The economy.....a reality check

[????]

A mini housing boomlet does not a recovery make; despite the 'austerity' we are not even forecast to balance the books for 4 more years.....4 more years in which the national debt continues to rise; we have a series of off book liabilities which ' don,t count' but will cripple govt spending over the next 30 years or so - the state pension; public sector pension liabilities; and PFI. These, particularly the pensions, will grow massively as longer lives combined with baby boomers retiring rack these up monumentally; if or when interest rates go up this will get worse, as our govt debt incurs more interest - it's horrific at the moment even with the UK,s cost of borrowing being historically cheap. western economies nearly all face this demographic and fiscal timebomb= massive inflation or a massive reduction in what the state will be able to afford to do. Retirement age to 75? the NHS means tested? Euthanasia? The 20th century model of the western welfare state is dying my friends......be prepared

[Loz]

As far as pensions were concerned, when they were first established, the average male lifespan was 67 years, meaning an average claim period of two years for men. The current life expectancy is 82.5 years for females and 78.5 for males. Something had to give.

[david_carnell]

I think increasing the retirement age is a must. It could possibly be graded - those over 40 now have to work to 70. Those under 40 to 75. I agree that the formula for state pensions that was concocted in 1945 is no longer viable and needs reforming. With life expectancy rising we need an expectation that people will work for longer. The question though, is finding suitable employment for them. You might live longer but the human body still has frailties in the 60s and 70s that make it unsuitable for certain occupations.

Means testing the NHS would be a failure. Those rich enough are already leaving the system for private healthcare for any non-emergency care. The cost of assessing income would be so tortuous and expensive it would probably wipe out any savings.

Encouraging young, skilled migrants with job offers to come and pay taxes would be a start.

Incentives for increasing the birth rate possibly.

Or a full scale admission that the current economic model is doomed to failure. Our rapacious consumerism and desire for constant growth can no longer be sustained.

[Otta]

"You might live longer but the human body still has frailties in the 60s and 70s that make it unsuitable for certain occupations"

This!

I have a friend who is a female paramedic standing at about 5ft,2. She will not have the physical strength to haul people off the floor when she's pushing 70.

That's just one example among many.

[david_carnell]

Indeed, and there just isn't always an easy solution of back-office paper shuffling to fall back on. Some professions and trades are well suited to employing those in their 60s and 70s (law for example) but other much less so. If you're going to extend the pension age, and I'm relatively happy with the arguments to do so, you need to provide support for those it affects.

[LadyNorwood]

D_C said "Those rich enough are already leaving the system for private healthcare for any non-emergency care." They're not actually leaving the system, they're still contributing to the system and paying for private healthcare which, in an ideal world, leaves the system with the same resources but fewer drains on it..... But, sadly, this isn't an ideal world and the system continues to be at breaking point...

[david_carnell]

LadyNorwood Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> D_C said "Those rich enough are already leaving

> the system for private healthcare for any

> non-emergency care." They're not actually leaving

> the system, they're still contributing to the

> system and paying for private healthcare which, in

> an ideal world, leaves the system with the same

> resources but fewer drains on it..... But, sadly,

> this isn't an ideal world and the system continues

> to be at breaking point...

Look, I don't want to be pedantic and nor do I want this to degenerate into a debate on public v private health BUT your statement is too simplistic. They are leaving a system if they are only choosing to use it when there are no other options available (ie. emergency care) that they can pay for to receive a supposedly superior service.

Where do you think the doctors and nurses come from for those hospitals? Who paid to train them? What could they be doing if they weren't operating on deep-pocketed CEOs? Private health uses up just as many resources as it frees.

[El Pibe]

In my experience private health care is a way to speed up the torpid referral system before inevitably being treated in the doctor's NHS practice anyway. In other words you enrich a bunch of shareholders to jump the NHS queue but still use up its precious resources.

What a cad!!!

[LadyNorwood]

Most of the nurses I've ever come across in private hospitals are from abroad (Australian, New Zealand, Philippines, Ireland) - the majority of consultants I've seen do both NHS and private work (one NHS consultant recommended I go to see someone privately, when I asked who, he said 'well, me of course')... I did say 'in an ideal world' so please don't jump down my throat or I'll have to go and see a ENT consultant...

[KalamityKel]

david_carnell Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> Incentives for increasing the birth rate

> possibly.

>

I'm not quite sure I understand where this relates to supporting your ideas DC. How does this help anything?

If you think it would obviously help - is there such an incentive, for whatever reason, that wouldn't result in costing more money that probably wouldn't be recooped or if it did in any beneficial way?

[El Pibe]

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

[LondonMix]

You need a larger young working population to support a growing elderly non-working population.

Also, LadyNorwood is right.

KalamityKel Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> david_carnell Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> >

> > Incentives for increasing the birth rate

> > possibly.

> >

>

> I'm not quite sure I understand where this relates

> to supporting your ideas DC. How does this help

> anything?

>

> If you think it would obviously help - is there

> such an incentive, for whatever reason, that

> wouldn't result in costing more money that

> probably wouldn't be recooped or if it did in any

> beneficial way?