Latest news with #OttovonBismarck
India.com
20-07-2025
- General
- India.com
When did pensions begin worldwide? How much did Indians receive back then? The numbers will shock you!
A pension is one of the most important factors for senior citizens. Every retired person receives a fixed payment each month that helps support their living expenses. Today, it's not only government employees but also those employed in a private corporation who depend on their pension when retiring. But have you ever wondered how much pension Indians received during the British rule? Pensions have a history of more than 2,000 years. In the 1770s, the practice of granting pensions began in Europe with various European dignitaries. Within a few years, pensions were awarded to Indian sepoys and civil servants. Historians suggest that the first pensions were issued to British military officers, many of whom are still widely recognized, such as Lord Cornwallis. It has not been recorded who the first Indian pensioner was, but more than likely, a sepoy or havildar on retiring from service was the first individual to receive a pension. According to the media reports, an ordinary sepoy was entitled to a pension of 4 to 7 rupees per month, while a British officer received a pension of 100 to 200 rupees per month; today, these amounts are comically small, but back then, Re 1 could sustain an entire family for a month. Later, in 1889, German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck introduced the first public pension for elderly people over 70 years old, making pensions go from being an honor to a right, and this became the basis for social security systems worldwide. The history of pensions in India goes back to the era of British rule. The East India Company made provision for its officers and soldiers to receive some income on retirement, so the concept of pension was very much born out of necessity. For government employees, pensions are said to have been formally introduced in 1881. The amount was, during the years following that date, at least socially recognized to be enough to provide a modicum of income to allow a retiree to live without worry about food, water, or shelter.
Scotsman
12-07-2025
- Politics
- Scotsman
Denmark's 'Folkemødet' shows how to use people-power to restore faith in Scottish politics
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... There is some dispute whether the former German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck said 'Laws are like sausages, it is best not to see them being made.' Regardless of who made the comment, there is much truth in it. Legislating and decision-making can be complex. Democratic politics is a messy business given the vast array of stakeholders, opinions and interests that should be accounted for. Too often in our political discourse, commentators and others see simple solutions. That is rarely the case, as 21st-century statesman Barack Obama reflected after leaving the White House: 'One of the first things I discovered as President of the United States was that no decision that landed on my desk had an easy, tidy answer.' In other words, if the answer was easy, it would never have reached the Oval Office. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad The sausage-making process is an important one. Democracies tend to be better at decision-making because they are more complex and consider a wider range of freely expressed views. No politician or political party in a democratic system is ever entirely right or entirely wrong. The process of debate and discussion is an integral part of eventually getting to better decisions, like any theory it isn't entirely foolproof but also helps break us free from our individual silos. The Folkemødet is a free event held over three days when the public, politicians and a few international visitors meet, talk and listen to one another in a relaxed, informal environment (Picture: Ida Marie Odgaard) | Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Ima We are all politicians In a world with increased polarisation and misinformation, too often because we disagree with someone on one issue, we think that person must be wrong on every issue. If you don't believe me, have a look at the comment pages in this and other media sources. Having the widest possible stakeholder engagement results in greater ownership of a decision and hopefully better decisions. That is one of the reasons democracies are overall better at making decisions and improving citizens' lives. In a democracy everyone is a politician – like it or not, you are too dear reader, and the actions of citizens have meaningful consequences. The act of not voting, for example, is itself a political act, even unconsciously, that could have profound implications. An omission is not without consequence. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad That is why citizen engagement is important, alongside quality discussion and debate. Greater citizen participation means decisions are made that are more reflective of the society that our politics is due to serve. Successful democracies understand that, not least our next-door neighbours in Denmark. Just a couple of weeks ago, I was invited to see one aspect of Danish democracy in action. At the end of the parliamentary term, Denmark's politicians, journalists, businesses, NGOs, universities, and others involved in the political 'bubble' and tens of thousands of ordinary citizens decamp to a Danish island, Bornholm for an annual Folkemødet, or people's meeting. