If you are under fifty and working, make sure the retired take their share of shouldering the economic problems this country has.
There's an attitude around that once you are of retirement age the rest of the world owes you a good time as though it's your right and you've earnt it.
This may be true for some but certainly not all.
In some sections of society, people are dying at an average age of 71 whilst in others the age is 88.
Many of the older people have accrued considerable amounts of money without trying. When they were young they could have bought property very cheaply.
I bought 4 Beech Bank in 1960 for £ 1400. As a Ph.D. my starting salary at Glaxo was £900 per year. House price only one and a half times my salary. I sold the house for £1800 in 1963.
The money financed a trip to America where I chose to work for Shell in California, having toured the States for three months checking out the jobs available.
In 1970 I returned to Ulverston with £10,000 and bought The Falls, a farm with lots of outbuildings, for £5,500 plus £1,500 for ten acres of land. This sold for £160,000 in 1983.
Had I chosen to continue investment in a similar way I would be worth tens of millions now.
I didn't!
No doubt I am on the upper end of earning ability but many others of my age, 74, will have had similar opportunities.
I am shocked that the political parties are holding back from working together to come up with a fair scheme for older and younger people. There is a shortfall of 6 billion pounds per year for funding care for an increasingly aging population. We should all be working together to support a fair proposal. We need to accept that the older generations need to contribute substantially to their last years.
Joan Bakewell was pointing out on Andrew Marr's Sunday morning show that the Telegraph have written a very fair appraisal of the problem. MPs must stop using us as a political football, says Joan Bakewell. A rational debate about care is urgently needed.
So why do all the parties shrink from working together to agree a fair scheme?
Is it not that they are afraid of upsetting the older voters who whinge about needing money. Instead the issue is being made into the political football mentioned above.
With people living longer and longer, the retired represent an increasing proportion of the population.
Their votes are important to the politicians.
Could it be that because of votes, they are very scared of upsetting them. If so they would be willing to allow the working population to pay an increasing proportion of money to finance the easygoing lives of the elderly.
Another side of this argument is the unwillingness of the government to allow us to die when life becomes intolerable. Something that all too often happens in many care homes with those suffering from alzheimer's disease. Terry Pratchet made a plea for assisted suicide, something I firmly support as I become concerned about life as I grow old.
If the government faced up making difficult decisions, about these two issues then I would be a lot happier, believing I was not going to be an unfair burden on those coping with two jobs, two children and enormous mortgage and an uncertain future: a complete contrast to my own life. Furthermore I could stop being made to experience a living death at great cost to the public.
Make sure the person you vote for in coming elections is willing to make a stand and be fairer in the way they tax the working population particularly the young that are struggling to buy a roof over their heads.
9 comments:
To a large extent I have to agree with you. Of course, not all the over seventies have had your opportunities. Some had to get their education while working (and with low pay scales) without getting on a pension ladder until well into their working life. A lot of older women have no private pension, or a very low one due to family commitments, lack of opportunity or maybe working for years doing unpaid work (eg for charity, church or other institutions). So too many working men are now on low pensions. Pension credits make that statement obvious.
But, there are many pensioners who are far better off than the average worker. I know quite a few single people on low pay who have poor pensions to look forward to. No 'credits' to boost their pay and yet they help bear the cost of pensioner benefits. (free TV, free bus travel, winter payments, etc that even rich pensioners draw!) and are they to be burdened with care of the elderly too? These working people may well have to work up to 68 (or 70?) before they draw a pension and that will hardly be enough to live on. Will they still be helping to clear the present debt the country is in when they become pensioners themselves?
Something has to give! But the burden should not fall on those who are only just making ends meet with a small wage or salary.
However, if there is to be a 'death tax' then those who spend a huge chunk of the life looking after an elderly person should surely be given some consideration. Such a son or daughter (or other relative) could easily lose their home after taxes are paid. These things have to be considered.
With reference to mercy killing and assisted suicide. I needed time to think about it.
It is a heartrending experience to be with someone, especially a loved on, in terrible unrelieved pain, knowing that painkillers will only give temporary help before the beast tears into the loved one’s body again, indeed if it ever leaves it.
