UK lord: Retired people should have to work for their pensions
32 replies, posted
[url]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20044862[/url]
[quote=BBC News][B]Retired people should be encouraged to do community work such as caring for the "very old" or face losing some of their pension, a peer has suggested.[/B]
Lord Bichard, a former benefits chief, said "imaginative" ideas were needed to meet the cost of an ageing society.
And although such a move might be controversial, it would stop older people being a "burden on the state".
The peer is a member of a committee investigating demographic changes and their impact on public services.
The panel was told that the transfer of wealth from young to old in the UK was the highest in Europe.
Lord Bichard, a former head of the Benefits Agency and top civil servant at the Education Department, who is probably best known for chairing the 2004 inquiry into the Soham murders, said the debate on rising healthcare and pension costs needed to be broadened out.
"Are there ways in which we could use incentives to encourage older people, if not to be in full time work, to be making a contribution?," he asked the rest of the committee.
"It is quite possible, for example, to envisage a world where civil society is making a greater contribution to the care of the very old, and older people who are not very old could be making a useful contribution to civil society in that respect, if they were given some incentive or some recognition for doing so."
[B]'Tuition fees'[/B]
The 65-year-old crossbench peer, who has taken on a number of roles including the vice presidency of the Local Government Association and the chairmanship of a national after-school film club since retiring from the civil service in 2001, suggested the government should use the pensions system to "incentivise" retired people.
"We are now prepared to say to people who are not looking for work, if you don't look for work you don't get benefits, so if you are old and you are not contributing in some way or another maybe there is some penalty attached to that."
He asked: "Are we using all of the incentives at our disposal to encourage older people not just to be a negative burden on the state but actually be a positive part of society?"
Prof Martin Weale, a member of the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee, said the proposal was "outside the normal range of what is discussed", but added it was an "interesting point".
Asked about his proposal after the meeting, Lord Bichard said it was a new idea but he intended to look into it further as part of his work for the committee.
He acknowledged it would be difficult for politicians to sell to the public, but added: "So was tuition fees."
[B]Childcare[/B]
Pensioners' rights campaigners reacted angrily to Lord Bichard's idea.
Dot Gibson, general secretary of the National Pensioners Convention, said: "This amounts to little more than national service for the over 60s and is absolutely outrageous.
"Those who have paid their national insurance contributions for 30 or more years are entitled to receive their state pension and there should be no attempt to put further barriers in their way."
Michelle Mitchell, director general of the charity Age UK, said: "Older people are a hugely positive part of society - over a third of people aged between 65 and 74 volunteer, a percentage that only drops slightly for the over 75s.
"In addition, nearly a million older people provide unpaid care to family or friends saving the state millions of pounds."
She added that almost a third of working age parents rely on grandparents to provide childcare - and more than 900,000 people are working past the traditional retirement age "either because they want to or because they can't afford to retire".
But she added: "We must not forget that retirement is a vastly different experience depending on your personal circumstances. For example, 40% of all people over 65 have a serious longstanding illness and 1.7m of our pensioners live in poverty.
"For many of those, retirement can be an unrelenting struggle of trying to survive on a low income in poor health."
Ros Altmann, director general of Saga, said: "This is a very strange idea indeed. Those who have retired have already made huge contributions to our society and are already the largest group of charity and community volunteers."
[B]'Angry'[/B]
Prof James Sefton, of Imperial College, London, a former adviser to the Treasury, told the committee young people were effectively subsidising the older generation - and he could not understand why they were not protesting about it.
"I think they should be angry. I think the deal they are getting is poor," he told the peers.
"There are a lot of transfers going on within the system, from the young towards the old and I think awareness of it is very poor and I think eventually it will come out."
He said research he was carrying out at Imperial College, with Dr David McCarthy, suggested "the current generation are very heavy contributors to the public purse, whereas previous generations have benefited from the public purse".
This was mostly down to high house prices, high youth unemployment, rising public debt and the cost of education, added Prof Sefton, who is also a quantitative analyst at UBS bank.
The older generation benefits from public funds, in the form of healthcare and pensions, but younger people have to rely more on "private transfers" of wealth, such as family money, to a far greater extent than in other European countries, he added.[/quote]
Fuck off, Bichard.
So what he's saying is, people should never retire?
