'Retired people could work for pensions'

Yes, absent, we did work for our pensions, but nowadays that's not a 'given'. Pension credits mean that everyone can get a guaranteed minimum income, irrespective of their national insurance contributions.

To help save the economy, the Government
will announce next month that the Immigration
Department will start deporting senior citizens
(instead of illegals) in order to lower Social
Security and N.H.S. costs.

Older people are easier to catch and will
not remember how to get back home.

They can deport me to the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel!

I nursed my husband until he died 9 months ago.
Before that he was disabled for 15 years. He used to call me his walking stick, when doctors said "I see you're not using a stick yet".
This time last year he was still walking. Then he needed two wheelchairs, one inside the house and one outside. I used to transfer mhim myself, no help, until it was impossible as he could not move his feet to help himself.
It was only in the last 3 weeks of his life in January that we had help, when it was taking me an hour to change his pads after he had messed himself yet again.
I am sorry, but I am not doing that for any strangers.
We had Hospice at Home to look after him 4 times a day. They were wonderful, and he always thanked them. That left me free to lie down next to him, hold his hands, talk to him, listen to music with him. I'm not going to volunteer to do that for anyone else either. Who do these patronising people think they are?
Both my patents died in 2006 as well as my aunt. I looked after them a lot, too, while having a full time job and a disabled husband.
The carers that looked after my husband were on minimum wage. That's only slightly better than volunteering.
Who does this * think runs all the charity work?

I hope Ageuk tells him what they think of him.

jendurham you obviously were there for your husband in during those terrible last months. Respect and ((((((hugs))))))

Leafing through yesterday's Daily Telegraph over this morning's breakfast, I read an article, entitled Why benefits for the elderly mean a raw deal for the young, that put this suggestion about "compulsory voluntary work" hand in hand with comments about how pensioners are a "negative burden on the state" (nothing new there).

"At a hearing in the House of Lords, experts [area of expertise not specified] from Imperial College London and the Bank of England [they got everything right didn't they?] said that politicians were making 'winners' of older people and 'losers' of younger people.

They went on to say:
"Current young people will be contributors to the public purse whereas older generations have not [been].

[So what happened to all those years of income tax, which I'm still paying, and NI contributions then?]

Professor James Sefton went on to suggest that while young people do not yet feel outrage, they soon, rightly, will. He claims that these young people are getting a "raw deal" and seems to be making a rallying cry for intergenerational war. (Haven't we heard that one before a few times this year?) Does it not occur to him that these same young people have parents and grandparents, who in many cases offer constant support and assistance?

I do wish that they wold stop this nonsense. I can't help feeling it's a way of distracting everyone from real and worrying issues – such as the economy and the bank of England's failure in dealing with the double dip recession.

I heard on the radio yesterday that this man is on a pension of £163,000 a year. Plus all the extras he gets for sitting on various committees etc.

absent it is patent nonsense to say that people are net contributors or net takers from the state, purely categorised by age.
Surely it's dependent on their work and contributions history, medical history (use of NHS), whether they have lived in subsidised housing and so forth. Do we think Sir Mick Jagger is not a net contributor (assuming he doesn't practice tax avoidance?)
I think we are going down a very dangerous road here.
The last thirty years has delivered a plethora of anti-discrimination legislation, and yet we are now seeing this semi-official demonization of various groups in society - the working classes and now elderly people.

What a stupid idiot!! Loads of people past the usual retirement age still work. I do at 68 years old and there are several others where I work who are even older. We are known as the most reliable, less likely to take time off for sickness and work diligently. My company treats us all equally from the youngest to the oldest. As someone has already remarked most charity shops are run by retired people. My son's MIL still looks out for her 90 year old mother. Some retirees are also looking after very old parents or ill spouses, not to mention that they may have medical issues too. We have done 'our bit' now it's time for us to relax and do our own thing for our remaining years.

janeains That's rather why I wondered what sort of "expert" Professor James Sefton is as surely even an economist wouldn't promulgate such a simplistic view.

Jendurham you are fantastic! I think you should copy your post, as is, to the Daily Telegraph.

Perhaps it's down to all these adverts and travel articles featuring fit, happy, smiley oldies runny across sunny beaches beause they supposedly now have all the time in the world and loads of dosh. Brainwashing does work, ask Tesco!

Well don't they think that those of us caring for our grandchildren and elderly parents, as well as sick or dependent partners aren't doing community work what a twat.

As usual, it has been clarified that he didn't say any such thing. He has issued a statement saying that what he actually said was that retired people who want to work and have a lot to offer should be encouraged and helped to do so.

stating the obvious then

Jendurham, If anyone deserves a rest you do

Perhaps the idea is to kill us all off with hard work then we won't cost so much

Jodi I love that suggestion! jendurham I agree with the others who've posted that your story should have a wider audience . Politicians need to be forced to see what people really do and how they really live! And Professor James Sefton www3.imperial.ac.uk/people/j.sefton 'James Sefton works both in academia and industry; he is a Professor of Economics at Imperial, and a Senior Quantitative Analyst at UBS Investment Bank.' So he's not on the breadline either!

merlot!

when where & when did he issue his clarification?

It still attributes this statement to him on the BBC website:
<<"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?">>
i have searched the BBC website and that's the most recent item.

It was read out live by Philip Schofield on This Morning earlier today. He phoned in himself.

Apparently, a think tank type of meeting was held to explore the real problem of pension and income provision for retired people, and the comments attributed to him were made by others but he had read them out for discussion.

So that's all right then.

Thanks when

No possibility of this piece of nonsense becoming a reality - there would be a need for a whole raft of workers to assess who was/wasn't fit to do this "voluntary" work and then an appeals procedure - cost would be more than the idea is worth. A reflection of the whole cumbersome system relating to who should receive disabilty benefits.

It's dead in the water anyway because the political parties know very well who it is comes out (or, in my case, stays in) to vote.

True, but it's all part of the drip drip divisive rhetoric against older people. Divide and rule. An old tactic, but used all the time.