, nonagenarians and centenarians being far less uncommon than once they were.

[hedgehog]

........ the Government increasingly finds itself having to borrow towards funding that benefit and can less and less afford to fund it from other sources; there is no "pension pot" to draw on into which people have contributed throughout their working lives up to that age, so the benefit has to be paid for from other sources. This ever-increasing dilemma is further compounded by higher life expectancy by reason of which, were the state benefit entitlement age not to rise, increasing numbers of people might become entitled to state retirement benefit for periods of time greater than those before state retirement age, nonagenarians and centenarians being far less uncommon than once they were.

Unlike Norway of course with its state-owned oil company. How inefficient!

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

Of course a country with a small population. It however doesn't really have vast resources across the board. I couldn't put up a percentage-wise figure re "natural" assets and population (I'd say that Australia would have far more natural assets in proportion, but has a very shoddy pension allowance), but even so it's the principle here that is a shining example.

( One could of course digress and quibble about how the Funds are invested. Some hypocrisy there but at a quick glance rather better than many private investment Funds!)

[gradus]

Re early pension access the result of early access at 55 is a very substantially reduced pension.
Presumably one of the reasons that the state pension can't be treated this way (as far as I know) though it can be deferred to a date after nrd and thus increase, ditto final salary schemes.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

One reason that the state benefit entitlement age is rising (not only in UK) is that the Government increasingly finds itself having to borrow towards funding that benefit and can less and less afford to fund it from other sources; there is no "pension pot" to draw on into which people have contributed throughout their working lives up to that age, so the benefit has to be paid for from other sources.

That's what they want you to believe, but the truth is that they grab the pension contrubutions for themselves, spend it on whatever they want and then whinge about "not being able to afford" to pay the pensions as promised. It all makes Robert Maxwell into a good guy. They lie about it too.
Just don't get me started.

[ahinton]

Re early pension access the result of early access at 55 is a very substantially reduced pension.

Not necessarily; if the work to which that pension attaches ends at or soon after age 55, the pension could not have become greater over time anyway; furthermore, there's nothing to preclude anyone from commencing a pension investment at or after that age, provided that they stop doing so by around age 77 and, this being the case, there are quite a few people of above and below state retirement age who receive pensions at the same time as receiving salaries and/or generating business profits on which some make further pension contributions.

Presumably one of the reasons that the state pension can't be treated this way (as far as I know) though it can be deferred to a date after nrd and thus increase

Is that still possible? I didn't know that. Perhaps you're right, though. That said, it's abit like comparing apples and oranges, though, because pensions are investments in which monies are invested in funds within a pension "pot" over a period of years up until the time when it's vested (usually at retirement but increasingly less so), whereas state retirement benefit commences at a fixed age, involves no prior savings period or hoped-for investment growth and is funded from wherever DWP can find or borrow the money to do so.

ditto final salary schemes.

"Final salary schemes"? That's surely almost off-topic now, isn't it? You've changed the subject to "Hens' Teeth and Other Endangered Species in the Workplace", methinks!...

[ahinton]

That's what they want you to believe, but the truth is that they grab the pension contrubutions for themselves, spend it on whatever they want and then whinge about "not being able to afford" to pay the pensions as promised.

Sorry; what "pension contributions"? I don't understand. The state doesn't have and indeed never has had an actual pension scheme in which investors can contribute towards their future pensions.

It all makes Robert Maxwell into a good guy.

Nothing ever has or ever will do that!...

They lie about it too.

Not only about that, though, surely? I do agree, however, that, as government lies go, this must be one of the biggest and longest standing and has been continuously perpetrated and promoted by successive government of every hue since the system began; governments have sought to persuade taxpayers for decades that some of their taxes are being earmarked for their future retirement pensions, yet they've never so earmarked them because no government has ever set up an investment scheme into which contributors can invest for their future pensions - nor should it, actually, to be fair, because the government is not an investment company, but it should not seek to pretend otherwise as all governments have done for so many years.

Just don't get me started.

I think that you've already gotten started!...

[teamsaint]

The state is quite prepared to do whatever it wants to make pensions fit its world view. It has, for instance, raised the level at which one can withdraw "trivial" pensions in cash and there is NOTHING at all to stop them doing it again if they so wish.
Much of what the state is doing on pensions , ( state, company, public service, and private) is nothing short of fraud.
They lie every step of the way to justify it.
This cap is no different, It is dressed up to look fair, but it is in fact a highly regressive tax.

The Manfred Symphony seems to be the perfect backdrop to my thoughts on this. !

[gradus]

Re early pension payment reductions (sorry to rub salt in the wound), I was referring to pensions of the final salary persuasion with a fixed vesting date, plainly a cash pot from which to buy your own ain't the same kettle of fish.
Be interesting to know how many people reaching state pension age opt for a deferral of payment, if as you say such a thing remains possible.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Sorry; what "pension contributions"? I don't understand. The state doesn't have and indeed never has had an actual pension scheme in which investors can contribute towards their future pensions.

I was referring to public service pensions (NHS, civil servants, local government, teachers, and now the Royal Mail) which demand high contributions from their employees. These are state pension schemes that the New Robert Maxwells sees fit to raid and tell massive fibs about the state of the contribution vs. payout figures, even when using their own criteria. Anyone else would be sent to prison for fraud.