Conservative plan to increase retirement age

dannyjo22 said:
All this worrying about food shortages and energy shortages. Why not start population control instead? Why because that won't win any votes.
Click to expand...

This. It is easier and cheaper to put a lid on population numbers than it is to build more nuclear power stations and the homes for all these people to live in etc. Yet the three main parties all have the same policy of population growth, and giving people more benefits the larger families they have. Madness.
 
I'm all for this... 65 is too young to retire for most people anyway. Everyone is living longer and it's unsustainable to be paying out a pension for 25/30 years. I'm all to aware that by the time i'm in my 60s/70s I will be lucky to get ANY government pension, that's why I will spend a large amount of my working life preparing for retirement. As should more people, the days of handouts from the government are coming to an end. Can't wait to see the other areas the tories will cut, hopefully they will manage to get rid of all the pointless public sector diversity managers etc.
 
It seems that some people are unaware that the state pension age is already rising to 68 under Labour anyway, the timing of which depends on how old you are.

I am 36 and my retirement age is currently set at 67 for example.
 
scorza said:
Once again Boy George proves he is totally out of his depth, he has provided no evidence that he has what it takes to lead this country through the global economic crisis. All he can do is make minor changes to existing Labour policies.
Click to expand...

Well, perhaps if the populace didn't demand everything as an entitlement and see all the crap that we pay for via taxes as 'free', it would be much easier to institute meaningful reform...

I can just imagine the sort of FUD that you and Stockhausen would be posting about the Tories if they proposed more fundamental reforms...
 
dirtydog said:
This. It is easier and cheaper to put a lid on population numbers than it is to build more nuclear power stations and the homes for all these people to live in etc. Yet the three main parties all have the same policy of population growth, and giving people more benefits the larger families they have. Madness.
Click to expand...

With an ageing natural population, closing the doors in an effort to reduce taxation makes about as much sense as drilling a hole in your head to let the demons out to cure a minor headache...

Remember, Labour, way back when, created a Ponzi scheme with the state pension and benefits system (and the state workers pensions that are paid for via taxation), until that goes, we need to keep the population going, the same as keeping any Ponzi scheme going...
 
Last edited:
It's a needed policy, sadly. However, the first change should be to bring the age of retirement for women in line, and then if still needed increase the official age of retirement (no longer linked to sex).
 
Rich_L said:
My my, the excuses are coming out early, the Tories aren't even in yet :p
Click to expand...

I'm not making excuses, I'm stating facts. This country, fundamentally, has significant social problems due to an entitlement, rather than a responsibility, culture, but dealing with that will be very unpopular, after all, that was what Thatcher tried to do...
 
I accepted a long time ago that there wont be a retirement age by the time i get to that end of my life, and there certainly wont be a state pension to look forward to... So if it saves 13billion a year and that's put to something useful (getting us out of this economic mess, better funding for the military and police forces, restructuring of the NHS for a more efficient operation), then i'm all for it. If it goes on a new Millenium Dome or some other pointless artifact, then i will be dismayed, but not surprised.
 
Dolph said:
With an ageing natural population, closing the doors in an effort to reduce taxation makes about as much sense as drilling a hole in your head to let the demons out to cure a minor headache...

Remember, Labour, way back when, created a Ponzi scheme with the state pension and benefits system (and the state workers pensions that are paid for via taxation), until that goes, we need to keep the population going, the same as keeping any Ponzi scheme going...
Click to expand...

All studies have shown the opposite. Increasing the population makes no sense from any perspective whatsoever.

Increasing the population has a net COST to the country, both financial and social.
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
In fairness with the economic mess Labour have left behind (yet again), this is not really a surprise.
Click to expand...

In fairness this time it's worldwide and not just localised to our country. Even if the economy was in the same state as when the conservatives left power I still wouldn't be better off as the constant increase in population and increased life span will always increase the demand on my money year on year.

