What Do We Do With The Old?

But all of you are missing the point. Of course wanderlust has been ripped off, of course Rebel should be able to sleep at night knowing his nest egg is safe with the financial sector.....but for the sake of the next generations things have to change.

Whether you like it or not, the current generation of 35-100 year olds haven't saved enough so the government has had to increase the retirement age. And will probably keep doing so.

If we suddenly got rid of everyone over 60 that would mean less benefits being paid out by the government, less old goats in jobs, and no old smelly tramps sitting on park benches when I walk my dog.

The government could start spending again, there would be more jobs for the young, and I could walk the dog without being asked to show my "fine tits".

Some of you should stop being selfish and look at the bigger picture.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Some of you should stop being selfish and look at the bigger picture.

The big picture is that people of 60 and over still have plenty to contribute. Most retired Grandparents end up being child minders for their siblings.

Old age is like a plane flying through a storm. Once you are aboard there is nothing you can do.

Reebok Trotter wrote:

The big picture is that people of 60 and over still have plenty to contribute. Most retired Grandparents end up being child minders for their siblings.

Old age is like a plane flying through a storm. Once you are aboard there is nothing you can do.

You could jump out of the plane.

And before anyone acuses me of ageism, on my 60th birthday I fully intend to top myself. I'm not selfish.

This kid likes the old.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/25/instant-karma-russian-kid-knocks-mans-hat-off-fail_n_2014727.html

Magoo, are you the Editor of the Huffington Post ?

YES/NO

I reckon Magoo has an AOL email address. I always get links to the Huffington Post when I sign out from mine.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Reebok Trotter wrote:

The big picture is that people of 60 and over still have plenty to contribute. Most retired Grandparents end up being child minders for their siblings.

Old age is like a plane flying through a storm. Once you are aboard there is nothing you can do.

You could jump out of the plane.

And before anyone acuses me of ageism, on my 60th birthday I fully intend to top myself. I'm not selfish.

Nat, I'm with RT on this one. I don't think 60 is generally regarded as particularly old these days.

wanderlust wrote:Pensions are a concern for me. I want to retire. When I started my working life I had a deal with the Government. I would pay a whacking great proportion of my income to the Government in return for which they agreed to give me a state pension at the age of 65 and provide healthcare services in my old age.

Last year I got a letter saying they've renaged on the deal. Now, apparently, I can't get that pension until I'm 66 and the healthcare services I've paid for are being whittled away.

I've kept my end of the deal and paid an estimated £450k into the system over my working life.

How can they get away with changing the terms of the deal at this late stage? No wonder people are having to work longer, sell off their assets to survive and cope with a considerably reduced standard of living in a society where elderly people are no longer respected for the contribution they've made to create society in the first place.

Next thing will be young people blaming old people for creating young people. I can see it now ... "my life is shit so I blame my parents generation for breeding."

the problem is that the money that has been spent on healthcare has lead to people living longer.


in addition, the government just spent your money as you put it in, there's no pot.

Natasha Whittam wrote:

Reebok_Rebel wrote:

also, im pretty sure care home employment counts for a lot of jobs, would you be happy for them to not have a job? im sure the impact that would have on the economy would be equally as bad as these old people.

If everyone over 60 was removed from society the UK would be booming again within 3 months.

You are a twat. The more knowledgeable are a precious asset.

Angry Dad wrote:
You are a twat. The more knowledgeable are a precious asset.

I have the ability to make decisions without letting my heart rule my head. If I ruled the country it would be a prosperous place.

From previous threads Natasha has said that children at a certain age should be culled and now the elderley, and yet Natasha claims she will make the country properous - how when there is no future, as they will have been killed off, no present as they elderly with the knowledge will be killed off and the current workers will struggle due to lack of knowledge!!!



So , the question is, how can you, Natahsa, make the country prosperous and have a future?

I didn't say I would kill all the young, just everyone aged 14-21.

That would take the pressure off the jobs market as there wouldn't be millions of young people going for a handful of jobs. Getting rid of the over 60's would save a bundle in benefit payments AND open the door to a slurry of jobs the old goats have been hanging onto.

Everyone knows it makes sense, but no one is prepared to go for it.

Natasha Whittam wrote:I didn't say I would kill all the young, just everyone aged 14-21.

That would take the pressure off the jobs market as there wouldn't be millions of young people going for a handful of jobs. Getting rid of the over 60's would save a bundle in benefit payments AND open the door to a slurry of jobs the old goats have been hanging onto.

Everyone knows it makes sense, but no one is prepared to go for it.

But if everyone is killed between 14 and 21 who is going to be the future workforce and who is going to pass on the skills and knowledge?

bwfc71 wrote:



But if everyone is killed between 14 and 21 who is going to be the future workforce and who is going to pass on the skills and knowledge?

There are more than enough people in their 30's, 40's & 50's to pass on the knowledge. I'm also full of knowledge.

The future workforce are the under 14s. Right now we don't need anymore workers.

You know it makes sense.

But you are going to have a skills/workforce gap of at least 7 years which would be about 18% of the workforce. Skills shortage, as what we have in teh UK now as skills are not passed on to younger people. How many Poles do we neeed in the UK to realise we have a skills shortage???? What you are suggesting, with regards to skills, is what took place during teh 1980's and it didn't work then. And if that has happened in a 20 year period, what you are suggesting would be much bigger and longer than that!



That gap which you will have created would actually mean a decrease in the GDP and the country would be in worse state than now. Just think how much taxation will not be collected, how much will have to be spent in increasing skills base. Its a case of more spend and less save!

Natasha Whittam wrote:

bwfc71 wrote:



But if everyone is killed between 14 and 21 who is going to be the future workforce and who is going to pass on the skills and knowledge?

There are more than enough people in their 30's, 40's & 50's to pass on the knowledge. I'm also full of knowledge.

The future workforce are the under 14s. Right now we don't need anymore workers.

You know it makes sense.

would you include Jews and gypsies?

Natasha, I don't normally rise to your baiting, especially as being over 60, I obviously have no valid input. (even though I am working and contributing to the country's economy. A few comments: no goernment has ever taken and invested money they take off people for their pensions, it has always been put straight into a pot, and spent on whatever the political flavour of the month was. Yet here they are, telling the rest of us to do what they never have, and they will penalise us for wasting our money, and not being able to collect on what we invested with them.

Secondly, you would be surprised at how many over 60's are in key positions within industry, government, etc, that really do make a difference.

Its because of the governments cock-ups over the years that the older generation have to keep working to survive, and keeping the youngsters out of work. What is your solution for this, even though the older generation are contibuting the same if not more, than the youngsters. ?

All govenments have been aware of the changes that have been accelerating over the past few years, but instead of budgeting, they have gone for the easy option, and votes, and have blown the countries assets (e.g. North Sea oil), hoping that an influx of (cheaper) foreign workers will save them. With the way the last government altered, and damaged, the national infrastructure, without the nation's agreement, we need a complete revision of our national policies towards just about everything, including old age. Why pick on the old if they are ill?. Sick children will probably cost more than the old, and may never work. Why not finish them off as well ? It was said many years ago that a measure of how civilised, and caring a people are, is how they look after their sick and aged. In your world life is so cheap we would be no better than the poorest, least caring countries around the world. Have a look at them, and know that its unlikely you will survive into old age, because of poor helath, murder, starvat;ion, disease, etc, and nobody giving a shit. We don't need to go down this road, just to save a few quid.

One last thing. Consider yourself lucky you can afford a dog, It probably costs more for its upkeep than some old people have to survive on, and what does yopur pet put into society ?