Britain wants to punish hard workers with more work

"Successful people: we would all be best off if, the day you retire, you slit your wrists with the remnants of your shattered dreams"
Article
Don't you just love the British?

University graduates may be barred from receiving a state pension until they are 70 under proposals from Tony Blair’s pensions supremo to solve the looming crisis.

Adair Turner, head of the government’s Pensions Commission, says lower-paid workers could, however, still retire on a full pension at 65 to reflect their lower life expectancy.

Just one little comment; wasn't that socialized medical system supposed to even out life expectancy?

Back to the point: Britain is telling successful people that, because they manage to stay healthier, they must work longer in order to support the lazy idiots who do not know how to maintain a proper diet. In the US, we reverse this stupid idea: we force the voluntarily unhealthy (like smokers) to pay more to cover the additional costs they put on the medical system. Britain should realize that the people who do not work hard enough to advance through the career ladder should work longer to make up for their lazyness.
Additionally, the change would not be based on income, or anything actually relevant to retirement. Rather, it would be based entirely upon whether or not the person went to a university. By the way, you should take a look at how Britain decides whether or not you can go to a university. I'll give you a hint: it takes the decision out of your hands and gives it to the government. Those who work hard in the British equivalent of highschool (and thus are most likely to work hard for the rest of their lives) go to college, where they work harder. It is almost certain that the college-educated are, by far, the hardest workers in Britain. If retirement age for them, and them alone, is raised, they will be punished for actually achieving something in life.

Frank Field, former Labour welfare reform minister, said: “I think the idea is wonderful, but how do you make it a practical policy?” Sir Malcolm Rifkind, shadow work and pensions minister, said: “Changing the entitlement depending on whether you went to university would not only be wrong in principle but almost certainly unworkable.”

Thank you, Malcolm Rifkind, whom I shall officially entitle "The Smart Briton". I nominate him for King of England! The current king looks like he is chronically stoned (I think he is quite racist, too), and the queen is getting too old to give the monarchy a reason to exist. Do not get me wrong, the Queen has her wits, but not in abundance.

Ironically, the wealthy are far more likely to retire earlier. They would still be free to do this but may not receive any state support until the age of 70.

There is nothing ironic about it. The wealthy can afford to retire earlier, so they will most likely do so on average, especially when government programs are as stupid as those in Britain. If you have $100 million, what can you really do with it? Buy a mansion, and it is blown up by Sinn Fein (Irish terrorist group). In fact, if you try to do anything with it, taxes cut that money into a fraction.


Personally, I do not want any government screwing with my retirement or my ability to go to college. I would rather save my own money and retire how I want to, not how some government official wants me to, because government officials only want their jobs to be easier and to garner as many votes as possible (if they are elected, that is). I do not want any part of my life controlled by some politician who cares only about himself. That is a recipe for disaster.