With the tories proposing to not take housing as payment for residential care when people get old then thats another huge shortfall we will have to pay for.

Year on year one way or another we will get worse off, until someone does something about the worlds population. I vote nuke scotland ;)

If people cannot afford kids they shouldn't be having them. The benefit system for children needs a huge overhaul as well.
 
dirtydog said:
All studies have shown the opposite. Increasing the population makes no sense from any perspective whatsoever.

Increasing the population has a net COST to the country, both financial and social.
Click to expand...

All studies? Really?

http://www.allbusiness.com/accounting/873005-1.html

There is no straightforward relationship between population and economic growth. Population growth could be beneficial or detrimental to economic growth, and economic growth could have an impact on population growth. Thus, some economies in Asia, which achieve a low level of economic growth, may not be affected by population growth, but are affected by other factors such as political instability and lack of investments.
Click to expand...

And not forgetting, of course, that we have a ponzi scheme to maintain, which can only be done by constantly increasing either the number of investors or the amount each bottom end investor is charged...
 
You mean that studies sometimes disagree :eek: You would have thought objective, indisputable evidence would surely prevent that happening *implodes*
 
dannyjo22 said:
In fairness this time it's worldwide and not just localised to our country. Even if the economy was in the same state as when the conservatives left power I still wouldn't be better off as the constant increase in population and increased life span will always increase the demand on my money year on year.
Click to expand...

We would have been much better off if Brown hadn't been doing the insane thing of raising borrowing during an economic boom.

With the tories proposing to not take housing as payment for residential care when people get old then thats another huge shortfall we will have to pay for.
Click to expand...

I suggest you go back and review the proposals again and see where the liabilities fall... The proposal is for private insurance with a price/service level cap, not for taxpayer liability (a route I very much approve of, it's how our health service should be run as well)

If people cannot afford kids they shouldn't be having them. The benefit system for children needs a huge overhaul as well.
Click to expand...

It certainly does.
 
Dolph said:
All studies? Really?

http://www.allbusiness.com/accounting/873005-1.html



And not forgetting, of course, that we have a ponzi scheme to maintain, which can only be done by constantly increasing either the number of investors or the amount each bottom end investor is charged...
Click to expand...

I'm talking about our country, not theirs. And economic growth doesn't automatically equal a net benefit to the taxpayer, nor does it take into account the social costs and effects of a higher population.
 
platypus said:
It's a needed policy, sadly. However, the first change should be to bring the age of retirement for women in line, and then if still needed increase the official age of retirement (no longer linked to sex).
Click to expand...

This is the most important thing in my view just raise the womens retirement age to the same as men, how much would that save straight away?
 
dirtydog said:
I'm talking about our country, not theirs. And economic growth doesn't automatically equal a net benefit to the taxpayer, nor does it take into account the social costs and effects of a higher population.
Click to expand...

http://www.centreforum.org/assets/pubs/population-policy.pdf

Does not advocate a population policy, nor does it overall believe that rising population is a problem...

And are you really telling me that population growth from immigration is always worse than home grown people?

http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0907/09072302

Immigrants from the eight Central and Eastern European countries that joined the European Union in May 2004 are less likely to be claiming welfare benefits and less likely to be living in social housing than people born in the UK, according to a new paper from UCL.

What is more, they have made a positive contribution to the UK fiscal system, paying more in taxes than they receive in direct and indirect public transfers (such as benefits, NHS healthcare and education).

These are the central findings of the most comprehensive analysis to date of the fiscal consequences of migration to the UK following EU enlargement to take in the so-called ‘A8 countries’ – the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Poland.
Click to expand...

I know it's difficult to argue against your 'social costs' point, mainly because you are unwilling to clearly explain what you mean to allow for a clear discussion of the issues you believe to be taking place, but I'll say that I don't consider miscegenation an issue, nor cultural alteration (considering that our entire history is the result of succcessive inclusion of immigrant practices).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom