| France 17:02 - Mar 24 with 5658 views | cressi |
Good on them Macron putting pension up from 62 to 64.
In UK already 66 and going up wish we would protest in this country with so much passion especially against such a slime ball government . |  | | |  |
| France on 12:49 - Mar 25 with 1495 views | SuperKieranMcKenna |
| France on 07:52 - Mar 25 by Churchman |
It’s hard to do a proper comparison, but U.K. spends less on State Pension that most European countries whichever measure is used. It also has the highest percentage of pensioners in poverty. So if the money is there for the Germans, Spanish, Dutch etc, why isn’t it available here?
https://www.trustnet.com/news/13340605/uk-state-pension-how-does-it-compare-to-o
I’ve no doubt that insect JRM would be wholeheartedly behind the Spartan method of when people are too old to contribute, take them out to a nice cold hillside one night and let Mother Nature take its course. |
France has a significant mot higher debt to GDP ratio than the UK so technically they can’t afford it!
Truss demonstrated nicely what happens in the sovereign bond markets with reckless unfunded borrowing. Unlike the state purchase of EDF where they purchased billions of assets, a pensioner isn’t going to give you much return on capital.
That said I don’t want to see pensioners in poverty as I have that in my family. I just think loading debt on to youngsters so that people can retire at 62 in France is unfair and unsustainable.
Ultimately I can’t see many of my age having paid their massive mortgages off by early 60s anyway, so the whole state pension age feels irrelevant to me as I’ll still be working! | | | |
| France on 12:58 - Mar 25 with 1477 views | Ryorry |
| France on 12:49 - Mar 25 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
France has a significant mot higher debt to GDP ratio than the UK so technically they can’t afford it!
Truss demonstrated nicely what happens in the sovereign bond markets with reckless unfunded borrowing. Unlike the state purchase of EDF where they purchased billions of assets, a pensioner isn’t going to give you much return on capital.
That said I don’t want to see pensioners in poverty as I have that in my family. I just think loading debt on to youngsters so that people can retire at 62 in France is unfair and unsustainable.
Ultimately I can’t see many of my age having paid their massive mortgages off by early 60s anyway, so the whole state pension age feels irrelevant to me as I’ll still be working! |
Heard a French journalist saying last night that earlier retirement age in France is necessary because employers are incredibly reluctant to take on anyone age 50 or over, and if you're 60 or over & jobhunting, forget it, you'll never get another one. |  |
| |
| France on 14:19 - Mar 25 with 1387 views | Churchman |
| France on 12:58 - Mar 25 by Ryorry |
Heard a French journalist saying last night that earlier retirement age in France is necessary because employers are incredibly reluctant to take on anyone age 50 or over, and if you're 60 or over & jobhunting, forget it, you'll never get another one. |
Good point. The older you get the harder it is to get work. Some occupations it’s not viable to work beyond a certain age anyway. Examples? Roofers. Emergency services personnel. People in the armed forces.
If we are spending less than say Germany and Spain on pensions, why? Because the government is not interested in doing so.
Most people pay in all their working lives in tax and NI and this govt now want them to work until they drop. It wangs on about can’t afford it yet will spend billions on what they want to such as PPE contracts and support for mates. They can afford it alright.
The other aspect is that if you pay people a liveable pension, every penny goes back into the economy. If you give JRM and the multi millionaires fat tax breaks etc, how much goes back into the economy? None of it. They’ve already got their mansions and stuff so the additional money tends to get tucked away where the taxman can’t get it - Cayman Islands etc, not into the economy.
And let’s not forget who’s responsible for this mess. They are. |  | | |
| France on 14:33 - Mar 25 with 1370 views | giant_stow |
| France on 12:49 - Mar 25 by SuperKieranMcKenna |
France has a significant mot higher debt to GDP ratio than the UK so technically they can’t afford it!
Truss demonstrated nicely what happens in the sovereign bond markets with reckless unfunded borrowing. Unlike the state purchase of EDF where they purchased billions of assets, a pensioner isn’t going to give you much return on capital.
