In message , at 10:42:39 on Sat, 10 Nov
2012, "Dave Plowman (News)" remarked:
I'm thinking of my friends, retired farm workers, who are living on a
pathetic pension and yet have to drive 16 miles to the nearest shop.

These are the majority of OAPs requiring a complete change in the way
things are done just to suit them?

Wouldn't it be better if they weren't living on a 'pathetic' pension?

They probably couldn't afford to save very much, on account of spending
all that money travelling 16 miles to the nearest shop.

Who said anything about saving?

Saving is what you do to provide yourself with more than the state
pension.

Other thing is it's unlikely they will be able to drive all their lives
so what happens then?

They either have to move somewhere closer to a shop, or maybe there will
be an increase in mobile shops in the future, as even those in work will
be hard pressed to afford to drive to the shops.

The dilemma is that either you expect people to look after themselves, or
the state does it for them. Which means taxation. And not allowing
individuals to make up their mind which parts of the 'welfare state'
actually suit them.

Part of the problem is that people often don't make good decisions. You
could have people opt out of the NHS (on the grounds that "they've never
had a day off sick in their life"), but 40 years later when they are
diagnosed with cancer, they'll likely want to change their mind.

It's not an especially good decision to retire somewhere 16 miles from
the nearest shop, for example (and I wonder how far away the nearest
Pharmacy is). But that's the sort of thing we allow people to make their
own mind up about, currently.
--
Roland Perry