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Danish politician Margrethe Vestager attends a Folkemoedet on the island of Bornholm (Picture: Nils Meilvang) | AFP via Getty Images Battleship discussion about security Over three days Danes, and a small number of international visitors, meet, talk and listen to one another in a relaxed and informal environment. Crucially the events are free and there is no bar to attending – except if a contribution breaks the criminal code or an act runs contrary to the Danish constitution. Over a short 24-hour visit, I was able to witness a debate about sustainability in a tent (most meetings are under canvas) led by young people, a discussion on a docked battleship over Denmark's security priorities with a former Nato Secretary-General and a talk about Georgia and the path to its EU accession, including a discussion about what that meant for Denmark. Our neighbours have, of course, just taken over the influential presidency of the EU, and citizens were clearly taking those responsibilities seriously. Meetings were respectful, well attended with citizens and senior politicians wandering around enjoying the discussion, sunshine and perhaps the odd Danish beer. What for me was most striking was just how many young people attended, and participated. The age range was a wide one with Danish young people, many camping in fields around the festival, well represented. An Edinburgh fringe festival environment but focused on politics. Politics matters, really matters. The success of Nordic states in recent times in reducing inequality, boosting income and increasing the rights of their citizens is in part due to the success of their democratic model. The Folkemødet was a fantastic illustration of improving engagement and bringing down barriers. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Danger of polarisation It is fine to disagree, if we all agreed with one another the world would be a dull place leading to worse policy outcomes. However, if we don't manage to disagree more agreeably it can also lead to greater polarisation and lead to people feeling the political process is not for them. It was also great news for Bornholm's local businesses, extending the short tourist season on the island for an additional week. Since the first Bornholm event in 2010, copying a similar event in Sweden, the Folkemødet has grown, now attracting attracting 110,000 attendees over three days. It is an industry in its own right on the island, employing a dozen full-time staff including a native of Skye enthusiastic about bringing the idea back home. Holding a Folkemødet-style event here in Scotland would not be a panacea, leading to better politics overnight, but given the damaging threats of polarisation, lower turnouts and misinformation, it is worth considering. Like the Nordic states, Scotland has a relatively small political and stakeholder base. We also have plenty of islands, and other areas, outside the Central Belt, that could easily host such an event. Away from the cameras, Scotland's politicians will often discuss ideas in a more open manner that is discouraged by a gotcha culture in some parts of the media. Nuance and constructive discussion is difficult but crucial when there are no easy solutions to the challenging problems we all face. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Just think what we could achieve if only we could bring people together in a slightly more constructive manner. Like the Danes we might benefit from the sunshine too.
The Hill
08-07-2025
- Business
- The Hill
For the middle class, one great, big, beautiful betrayal
Whether he actually said it or not, what Otto von Bismarck is sometimes credited with saying is true: 'Laws are like sausages. It's better not to see them being made.' That's certainly true of the so-called 'big, beautiful bill,' passed by the House and Senate last week and signed into law by President Trump on July 4. Its enactment required breaking almost every rule governing the legislative process. And in its final form, it betrays everything the Republican Party used to stand for, to say nothing of the promises President Trump made to middle-class voters in 2024. Both houses of Congress have rules to prevent this kind of legislation. In the normal order of business, bills must deal with one subject only; bills can be voted on only after being considered and approved by the appropriate committees; time must be allowed for members to read and study a bill before voting on it; and, in the Senate, major spending bills require 60 votes to move to the floor. Every one of those rules was broken or sidestepped to force passage of the 'big, beautiful bill.' The end result is a mammoth new law that's a political triumph for Trump, but can only be described as a 'big, beautiful betrayal' of the middle class — as even Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), who ended up voting for the bill, admitted. 