That said I don’t want to see pensioners in poverty as I have that in my family. I just think loading debt on to youngsters so that people can retire at 62 in France is unfair and unsustainable.
Ultimately I can’t see many of my age having paid their massive mortgages off by early 60s anyway, so the whole state pension age feels irrelevant to me as I’ll still be working! |
I guess the French must pay loads more into their state pensions, than we do, to get such a generous payout.
As far as this country goes and as you mention, I think there is the issue of generation fairness. There's something weird and vaguely unfair seeing Nurses having to fight hard to get a 5% increase, while pensions were upped by 10-11% due to the triple lock. We all know that's always been a Tory sweetener to the people most likely to vote for them, but I'm not sure what Labour could do either to even things up generationally. Well, up taxes considerably, but who's going to vote for that, bar the labour core vote? Bit of a bind i reckon. |  |
| |
| France on 16:02 - Mar 25 with 1300 views | Nutkins_Return |
| France on 09:11 - Mar 25 by Lord_Lucan |
66 currently, 67 for me and 68 if you are younger than 46 right now.
I would guess if you are under 46 right now you will have a private pension that your employers have to contribute to - I have only had a paid job for three years of my life and it wasn't always the thing to have a company pension and I never started one when I left the job - I have no private pension. |
The definitive answer. Cheers.
I think a lot of people under 46 have very modest pensions and contributions. 5% auto enrollment these days which will help although a lot of people opt out or reduce.
I really can't imagine working until 68. I'm trying to catch up on pension now as I didn't start anything until 30 which is too late nowadays really so paying in more than the standard. Can imagine there will be a lot of stress around this for a lot of people in future. | |
| |
| France on 08:44 - Mar 26 with 1184 views | Lord_Lucan |
| France on 11:16 - Mar 25 by HARRY10 |
"but as a life long smoker and drinker I have paid more tax than most on this bloody forum"
As the other half works as a cardiac technician I get to hear a lot about this, and have had to listen as she explains the flaws in the myth about what smokers pay. Yes the tax is high. but goes nowhere near covering the treatment needed.
Gone are the days when you smoked 60 a day and pegged out before, or shortly after, retirement. Now it is costly treatment, long stays in hospital and the certainty that most will need long term care.
If the government saw a net plus in tax revenue from smoking it would not do so much to discourage it. |
That's interesting.
What figures are your other half basing her economic findings on? |  |
| |
| France on 09:12 - Mar 26 with 1143 views | Lord_Lucan |
Yes, I found similar from Gov sources
Revenue 10.27 billion
Cost 2.6 billion | |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| France on 09:34 - Mar 26 with 1137 views | LegendofthePhoenix |
| France on 09:12 - Mar 26 by Lord_Lucan |
Yes, I found similar from Gov sources
Revenue 10.27 billion
Cost 2.6 billion |
The cost of £2.6Bn is based on 2015 data, whereas the tax raised is a 22-23 figure. it would be interesting to see an update on the costs for 22/23 to get comparative data. I would expect that the costs have doubled in the 8 years since that data was collected, as NHS costs have skyrocketed. Nonetheless, a purely economic analysis is going to show that smoking is a net benefit to the economy. So why not encourage more people to smoke?
Obviously there are other "costs" not considered in the cost of treating disease in the NHS, including deterioration of quality of life for smokers and those who have to inhale their second hand smoke. It's so much more pleasant now going to a pub, restaurant or other public place and to having to inhale others' smoke. |  |
| |
| France on 09:43 - Mar 26 with 1129 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| France on 09:12 - Mar 26 by Lord_Lucan |
Yes, I found similar from Gov sources
Revenue 10.27 billion
Cost 2.6 billion |
Quite so your Lordship. And there's the dilemma.
At a very simple level if we all stopped drinking and smoking we could save the NHS the best part of £6b per year BUT we would cost the country at least £23b. I appreciate it is more nuanced than that but savings in any additional social care costs are unlikely it seems to me to give us a net saving. In addition there is the cost to the police for alcohol related crime but I find it equally difficult to believe that eradicating this by our all going tee-total would be a cost effective approach (in purely monetary terms) for the nation.
