GOOD or BAD: new season edition

Oct 06, 2009 09:49

Poll

Leave a comment

communicator October 6 2009, 09:15:51 UTC
Am I right in thinking all you youngsters think raising the retirement age is good and all us oldsters think it's bad. Humph. You wait.

Reply

coalescent October 6 2009, 09:23:34 UTC
No, bohemiancoast is at the upper end of the age range, and rosefox and dyddgu are at the lower.

Reply

andrewducker October 6 2009, 09:26:02 UTC
I voted "good" to that because I think it's vital, and makes sense.

Reply

coalescent October 6 2009, 09:33:55 UTC
I agree that given increasing life expectancy, some raise in the retirement age makes sense. But I wouldn't say it's vital; I could be persuaded that we should just all pay more tax while working to support the longer retirement period.

Reply

andrewducker October 6 2009, 10:00:07 UTC
We possibly could do that - but it gets exponentially more expensive the more years you have to support. I'd be in favour of a citizen's allowance, to be honest, if we could get the political will behind it.

Reply

coalescent October 6 2009, 10:02:37 UTC
We possibly could do that - but it gets exponentially more expensive the more years you have to support.

Yes, but on the other hand it's not going to go up forever; we've got a demographic bulge to deal with, not an increasing elderly population for ever. (Unless medicine *really* comes on a way...)

citizen's allowance

?

Reply

andrewducker October 6 2009, 10:24:49 UTC
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2009/10/living_longer_looks_likely_wit.html

Looks likely that 50% of kids born today will live to 100...

I should have said Citizen's Income - the most basic form of which is Basic IncomeBasically, everyone gets given the minimum necessary to survive on for free. You can then get rid of most tax complications above that (i.e. various sliding scales), don't have to worry about housing benefit, (most) disability living allowances, student loans/grants, etc. It's a vast simplification of the system. It also prevents poverty traps where losing the income from your benefits outweighs the income from part time jobs - all gross income increases your net income. It also means that employers can't treat staff in crap jobs quite so badly, as there's always the option of just stopping working, which gives more freedom to the worst paid/treated members of society ( ... )

Reply

coalescent October 6 2009, 10:32:12 UTC
Looks likely that 50% of kids born today will live to 100...

Yes, but there's fewer of them!

How on earth do you determine what the minimum necessary to survive on is? It seems like we'd need an awful lot more social housing than we currently have, for starters.

Reply

andrewducker October 6 2009, 10:34:20 UTC
How on earth do you determine what the minimum necessary to survive on is?

http://www.jrf.org.uk/work/workarea/minimum-income-standards

Reply

communicator October 6 2009, 09:42:52 UTC
I don't really mind, I just think you get more cynical and unenthusiastic about work as you get older.

Reply

andrewducker October 6 2009, 09:49:41 UTC
I don't know that many people who aren't cynical and unenthusiastic about work :->

I mean, _some_ - I can be enthusiastic intermittently, but a lot of people seem to be in jobs that veritably encourage cynicism and low morale.

Reply


Leave a comment

Up