I used to visit nursing homes. One lady I saw every week eventually was in constant pain, even though given the strongest relief allowed. Her daughter was in distress too and stayed constantly by her mother’s side. I asked the nurse if more could be done for the sick woman. She told me that the daughter should have stopped feeding her and giving her drink, as it only delayed her mother’s death. I ask the question ‘why can’t a higher dose of drug relief be given, even at the risk of death?' The poor soul was dying. Denying food and drink would eventually kill her but, apparently, that is okay. Giving higher doses of relief as soon as needed to combat pain might not prolong life as much as withdrawing the necessities of life, but surely it is kinder.
For the last year of her life, my mother had depression with paranoia and dementia. Her life was a living hell. Could I have killed her? No, I could only suffer with her. But I would rather let her die naturally of an infection than have her life prolonged with antibiotics.
I have seen loved ones die of cancer. When the time comes when nothing more can be done, wouldn’t it be kinder to offer a simple painless passing at a time of the patient’s choosing?
Likewise with Alzheimer’s. Shouldn’t the patient be given a choice, when still of sound mind, to be allowed to die once he or she is aware of nothing but pain of mind and body? Some people stay ‘with the fairies’ and seem happy enough but that is not so for everyone.
I would not want to be stuck in a chair day after day in a geriatric room, spoon-fed, nappies changed like a baby — that is, when the assistant has the time, maybe sore and in pain, unable to choke up food when it got stuck, unable to talk, barely able to move and with no hope of ever doing so. No control over what is played on the disk player, radio or TV. Maybe visitors coming and seeing pity in their eyes and sorrow at being helpless.
Assisted suicide? It needs thorough discussion. The risk of people being pressurised is a strong possibility not easily dismissed.
Thanks for two very thoughtful contributions.
I too need to give your responses some time to sort out my thinking.
Today my focus is on one ton of concrete to mix and lay!
don`t lay anything today as it will freeze tonight and crack
Many thanks for the concreting advice.
It's appreciated and a point I ignored.
Having looked at the next week's forecast the temps are low all week.
I'm planning to press ahead and add some insulation on top once laid.
I struggle to find the appropriate words to respond to you Gladys, I recognise the depth of feeling that you express and the humble manner in which you do so. I recognise the life experience in your words.
I do not offer anything other than keep doing what you are doing. You are an admirable Lady.
Dr D's 'concrete response' to your thoughts is a gross insult to your intellect.
But will he ever learn to live with others?
Someone trying to be divisive?
Assisted suicide is something I too am grappling with.
My concern is for those that are trapped in a situation of a living hell.
Our society is bad at facing up to unpleasant truths and taking action.
We seem to always want to look the other way.
We get close to examining this dilemma when we have pets that are clearly suffering.
As I approach death and am aware of it approaching, I try to sort out what actions to take now.
For me, the problem is that I want to continue 'battling with life' as long as I can think clearly.
What happens as I approach a time when I can't do this? When I can't think clearly, I won't have the ability to bring the living to an end. Somehow I have to put in place a procedure that will end my life before this happens.
Furthermore it has to happen without the participation of those close to me.
The only solution that comes to mind is to place myself each day in a situation that I will die unless I take preventative action. Then when I am no longer capable of stopping it happening, I will die.
Sounds a bit far-fetched!
You may well be battling for another twenty years, Geoff. Lots more potting to do. Perhaps by that time you will have worked out a solution to your problem — or more likely, you'll no longer care.
It seems to me that to take someone's life with clear intent, when they are no longer able to think clearly, is murder. That is, unless their life has become a living hell of pain, where the need for increasing relief inevitably brings about an earlier death.
If I had visited my brother in the USA when he was for a large part of the time in agony, having bravely fought cancer for years, had a number of operations that went wrong, when carelessness of staff allowed his wounds to get diseased with more cutting needed, and to be encouraged to eat when it only made him painfully vomit, I think I would have done anything he would have asked of me. But I know, he would not have put such a responsibility on my shoulders.
Screaming in pain was his lot each time his wound was dressed. When, after some months, it was realised his twelve hour op had not ridded him of cancer, then palliative care was finally introduced. But pain was ever waiting in his waking hours. No man or beast should have had to suffer as he did.
That too went for my dad, although at the end of his life he was given a strong dose that his weakened body could not recover from. No doubt it was the same for my sisters. They too had had their months of suffering. When nothing more can be done, a patient in agony for most of the time has the right to say enough is enough.
If a patient cannot speak, then a nod (and a plea with the eyes?) to a question asked (witnessed by several professionals - medical and legal) should be enough.
That is my view.
Post a Comment