A recent special edition of Health at a Glance (1) reveals new evidence about the growth in average life expectancy across Europe, whilst painting a picture of health inequalities.
* Life expectancy at birth in EU countries has increased by six years since 1980, reaching 78 years in 2007.
* On average across the 27 EU countries, life expectancy at birth for the three-year period 2005-07 stood at 74.3 years for men and 80.8 years for women. France had the highest life expectancy at birth for women (84.4 years), while Sweden had the highest life expectancy for men (78.8 years).
* Life expectancy at birth in the European Union was lowest in Romania for women (76.2 years) and Lithuania for men (65.1 years). The gap between countries with the highest and lowest life expectancies at birth is around eight years for women and 14 years for men.
The report points out that whilst life expectancy has increased, the number of "average healthy life years" in the European Union stood at 61.3 years for women and 60.1 years for men. Healthy life years at birth in 2005-07 was greatest in Malta for both men and women, and shortest in Latvia for women and Estonia for men.
The continuing gap between life expectancy and healthy life expectancy across Europe is worrying. Stefano Mazzuco and Marc Suhrcke (1), exploring the latest Eurostat Labour Force Survey, recently found health inequalities to have been increasing for most but by no means all countries and health indicators.
So whilst we should celebrate success in increasing life expectancy across Europe, we must also look at European action to tackle growing inequalities. More research is certainly needed, but so is a concerted approach to long term preventative healthcare by Governments across the EU.
Peter Barnett and David Sinclair
(Originally posted at www.ilcuk.org.uk)
For more information on global ageing issues, see the ILC-Global Alliance website at www.ilc-global.org
You can also follow the ILC-Global Alliance on Twitter - @ILCglobal 1) http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/health-at-a-glance-europe-2010_health_glance-2010-en
2) Mazzuco S, Suhrcke M (2010). What does Eurostat's Labour Force Survey say about health and health inequalities in the European Union?
Sunday 27 March 2011
Wednesday 23 March 2011
Budget 2011 and Intergenerational Fairness
Budget 2011 has produced few surprises for older people. But whilst the Chancellor, George Osborne MP, has set a clear direction in terms of pensions, the intergenerational implications of the changes to both the personal tax allowance and the merger of income tax and national insurance (NI) have not attracted adequate attention.
The Chancellor confirmed (again) that the DWP will shortly publish a Green Paper to consult on options for state pension reform reform, "which will include a proposal for a single tier pension, currently estimated to be worth around £140 a week". Mr Osborne also confirmed that the Government "accepted Lord Hutton's recommendations as a basis for consultation with public sector workers".
Earlier this year, the Government asked for views on how to link possible future increases in longevity with state pension age. The Chancellor announced today that "the Government will bring forward proposals to manage future changes in the State Pension Age more automatically, including the option of a regular independent review of longevity changes". This is clearly a move towards depoliticising future increases in State Pension Age.
One issue which has emerged from the Budget which has yet to be picked up by commentators relates to the Government's long term objective to raise the income tax personal allowance to £10,000. The Chancellor today made further progress towards that goal by announcing that from April 2012, the personal allowance for under 65s increases by £1,000 to £7,475. However, missing from his statement was an announcement on the personal allowance for over 65s (apparently – if it is there, we have yet to find it). Pensioners currently have much higher tax allowances than under 65s, on the basis that we should generally avoid taxing their income twice. But with working age allowances increasing, the gap between the working age and pensioner allowances is narrowing. Is this narrowing justifiable, and is the long term aim for all taxpayers to benefit from the same level of income tax allowance?
The announcement on merging tax and NI is not an unwelcome one, given the complexity of the current tax regime. But the Government immediately announced that there would be exemptions for pensioners, who currently do not pay NI. Clearly a merged NI/income tax system at 32% would need to provide an allowance so that older people's pensions do not begin to attract a higher rate tax than they currently do. But has the Chancellor missed an opportunity here? Perhaps we need a debate about whether workers over pensionable age should pay NI. The current system means that in effect, one older employee on the same salary as another younger person, has a higher take-home salary. Its not clear that this is fair. Of course we need to encourage older workers but it isn't clear that not having to pay national insurance creates a significant incentive to older people to work longer. Perhaps part of the reason that Government has ignored this issue is that charging NI to over 65s wouldn't actually bring in a lot of money. But as the number of older workers grows, it is a sum that is likely to increase.