So whilst individual smoker/drinkers don't pay sufficient tax to cover the cost of some of the more extreme treatments that they may later in life require (we don't all pay for our own iron lung) not all smoker/drinkers will need/receive such treatment and, as a collective, we contribute more than enough to cover the current costs.
So governments HAVE monetised tobacco and alcohol sales to the extent that they consitute a net "profit" to the nation and the question becomes, if we should all give up smoking and drinking and save the NHS £6b per year, where do we make the other £17b worth of annual cuts? (Could start with doing away with the "stop smoking"/"curb your drinking" adverisement costs I guess - though again purely on buedgetary terms they perhaps should do this now) |  |
| |
| France on 10:31 - Mar 26 with 1102 views | Lord_Lucan |
| France on 09:34 - Mar 26 by LegendofthePhoenix |
The cost of £2.6Bn is based on 2015 data, whereas the tax raised is a 22-23 figure. it would be interesting to see an update on the costs for 22/23 to get comparative data. I would expect that the costs have doubled in the 8 years since that data was collected, as NHS costs have skyrocketed. Nonetheless, a purely economic analysis is going to show that smoking is a net benefit to the economy. So why not encourage more people to smoke?
Obviously there are other "costs" not considered in the cost of treating disease in the NHS, including deterioration of quality of life for smokers and those who have to inhale their second hand smoke. It's so much more pleasant now going to a pub, restaurant or other public place and to having to inhale others' smoke. |
I agree about the pub thing, when my daughter used to pop up for a pint with me before the smoking ban her eyes would be streaming and when she got home her clothes stank. Even if I'm in a country where they tolerate smoking in a bar I will go outside.
I was in Johannesburg last week and there was a smoking lounge in the airport (air side), I went in for a fag and it was blooming horrible.
I do find it a bit much though when you get moaned at people for smoking when you are sat outside in a beer garden. | |
| |
| France on 10:35 - Mar 26 with 1089 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| France on 10:31 - Mar 26 by Lord_Lucan |
I agree about the pub thing, when my daughter used to pop up for a pint with me before the smoking ban her eyes would be streaming and when she got home her clothes stank. Even if I'm in a country where they tolerate smoking in a bar I will go outside.
I was in Johannesburg last week and there was a smoking lounge in the airport (air side), I went in for a fag and it was blooming horrible.
I do find it a bit much though when you get moaned at people for smoking when you are sat outside in a beer garden. |
Have to agree there on the smoking in bars/pubs etc. A much nicer place to be all round (although for some pubs the early days of the smoking ban exposed the problem they clearly had with their drains). | |
| |
| France on 10:41 - Mar 26 with 1075 views | bluelagos |
| France on 10:31 - Mar 26 by Lord_Lucan |
I agree about the pub thing, when my daughter used to pop up for a pint with me before the smoking ban her eyes would be streaming and when she got home her clothes stank. Even if I'm in a country where they tolerate smoking in a bar I will go outside.
I was in Johannesburg last week and there was a smoking lounge in the airport (air side), I went in for a fag and it was blooming horrible.
I do find it a bit much though when you get moaned at people for smoking when you are sat outside in a beer garden. |
Did you have your holiday? How was it? |  |
| |
| France on 10:44 - Mar 26 with 1066 views | Lord_Lucan |
| France on 10:35 - Mar 26 by You_Bloo_Right |
Have to agree there on the smoking in bars/pubs etc. A much nicer place to be all round (although for some pubs the early days of the smoking ban exposed the problem they clearly had with their drains). |
Yes it did, The Brickies smelt like a sewer, I had forgotten. Did the pubs get round this with a fix or have we all got used to inhaling sewage smells?
By the way - just before they banned smoking in Gatwick the smoking area was in the food court and it wasn't a separate room but a designated area. The overhead fan things were so powerful that they sucked up all the smoke and odour and you wouldn't have known people were smoking even if they were standing 2ft from you.