[QUOTE=Robbobin;38176146]So what he's saying is, people should never retire?[/QUOTE]
Well except maybe the very old.. but they should care for the dead...
because you should always respect your elders... unless its a person who died younger then you... i guess..
But... They did work for their pensions, the whole ~50 odd years they've worked and payed taxes is their 'work' for the pension.
Isn't that kind of defeating the point of retiring? So you can finally sit back after a life of working?
Why does the Houe of Lords still exist?
Bichard, there's a difference between encouraging people and essentially blackmailing them into doing it you fucking monkey.
Well, there are a lot of pensioners that are fully capable to do work, and in the other hand there are not enough caretakers for the oldest people. Though forcing them to work seems a little harsh, I'm pretty sure many would gladly help a few hours a week if they had a chance.
I don't know what the situation is in other countries (I'm from finland) but I assume it's similar in western countries, the age structure is fucked up and people keep on living longer. It is estimated that half of the babies born after 2000 are going to reach 100 years. That means I'm most likely going to work until I'm at least 70, because the dependency ratio needs to be lowered.
[QUOTE=download;38176211]Why does the Houe of Lords still exist?[/QUOTE]
Because there are a lot of useful people in there, just a few idiots as well (as if there aren't even more idiots in commons)
[QUOTE=download;38176211]Why does the Houe of Lords still exist?[/QUOTE]
~tradition~
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38176314]Because there are a lot of useful people in there, just a few idiots as well (as if there aren't even more idiots in commons)[/QUOTE]
But it's undemocratic
So if I work from my 18th to my 67th, paying taxes and saving up for my pension that entire time, you're saying I'm a burden on society and should contribute if I want my own fucking money back?
Fuck off thundercunt.
It must be nice when you've got a silver spoon in your mouth so you don't need to worry about what the plebs might think about your "imaginative" retirement ideas.
[QUOTE=download;38176211]Why does the Houe of Lords still exist?[/QUOTE]
To pass stupid laws and block good ones.
[QUOTE=download;38176390]But it's undemocratic[/QUOTE]
So?
[editline]25th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Memobot;38176406]To pass stupid laws and block good ones.[/QUOTE]
Yeah they block such good laws like that NHS bill, wasn't that a such a great law.
kill yourself Bitchtard
Wouldn't this create less jobs for younger generations?
Let's start by forcing Lord Bichard to work after he retires. I'm sure by "retired people," he means "not me."
[QUOTE=Scrimp;38177013]Wouldn't this create less jobs for younger generations?[/QUOTE]
the government don't care about younger generations?
well i never...
I want a fucking job. Of course they should retire, they're quite old enough to rest already.
It's easy for [i]him[/i] to say that.
I get this feeling that some old chucklefucks think I'll still be willing and able to work to keep some of my pitiful pension when I reach age 75 or higher when I'm finally allowed to retire.
"Lord Bichard" [I]sounds [/I]like the name of somebody that would do this.
Nobody can ever take it seriously when a rich person says stuff like this, I dont know why they bother.
The general mentality surrounding it is 'its alright for you to say that because you are well off enough for it to not affect you', which I think is an issue with politics in the UK today; a lot of members of our government are quite wealthy for one reason or another, so they cant say anything regarding money and not expect hate because they will never be in the position they describe so they wont know how it feels.
If it was someone saying this that was on an average wage then it would probably be more of a debate than 'fuck off you rich prick'
I find it disgusting how people who are so disconnected from reality are the ones in power making decisions that will affect people for the rest of their lives.
The people in power should not be the old, rich, posh twats who went to Eton - it should be the people who are actually affected by the decisions that the government makes. The Prime Minister gets paid £142,500, whilst the cabinet ministers get paid £134,565 - both of these figures do not include expenses and the cost of their free second home. Why on Earth politicians need this much money is beyond me, especially as expenses such as travel are paid for by the taxpayer. It should be a privelage to be a part of running your country, and money should be removed from politics almost entirely.
"We're going to pay you your own hard-earned cash if you work for us"
This is the dumbest thing I've heard all year.
look up the definition of retired
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;38176613]So?
[editline]25th October 2012[/editline]
Yeah they block such good laws like that NHS bill, wasn't that a such a great law.[/QUOTE]
Why are you defending an institution in which the peers inherit power? Does that not sounds wrong to you?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.