On both the personal allowance and the implications of the merger of NI and income tax, the Government has been clear on its intentions. But in our view, it could be clearer on the implications of these changes for both older people and in terms of intergenerational fairness.
David Sinclair and Craig Berry
(Also posted at www.ilcuk.org.uk)
The Chancellor confirmed (again) that the DWP will shortly publish a Green Paper to consult on options for state pension reform reform, "which will include a proposal for a single tier pension, currently estimated to be worth around £140 a week". Mr Osborne also confirmed that the Government "accepted Lord Hutton's recommendations as a basis for consultation with public sector workers".
Earlier this year, the Government asked for views on how to link possible future increases in longevity with state pension age. The Chancellor announced today that "the Government will bring forward proposals to manage future changes in the State Pension Age more automatically, including the option of a regular independent review of longevity changes". This is clearly a move towards depoliticising future increases in State Pension Age.
One issue which has emerged from the Budget which has yet to be picked up by commentators relates to the Government's long term objective to raise the income tax personal allowance to £10,000. The Chancellor today made further progress towards that goal by announcing that from April 2012, the personal allowance for under 65s increases by £1,000 to £7,475. However, missing from his statement was an announcement on the personal allowance for over 65s (apparently – if it is there, we have yet to find it). Pensioners currently have much higher tax allowances than under 65s, on the basis that we should generally avoid taxing their income twice. But with working age allowances increasing, the gap between the working age and pensioner allowances is narrowing. Is this narrowing justifiable, and is the long term aim for all taxpayers to benefit from the same level of income tax allowance?
The announcement on merging tax and NI is not an unwelcome one, given the complexity of the current tax regime. But the Government immediately announced that there would be exemptions for pensioners, who currently do not pay NI. Clearly a merged NI/income tax system at 32% would need to provide an allowance so that older people's pensions do not begin to attract a higher rate tax than they currently do. But has the Chancellor missed an opportunity here? Perhaps we need a debate about whether workers over pensionable age should pay NI. The current system means that in effect, one older employee on the same salary as another younger person, has a higher take-home salary. Its not clear that this is fair. Of course we need to encourage older workers but it isn't clear that not having to pay national insurance creates a significant incentive to older people to work longer. Perhaps part of the reason that Government has ignored this issue is that charging NI to over 65s wouldn't actually bring in a lot of money. But as the number of older workers grows, it is a sum that is likely to increase.
On both the personal allowance and the implications of the merger of NI and income tax, the Government has been clear on its intentions. But in our view, it could be clearer on the implications of these changes for both older people and in terms of intergenerational fairness.
David Sinclair and Craig Berry
(Also posted at www.ilcuk.org.uk)
Wednesday 16 March 2011
Budget 2011 and Intergenerational Fairness
Budget 2011 has produced few surprises for older people. But whilst the Chancellor, George Osborne MP, has set a clear direction in terms of pensions, the intergenerational implications of the changes to both the personal tax allowance and the merger of income tax and national insurance (NI) have not attracted adequate attention.
The Chancellor confirmed (again) that the DWP will shortly publish a Green Paper to consult on options for state pension reform reform, "which will include a proposal for a single tier pension, currently estimated to be worth around £140 a week". Mr Osborne also confirmed that the Government "accepted Lord Hutton's recommendations as a basis for consultation with public sector workers".
Earlier this year, the Government asked for views on how to link possible future increases in longevity with state pension age. The Chancellor announced today that "the Government will bring forward proposals to manage future changes in the State Pension Age more automatically, including the option of a regular independent review of longevity changes". This is clearly a move towards depoliticising future increases in State Pension Age.
