The elderly are a burden on society

I remember a thread saying that debates should have potentially controversial statements so I thought I'd try it out. With more and more elderly and less young people to pay the taxes to support them, this is no longer a sustainable method to help care for our elderly so what instead should we do? Several inititives have been suggested - means testing benefits for pensioners and one think tank even suggested forcing them to downsize their homes for the younger generation.

How can we make the elderly more productive to society?
Should they be more productive? They've been productive in society for a long time, surely retirement should be about reaping the benefits? Or is there no stop point for contributing to society (doesn't necessarily have to be in employment)?
Is the current system fit for purpose?
Do the elderly feel like they are entitled? Is this a correct assumption?

Just wondered what people thought about this.

Forcing the elderly to downsize will only make sense if the younger generation could afford the houses. Affordable accommodation is impossible to find for young, first time buyers at the moment, and housing companies seem to only be interested in building 2 or 3 bedroom homes which come at a price that first time buyers are unlikely to afford, and with mortgages still hard to come by it's best to either move into flats or rent property.

It's a really difficult problem to attempt to solve. You could suggest the elderly should work for longer, but this assumes that, although men and women are living much longer, they are able to work for longer too, when in actual fact the ageing process is about the same - they live longer but aren't as active as assumed. The assumption that they should work for longer is also met by crippling interest rates which mean living off savings is impossible in this day and age, and more elderly people working means jobs being taken away from the younger generations which in turn causes problems for the benefits system.

So to answer the 4 questions you have asked:

1. Can the elderly be made more productive? Quite a lot of men and women at or near the retirement age are making the choice to work longer, but many are unfit to work and the troubles of time are affecting them bad. It's certainly morally questionable to force them to work or make them live in poverty when there is no state aid for them to use, either by cash payments, incredibly low taxes or free accommodation.

2. I think if the elderly wish to work longer then it is certainly should be seen as a welcome contribution to society. It's mentally stimulating and it solves the problem of loneliness which I know is a problem with the elderly. However, as I said, the problem with making them productive means they are taking away jobs or duties the younger generation need to fulfil their own life ambitions and to not become a burden on the state themselves.

3. The current system is definitely not fit for purpose. The elderly are poor and punished for saving all their lives. A complete overhaul is required that fits the different types of elderly men or women. The social care system needs changing as that too is expensive and, as we have seen recently, has huge problems as far as actual care goes. Nursing homes need reforms.

4. They are entitled to benefits when and if they need them and should be entitled. The current system is a disgusting mess. If it wasn't for their excessive moaning they would be the other forgotten generation, the one I am referring to being our or the next generation(s).

The very title of this thread is a disturbing sentence, which essentially proposes: What do we, the productive members of society, perceive we should do with those past their productive capacity?

The problem: The trend in the wealthiest countries of the modern world is that youth is an ideal, that harbours beauty, power and control. Popular culture is saturated with images of youth (especially in women) and the attainment of the associated health and beauty. Our politicians that lead PR campaigns to gain power represent an ever younger demographic (Cameron, 47, Milliband 43, Clegg 44, Obama 52). Children, teens and students are the lead profitable demographic consumer base for many popular products and services (Universities, childrens TV/Film/Merchandise, the music industry). Our news and entertainment is dominated by the pursuits of the young productive class, sports, 24/7 news coverage online, the internet, Facebook/Twitter etc. Those who form the face of institutions and are most prevalent are younger and younger, (teen billionaire CEOs, actors, actresses as sexual icons, news readers are, documentary makers, bloggers, writers.) Whilst older values and norms are quickly usurped, human rights, gay equality, liberal consensus on racism, radicalism finds footing through social media, all things that older generations struggle to deal with, which further marginalises them. We no longer want Grandma in our 3-4 generation dwelling, but in her own home, alone, away from the younger family, giving her 'burden' to a care home or housing association area. Traditionalist society is declining fast, which is great in some sense, it's been too long coming, but we're losing grip with the generations of the past.

The solution:(?) Technological advancement continues to aid preservation of life through break through medicines or medicated existence. Life expectancy is still rising and if funding would allow it, further elongation is attainable in our life times through scientific advancement. The older generation need not be consigned to the edge of mainstream ideals and pace of life. IT literacy ought to be given more outreach to the old, children ought to be more connected with elderly groups to share ideas and learn their perceptions too. The individualism culture, where everyone is only as good as their productivity or labour efficiency is a constant barrier to this, how can we accept the weaker in society if we continue on in this way? (And by the same method, marginalising disabled people etc.)
When in reality, technology and social advancement is bending itself to accommodate the weaker among us, disabled access, expansion of welfare in the last 20 years (despite recent set backs), increasing accessibility to services through voice, touch, guidance etc.

This divide need not exist if policy could dictate that older generations always be kept within the lifeblood of the nation, continuing to play a part in other ways long past their 'expiry date' or however we choose to label them. We aggrandise youth far too much over longevity or long-term prosperity, which is best examplified especially in the UK by high levels of borrowing, the marketing of unattainable luxury goods to the ever poorer middle class, popular song lyrics read like a misogynistic dream, 'tonight', 'now', 'forget about tomorrow', this is all inline with spend spend spend, worry not about the future, 'live for today', 'yolo' etc, all shaped by the ever present young internet culture to boot. Only when we have a consensus shift in the zeitgeist away from short-term wants into long-term needs can we truly begin to understand those who exist in far-sight and have experienced many changes in popular culture, not to glorify them, but to learn from their example and aspire to reach their age with the expectation that we in turn can be part of popular society as we had shaped it ourselves only a few decades previous.