Morning Line: financial crisis isn’t the problem – it's expensive old people

The article is broadly true. It is a fact that old people are in the main a drain on resources. They have ceased to beneficially contribute to the economy and there are no suitable proposals to deal with this elephant in the room.

I have been saying for a while that society as a whole has to find a way to resolve this. I am in my mid-30's and I can see huge potential conflict between those that are early 60's and those that are currently age 10-30. Those guys will be hardest hit and they will blame the 60+ year olds for their troubles.

No more property boom, no final salary schemes. Instead increased spending on environmental issues, longer working lives and massive national debt.

People my age are in the middle. Except personally I've already moved my family to another country and only commute back and forth to the UK because with the increasing population in this country it is hard to get the lifestyle we want for our children.

Soon to be Saga lout!

It has been an obvious looming scenario for many years - Logan's Run was recently shown on TV, the writer was clearly a visionary. Any thoughts Mr Clegg, it might resolve a few headaches in your coalition team. TGIF

Is there really a "common misconception that our massive debt pile is the result of the global financial crisis"? To my way of thinking, that's just a myth, by which I for one have never been taken in, peddled by Old Labour to deflect attention from the fact that the mess in which we presently find ourselves is very largely the result of lack of regulation of the UK's banks and other lending institutions.

Whether or not the banks are now being regulated any more than they ever were is highly debatable. There's been a bit of puff from Canary Wharf about the banks having to shore up their balance sheets (as indeed the FSA itself needs to do) and some ineffectual noises about excessive bonuses (which the FSA cheerfully continues to pay its own people) but, apart from that, the FSA either doesn't seem to know what to do about the current state of affairs or it remains unwilling to take the necessary steps to bring the banks into line.

I am now a retiree, but I worked and "benefically contributed" to the economy as GM succinctly puts it, which I did for over 40 years. He implies that once past retirement age we are of no value to the country. I do though pay tax on my pension and pay VAT and any other tax on anything I do or buy. I suppose his solution would be to have us all shot! I wonder what he would think once he reaches the "of no value" age?

For once, I don't agree with you Julian. I don't think the mess we're now in as a result of lax Financial regulation. Much more so the massive 'borrow and spend' of the last lot, lead by Brown, which even Blair has now admitted was wrong.

The only answer is that as a Society, like much of the western world, we're gonna' have to get tougher. We can't afford any more, if ever we could, to keep spending billions on welfare and health to keep the workshy and economically inactive alive and well for ever. People will suffer, and some will die as a result.

Sorry, but thats life. The party's over for many.

The baby boom generation has impacted on social policy from 1946 to the present. They have benefited from "cradle to grave" protection. Unfortunately they are now approaching retirement at a time when there has been a fall in the birth rate in the UK. Their guaranteed benefits of pension and universal health care have to be supported by a smaller working age population who will receive none of the benefits the baby boomers have enjoyed and will continue to enjoy into long old age. A definite recipe for social unrest.

University graduates leaving with debt, few career opportunities and without the wherewithall to save for their own futures are in the classic Catch 22. We can only hope they benefit from decent inheritances from their parents and grandparents. Of course many of these graduates are from poorer backgrounds, encouraged to go to university by the last Labour government, and without the cushion of this inheritance factor. This is the financial crisis we are putting on the "back-burner".

It will take 20 or 30 years for the influence of the baby boomers to work through the system. Meanwhile all those who rail against "over-population and immigration" should think very carefully. Who is going to be there to pay the taxes and who is going to care for a growing elderly population?

pensioners being shot!!!???? " quick darling, buy some shares in any arms dealers we know " how about we just withdraw free health care as an altenative, that would both cut costs and provide a boom in the health care sector " quick darling sell the shares in the arms dealers and by some bupa ones......."

In any other financial scheme that involved the contributions of the new paying for the benefits of the existing members the FSA would no doubt shut it down as a pyramid or ponzi type scheme, yet that is the basis of our elderly provision system, whether that be old age pensions, nursing homes, care homes etc.

Old people, however much they have contributed to the economy during their working active lives, become a drain on society after retirement. That is fact and I don't have a palatable solution to it. The bad news is, neither have the government.....

What did Kenny Everett used to say, "Put them in a field and bomb the ***". Suggested this to my parents when I was about 15, however, at 41, I am beginning to think differently. It is interesting to see that in certain societies, families look after their children and grandchildren, as well as their elderly relatives. Just think how much could be saved if single parent families did not automatically get huge payouts and free housing. Likewise, if the elderly were to live with their children, the strain on government funded rest homes would also be massiveley reduced.

but the nhs would be crippled by the need for prozac etc for the family having to deal with troublesome parents

Surely, a workable and cost-effective solution would be to encourage people to fund the cost of their own care in later life by allowing tax relief on LTC insurance policies? It wouldn't constitute a massive tax concession and would very probably pay for itself several times over by relieving the State of the ever-escalating costs of care for the elderly, not to mention the costs of all the associated administration. It's so simple and obvious that I cannot see why the government doesn't just get on and enact it into law. Why all the faffing about and wringing of hands?

The problem with that Julian, is that 'rich' people would be the only ones to take out that kind of policy. We've just had a Labour government that wouldn't do anything that may favour better off people for fear of the media response, and now we have an equally weak government that also lives in fear of the media. They can't afford a policy that would somehow favour those that have worked hard enough to have money to pay for it themselves.

This country is currently in paralysis. Everything is being done to avoid the media chase.

That is why you have faffing and wringing of hands - and this will continue for some time, methinks.