'We cannot be a working-class party if you are taking away health care for working-class people,' Hawley warned. And that's exactly what the bill does. According to the Congressional Budget Office, because of cuts to Medicaid contained in the bill, 11.8 million Americans will lose their existing health coverage and another 3.3 million Americans will lose access to food stamps under the SNAP program. Those cuts to social programs are necessary, the White House argued, to pay for extension of the 2017 tax cuts, which had been due to expire at the end of the year. But even those tax cuts do little to help the middle class. After eight years, we know who's benefited most from the 2017 tax cuts: the wealthiest of Americans, the same ones who will benefit most from their extension. According to the Tax Policy Center, 60 percent of the bill's tax savings would go to the top 20 percent of households and more than one-third would go to those making $460,000 or more. Again, that's good news for West Palm Beach, but it doesn't do much for working families in Youngstown, Ohio. Republicans tried to downplay their extension of tax cuts for the very wealthy by adding a provision to eliminate taxes on tips and overtime. But there's a big difference. Under the legislation, extension of the 2017 tax cuts for the rich is permanent, but the freedom from taxes on tips expires in 2028. Nor will it help all that many people. Waiters would still have to pay state and local taxes. And, according to the Yale Budget Lab, more than one-third of wait staff don't earn enough money to owe any federal taxes in the first place. Included in the 940-page bill are scores of unrelated provisions — an increase in the Pentagon budget; more money for enforcement at the border; funds to renovate the Kennedy Center; a fee for citizens who sign up for a space launch with a private company; elimination of a fee on purchase of gun silencers; moving the Space Shuttle Discovery from the Smithsonian to a museum near Houston; a special tax break for whaling captains in Alaska; and $40 million to create Donald Trump's pet project, the 'Garden of American Heroes.' All of this comes with a big price tag. The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office determined that the bill would add at least $3.4 trillion to the national debt over the next ten years. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget puts the total at $4 trillion or more. One thing for sure. After passage of this bill, with GOP votes only, Republicans can no longer call themselves the party of 'fiscal conservatism.' As Elon Musk said after the vote: 'Every member of Congress who campaigned on reducing government spending and then immediately voted for the biggest debt increase in history should hang their head in shame.' In addition to the very wealthy, the ones who benefit most from the 'big, beautiful bill' may be the Democrats, who have been struggling to find a winning message for 2026. Now they've got one: Trump betrayed the middle-class Americans who voted for him. If Democrats can't use the bill to win big in the midterms, they don't deserve to win. Bill Press is host of 'The Bill Press Pod.' He is the author of 'From the Left: A Life in the Crossfire.'
Business Times
03-06-2025
- Health
- Business Times
Working until 70 isn't so bad provided you feel 55
DENMARK'S recent move to increase the statutory retirement age to 70 for those born after 1970 – the highest in Europe – highlights an obvious and potentially troubling reality: Most of us are facing longer working lives, but that also means we need to remain healthier for longer. While linking the pensionable threshold to improving longevity is fair, up to a point, doing so risks exacerbating health inequalities because the poor become sick and die sooner than the rich. So the focus must be on extending healthy life expectancy for everyone. Closing the gap between lifespans and so-called healthspans can help build public support for later retirement, because fewer years are spent with serious illness or disability, leaving more quality time with grandchildren, on the golf course or at the bingo hall. It can also benefit government finances, by reducing pension expenses and costs associated with chronic disease and elderly care, while ensuring workers are able to keep working. When Otto von Bismarck's Germany became the first nation to offer old-age social security in 1889, the official retirement age was also 70; but at the time, his compatriots were fortunate if they lived past 45. Today, life expectancy for German men and women is around 78 and 83, respectively, meaning men receive a state pension for around 19 years, while for women it is about 22 years, or around 60 per cent longer than in 1980. The rate at which life expectancy improves has slowed in recent years, and not just because of the Covid-19 pandemic; 65-year-olds now gain nearer one additional year with each passing decade compared with around 1.5 years previously, according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU Friday, 2 pm Lifestyle Our picks