It is as plain as day that technically you can put in air conditioning like this in pubs should you want to - however I would actually be against this as it's still a bit bad if families are in there withy kids and people are smoking in front of them, you don't really want that do you. | |
| |
| France on 13:07 - Mar 26 with 965 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| France on 10:44 - Mar 26 by Lord_Lucan |
Yes it did, The Brickies smelt like a sewer, I had forgotten. Did the pubs get round this with a fix or have we all got used to inhaling sewage smells?
By the way - just before they banned smoking in Gatwick the smoking area was in the food court and it wasn't a separate room but a designated area. The overhead fan things were so powerful that they sucked up all the smoke and odour and you wouldn't have known people were smoking even if they were standing 2ft from you.
It is as plain as day that technically you can put in air conditioning like this in pubs should you want to - however I would actually be against this as it's still a bit bad if families are in there withy kids and people are smoking in front of them, you don't really want that do you. |
I seem to recall the Dove being a bit like that too. A heady mixture of poor drains from the gent's, sweat and real ale farts. Or was that just me? | |
| |
| France on 14:24 - Mar 26 with 929 views | HARRY10 |
That's from a very, very narrow range.
With health, it is very infrequently recorded as smoking with heart disease. Nor is sick pay, benefits factored in either.
Smokers do not die as before, but are kept alive with expensive treatment, care - short and long term..
Much as ith alcohol. Only the direct consequences are recorded. The cost to the NHS of pssheads in A&E does not show up in statistics, nor does the ambulance and police time involved. Nothing about the courts/prisons dealing with alcohol problems either.
Similarly, as with cocaine, which is fuelling a lot of the violence at football matches, and even racing.
Now I am not making a moral judgement on those using the above three. No condemnation either. However it is wrong to make a judgement on their use when it is based on quite erroneous figures.
With cocaine it is not really understood by the wider society just how prevalent, and accepted it now is. And the guesswork on the amount of usage will be low.
Too much if what is known comes from vested interests who see it worth theur soending momney on supposed research. | | | |
| France on 15:23 - Mar 26 with 912 views | You_Bloo_Right |
| France on 14:24 - Mar 26 by HARRY10 |
That's from a very, very narrow range.
With health, it is very infrequently recorded as smoking with heart disease. Nor is sick pay, benefits factored in either.
Smokers do not die as before, but are kept alive with expensive treatment, care - short and long term..
Much as ith alcohol. Only the direct consequences are recorded. The cost to the NHS of pssheads in A&E does not show up in statistics, nor does the ambulance and police time involved. Nothing about the courts/prisons dealing with alcohol problems either.
Similarly, as with cocaine, which is fuelling a lot of the violence at football matches, and even racing.
Now I am not making a moral judgement on those using the above three. No condemnation either. However it is wrong to make a judgement on their use when it is based on quite erroneous figures.
With cocaine it is not really understood by the wider society just how prevalent, and accepted it now is. And the guesswork on the amount of usage will be low.
Too much if what is known comes from vested interests who see it worth theur soending momney on supposed research. |
"A very, very narrow range".
Well the url I linked has it's own link to the below in order to explain how £2.6b was arrived at. And of course the NHS figures are for England only, and 2015, whereas the tax take figures are for the UK. Nevertheless I don't think we can just ignore the ratios simply because we think the NHS derived information is created by those with a vested interest.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-of-smoking-to-the-nhs-in-england
Smoking is bad for people but successive governments have a financial problem if they want us to all just stop. | |
| |
| France on 15:40 - Mar 26 with 903 views | Lord_Lucan |
| France on 15:23 - Mar 26 by You_Bloo_Right |
"A very, very narrow range".
Well the url I linked has it's own link to the below in order to explain how £2.6b was arrived at. And of course the NHS figures are for England only, and 2015, whereas the tax take figures are for the UK. Nevertheless I don't think we can just ignore the ratios simply because we think the NHS derived information is created by those with a vested interest.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/cost-of-smoking-to-the-nhs-in-england
Smoking is bad for people but successive governments have a financial problem if they want us to all just stop. |
Yes, I only replied in the first place because Harold tried to say that smokers are a nett loss whereas they most certainly aren't. The figures we gave have such a gulf that even with a few more variants it won't close that gap
Now then, we know smoking is bad for you and it is the governments job to protect its people so I can understand why they want people to stop even if it's not in their financial interest.