One issue which has emerged from the Budget which has yet to be picked up by commentators relates to the Government's long term objective to raise the income tax personal allowance to £10,000. The Chancellor today made further progress towards that goal by announcing that from April 2012, the personal allowance for under 65s increases by £1,000 to £7,475. However, missing from his statement was an announcement on the personal allowance for over 65s (apparently – if it is there, we have yet to find it). Pensioners currently have much higher tax allowances than under 65s, on the basis that we should generally avoid taxing their income twice. But with working age allowances increasing, the gap between the working age and pensioner allowances is narrowing. Is this narrowing justifiable, and is the long term aim for all taxpayers to benefit from the same level of income tax allowance?
The announcement on merging tax and NI is not an unwelcome one, given the complexity of the current tax regime. But the Government immediately announced that there would be exemptions for pensioners, who currently do not pay NI. Clearly a merged NI/income tax system at 32% would need to provide an allowance so that older people's pensions do not begin to attract a higher rate tax than they currently do. But has the Chancellor missed an opportunity here? Perhaps we need a debate about whether workers over pensionable age should pay NI. The current system means that in effect, one older employee on the same salary as another younger person, has a higher take-home salary. Its not clear that this is fair. Of course we need to encourage older workers but it isn't clear that not having to pay national insurance creates a significant incentive to older people to work longer. Perhaps part of the reason that Government has ignored this issue is that charging NI to over 65s wouldn't actually bring in a lot of money. But as the number of older workers grows, it is a sum that is likely to increase.
On both the personal allowance and the implications of the merger of NI and income tax, the Government has been clear on its intentions. But in our view, it could be clearer on the implications of these changes for both older people and in terms of intergenerational fairness.
David Sinclair and Craig Berry
Budget 2011 has produced few surprises for older people. But whilst the Chancellor, George Osborne MP, has set a clear direction in terms of pensions, the intergenerational implications of the changes to both the personal tax allowance and the merger of income tax and national insurance (NI) have not attracted adequate attention.
The Chancellor confirmed (again) that the DWP will shortly publish a Green Paper to consult on options for state pension reform reform, "which will include a proposal for a single tier pension, currently estimated to be worth around £140 a week". Mr Osborne also confirmed that the Government "accepted Lord Hutton's recommendations as a basis for consultation with public sector workers".
Earlier this year, the Government asked for views on how to link possible future increases in longevity with state pension age. The Chancellor announced today that "the Government will bring forward proposals to manage future changes in the State Pension Age more automatically, including the option of a regular independent review of longevity changes". This is clearly a move towards depoliticising future increases in State Pension Age.
One issue which has emerged from the Budget which has yet to be picked up by commentators relates to the Government's long term objective to raise the income tax personal allowance to £10,000. The Chancellor today made further progress towards that goal by announcing that from April 2012, the personal allowance for under 65s increases by £1,000 to £7,475. However, missing from his statement was an announcement on the personal allowance for over 65s (apparently – if it is there, we have yet to find it). Pensioners currently have much higher tax allowances than under 65s, on the basis that we should generally avoid taxing their income twice. But with working age allowances increasing, the gap between the working age and pensioner allowances is narrowing. Is this narrowing justifiable, and is the long term aim for all taxpayers to benefit from the same level of income tax allowance?
The announcement on merging tax and NI is not an unwelcome one, given the complexity of the current tax regime. But the Government immediately announced that there would be exemptions for pensioners, who currently do not pay NI. Clearly a merged NI/income tax system at 32% would need to provide an allowance so that older people's pensions do not begin to attract a higher rate tax than they currently do. But has the Chancellor missed an opportunity here? Perhaps we need a debate about whether workers over pensionable age should pay NI. The current system means that in effect, one older employee on the same salary as another younger person, has a higher take-home salary. Its not clear that this is fair. Of course we need to encourage older workers but it isn't clear that not having to pay national insurance creates a significant incentive to older people to work longer. Perhaps part of the reason that Government has ignored this issue is that charging NI to over 65s wouldn't actually bring in a lot of money. But as the number of older workers grows, it is a sum that is likely to increase.
On both the personal allowance and the implications of the merger of NI and income tax, the Government has been clear on its intentions. But in our view, it could be clearer on the implications of these changes for both older people and in terms of intergenerational fairness.
David Sinclair and Craig Berry
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)