of the latest dining, travel and leisure options to treat yourself. Sign Up Sign Up Nevertheless, most of us will live longer than our parents and grandparents. (The UK government's online calculator suggests your 42-year-old columnist will expire at 84, with a one-in-four chance I will reach 93. Fingers crossed.) While this is obviously good news, it will put even more pressure on pay-as-you-go social security systems, which face a growing imbalance between the number of retirees and employees. Germany's statutory retirement age is set to increase to 67 by 2031, but its new government has postponed a politically awkward decision on what happens after that. It should consider indexing the retirement age to longer lifespans, as Denmark does, to help avoid a political row about working longer. (Reforms to lift France's retirement age to 64 from 62 led to widespread protests in 2023.) Denmark introduced a quasi-automatic adjustment mechanism in 2006, and variants of this indexation system have been adopted by several European countries. For Danes, an extra year of life expectancy translates to a full year of additional working time, based on a principle that on average, workers should spend 14.5 years in retirement. This feels harsh when Portugal, Finland and elsewhere apply a two-thirds ratio, meaning employees leave the workforce eight months later for every year of extra life expectancy, thereby preventing a compression of the proportion of life spent in retirement. In theory, most of us should be able to work longer because in general, we are healthier than previous generations were at the same stage in life. Citing survey data from 41 advanced and emerging economies, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) argued in a report in April that, on average, the cognitive abilities of a 70-year old in 2022 are comparable to those of a 53-year old in 2000, while in terms of physical frailty, a 70-year old in 2022 is comparable to a 56-year old two decades ago. So there really is no justification for ageism in the workplace. But it is not all good news. There is evidence, for example, that recent cohorts have a higher prevalence of chronic diseases such as diabetes, and while we are living much longer, many of those years are spent in ill health. A study published in December in Jama Network Open found that during the past two decades, the gap between healthspans and total lifespan has widened to 9.6 years, compared with 8.5 years across 183 World Health Organization member countries. The US and UK had two of the largest gaps at 12.4 years and 11.3 years, respectively. Moreover, the affluent and more educated are ageing better those from more disadvantaged backgrounds. In 2022, the Health Foundation think tank found that 60-year-old women in England from the most deprived decile have roughly the same level of diagnosed morbidity as 76-year-old women from the wealthiest decile; meanwhile, men from the most deprived areas die around a decade earlier than the most affluent. Deteriorating health is a big reason why people exit the workforce early, potentially exposing them to poverty, and raising the statutory retirement age can be regressive because wealthier people end up drawing a pension for longer than the poor. Furthermore, telling a construction worker to stay on the scaffolding until 70 clearly is not the same as telling an office worker to keep driving a desk. Setting a pension age that accommodates this heterogeneity is not straightforward, though a combination of disability benefits and retraining can help. But why not index the retirement age to healthspan rather than lifespan, as the longevity author Andrew J Scott has suggested? 'If we set up a national target for healthy life expectancy, we would see much more focus on reducing inequality,' Scott, who is director of economics at the Ellison Institute of Technology in Oxford, told me via e-mail. 'We have a health system overly focused on disease, which is not the same as keeping people healthy.' Regrettably, just 1 to 6 per cent of OECD country health expenditures currently goes towards health promotion and prevention, according to the IMF. Public health campaigns to improve diets should be a priority – US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F Kennedy Jr's focus on ultra-processed food is encouraging. And as an advocate for strength training – which slows muscle wastage and improves bone health in the elderly – I think governments should fund public gyms or subsidise access, as Singapore does. It should not be just a privileged few that live longer, healthier lives. While working longer looks unavoidable for many, how fast we age and how long we spend in ill health are adaptable, too. Longer lifespans are great, longer healthspans even better. BLOOMBERG
Daily Maverick
26-05-2025
- Business
- Daily Maverick
Adding life to years, not years to life – as of this week, 65 is the new 60