When I first heard the NZ approach I thought it bonkers but even though I still don't necessarily agree with it I don't think that it's as bonkers as I first thought.
If by 2050 there are no smokers or internal combustion engines then government will have to look at other ways to tax people.
So, as a smoking, borderline alcoholic with four registered combustion engine vehicles I am one of a collective group who are instrumental in keeping the income tax rate below 60% | |
| |
| France on 16:13 - Mar 26 with 867 views | DJR |
| France on 10:44 - Mar 26 by Lord_Lucan |
Yes it did, The Brickies smelt like a sewer, I had forgotten. Did the pubs get round this with a fix or have we all got used to inhaling sewage smells?
By the way - just before they banned smoking in Gatwick the smoking area was in the food court and it wasn't a separate room but a designated area. The overhead fan things were so powerful that they sucked up all the smoke and odour and you wouldn't have known people were smoking even if they were standing 2ft from you.
It is as plain as day that technically you can put in air conditioning like this in pubs should you want to - however I would actually be against this as it's still a bit bad if families are in there withy kids and people are smoking in front of them, you don't really want that do you. |
It used to be nice going into a pub just as it opened around noon because you could smell the beer, before the smoke took over as the day progressed.
Perhaps it was just because of the contrast, but I am not aware of that smell these days now that smoking has been banned. Maybe the odour of sweat etc has taken its place. |  | | |
| France on 16:14 - Mar 26 with 863 views | DJR |
| France on 15:40 - Mar 26 by Lord_Lucan |
Yes, I only replied in the first place because Harold tried to say that smokers are a nett loss whereas they most certainly aren't. The figures we gave have such a gulf that even with a few more variants it won't close that gap
Now then, we know smoking is bad for you and it is the governments job to protect its people so I can understand why they want people to stop even if it's not in their financial interest.
When I first heard the NZ approach I thought it bonkers but even though I still don't necessarily agree with it I don't think that it's as bonkers as I first thought.
If by 2050 there are no smokers or internal combustion engines then government will have to look at other ways to tax people.
So, as a smoking, borderline alcoholic with four registered combustion engine vehicles I am one of a collective group who are instrumental in keeping the income tax rate below 60% |
Well done you! Your contribution is most appreciated. [Post edited 26 Mar 2023 16:14]
| | | |
| France on 17:09 - Mar 26 with 840 views | Lord_Lucan |
| France on 16:14 - Mar 26 by DJR |
Well done you! Your contribution is most appreciated. [Post edited 26 Mar 2023 16:14]
|
Thanks DJR, I'm taking one for the team. | |
| |
| France on 18:06 - Mar 26 with 818 views | HARRY10 |
| France on 08:44 - Mar 26 by Lord_Lucan |
That's interesting.
What figures are your other half basing her economic findings on? |
Time allocated to patients with smoking related health problems. Only the main cause is measured.
No measure of patients who cannot work through smoking related illness, nor later care home costs.. Smokers take far longer (on averafe) to reciver feom an operation
A decade or so back on joined the good lady on a cardiac conference in Pargue. Me to enjoy the sights her to hear numerous worthy speakers. I wanted to see where the Good Sollder Sverj was set..
One of the evenings I tagged along to an open meeting, not part of the schedule, about how/why healthcare is funded. What came across was how subjective much of the results are.
A memorable one was from a Dutch chap as well as the cardiac stuff had an interest in 'brain stuff'. Pointing out the dangers of cycling helmets, almost unknown in Holland, whereas in Germany (next door) it is an obsession.
The overall take was how much damage alcohol and smoking causes to the body, and so health services. What further surprised was how the 'little lady' seemed unfazed by what I thought were earth shattering revelations.
I well remember being told about other areas that smoking harms. From diabetes to arthritis, to the 15 plus other cancers than lung cancer. Most not attributed to smoking.
"While the tobacco industry argue that what smokers pay in tax compensates for the cost to society, the excise tax paid for 2020/21 totalled just under £10bn [5] in England, higher than in previous years but still nowhere near the £17.04bn it cost society in 2019."
https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/smoking-costs-society-17bn-5 | | | |
| France on 18:17 - Mar 26 with 814 views | Lord_Lucan |
| France on 18:06 - Mar 26 by HARRY10 |
Time allocated to patients with smoking related health problems. Only the main cause is measured.
No measure of patients who cannot work through smoking related illness, nor later care home costs.. Smokers take far longer (on averafe) to reciver feom an operation
A decade or so back on joined the good lady on a cardiac conference in Pargue. Me to enjoy the sights her to hear numerous worthy speakers. I wanted to see where the Good Sollder Sverj was set..
One of the evenings I tagged along to an open meeting, not part of the schedule, about how/why healthcare is funded. What came across was how subjective much of the results are.
A memorable one was from a Dutch chap as well as the cardiac stuff had an interest in 'brain stuff'. Pointing out the dangers of cycling helmets, almost unknown in Holland, whereas in Germany (next door) it is an obsession.
The overall take was how much damage alcohol and smoking causes to the body, and so health services. What further surprised was how the 'little lady' seemed unfazed by what I thought were earth shattering revelations.
I well remember being told about other areas that smoking harms. From diabetes to arthritis, to the 15 plus other cancers than lung cancer. Most not attributed to smoking.
"While the tobacco industry argue that what smokers pay in tax compensates for the cost to society, the excise tax paid for 2020/21 totalled just under £10bn [5] in England, higher than in previous years but still nowhere near the £17.04bn it cost society in 2019."
https://ash.org.uk/media-centre/news/press-releases/smoking-costs-society-17bn-5 |
That last paragraph is completely rubbish and comes from ASH the anti smoking group.
I gave you figures from the government.
If I had desired I could have given you figures from Phillip Morris and FOREST (Pro smoking group) but I didn't because just like ASH they would have slanted their information to get the results they wanted.
There's a lot of that sort of thing about! | |
| |
| France on 11:27 - Mar 27 with 652 views | The_Flashing_Smile |
| France on 18:17 - Mar 26 by Lord_Lucan |
That last paragraph is completely rubbish and comes from ASH the anti smoking group.
I gave you figures from the government.
If I had desired I could have given you figures from Phillip Morris and FOREST (Pro smoking group) but I didn't because just like ASH they would have slanted their information to get the results they wanted.
There's a lot of that sort of thing about! |
But you trust government stats?!? |  |
| Trust the process. Trust Phil. |
| |
| France on 12:00 - Mar 27 with 622 views | Cotty |
| France on 20:11 - Mar 24 by Lord_Lucan |
Current pension age is 66
Interestingly when the state pension was first introduced around 1910 the age was set up at 70.
I think it was reduced to 65 after the war when all the state health service got going.
The problem of course is who is going to pay for it as people aren’t dying so quick. People moan about smokers but as a life long smoker and drinker I have paid more tax than most on this bloody forum and I will probably be at the lower end of the scale when it comes to the age I die. My Grandad smoked and drank all his life and only managed to nick a couple of years of pension despite paying large amounts of his income in alcohol and tobacco tax, my Nan however never smoked or drinked and lived until she was 98 with her last 10 years in a care home paid by the state.
So what are we gonna do about state pensions? There are currently under 4 workers per pensioner and with healthier lifestyles and advanced medical treatment it’s going to get worse - I mean, blimey, when you go to visit someone in hospital you see beds upon beds of old people just about hanging in there and when they nearly peg it it’s all hands on deck to revive them.
Absolute bloody bonkers.
Oh, and as for France, well yes, they love a good ding dong but the current uprising may very well have started about a pension increase but it’s now just out and out disorder. France is in a terrible mess and has been for a while.
Similar will happen in U.K. there will be some kind of flashpoint about something or other and then all the Routmasters will be ablaze for a few days. |
Heavy smokers and drinkers cost vast sums more to look after in the NHS, so I'm not sure you can claim altruism here! |  | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