This week, the mandatory retirement age in South Africa officially goes up from age 60 to 65. On the surface, this is a policy shift driven by longer lifespans and economic realities – a global trend hitting home. On a deeper level, it will likely affect many people, especially those over or close to 60 who were perhaps looking forward to retiring. Many will be focusing on the practicalities: planning differently for a longer working life. For others, this change may be an opportunity for a much bigger, more vital conversation about how they plan to spend their precious leisure time in the years ahead. A global shift It is not just South Africa where retirement is moving out. In the US in the 1980s, there were about 2.5 million people who worked past age 65. That number is now 11 million – an increase of 400%. In that same time, the US population has only increased by 50%. The scales, it would seem, are tipping towards longer working lives. According to futurist Tracey Follows, retirement might not even exist in the Western world by 2040. The rising cost of living and lengthening life expectancies mean it may be necessary for people to continue working into their old age to support themselves. Indeed, a recent study by Sanlam Corporate found that most South Africans will now need to work until they are 80 to retire comfortably. Maybe this is not such a bad thing. For years, we've accepted the notion that, at a certain age, we should universally step away from purposeful contribution. But does that truly serve us? Is a fixed retirement age an outdated concept we've clung to? Perhaps the question needs to be not just about when we retire, but if the traditional concept of retirement – a relatively new idea in and of itself – is due for retirement. A brief history of a recent invention In the Stone Age, you worked till your death. Most people were dead by 20. This was the case for millions of years. Up until the 1800s, nowhere in the world had a life expectancy higher than 40 years. In the early 1900s, the average life expectancy was only 32. Retirement as we know it was only proposed in 1881 by Otto von Bismarck, ruler of Prussia. Von Bismarck suggested the government give pensions to the few German citizens who lived over 70. Life expectancy in Germany at the time was 39 years. The policy was passed. But the message was clear: most people will not retire as they wouldn't make it that far. That remained the message when retirement was introduced in the 1930s in the US for people over the age of 65. Life expectancy for American men was around 58 at the time. Globally, life expectancy is now over 70. As a result, some suggest that the retirement age should be pushed to 75. Governments are not opposed to raising the threshold – in the UK, the retirement age is set to increase to 67 in the next three years. In France, millions-strong protests ensued after the government raised the pension age from 62 to 64. The value of knowledge in an economy Leaving aside the issue of the financial necessity of working, there is broader value for keeping older people in the working world. Tertiary institutions across the world know the value of retaining skills beyond the age of 65. The US and Europe, for example, are teeming with professors above the retirement age. A total of 13% of US professors are over 65, compared with just 6% of other US workers. There are many reasons for this, including that professors possess invaluable expertise and knowledge. But it's not just them: people reach the peak of their expertise in their sixties. They do not stop adding value after 65. That is where the concept of phased retirement comes into its own. A staggered or phased retirement that sees retirees step back but still contribute could hold many benefits for organisations and workers alike: enabling skills transfer; more time to find and train new candidates; mentoring and coaching opportunities; and the retention of highly skilled workers at a reduced cost due to fewer hours worked. In South Africa, it could also create much-needed space in the workforce for unemployed young people. Additionally, a phased approach provides retirees a chance to buy more time for family, leisure, travel and taking care of their health, without having to dip into their retirement fund. The question then becomes, how might these phased retirees, with more time on their hands and no real financial pressure, spend their time? Stepping away from work, even partially, can result in a loss of identity and vitality for many, even if it feels like a deserved break. Perhaps they could be encouraged to volunteer as a way to add meaning to their life and that of others. For some, it might be to start a business. According to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, the number of entrepreneurs over 55 is on the rise. Are young people pointing the way? While we can't predict the future, observing current megatrends – long-term driving forces that are likely to have a growing global impact – can give us a good sense of where things might end up. Changing demographics is one such megatrend, and a key sign that traditional retirement could be on the way out is how younger generations already live and work. Thanks to the gig economy and remote-working options, many young people have embraced hybrid lives, integrating work with substantial leisure. For many millennials, the idea of a traditional retirement – one focused on leisure and relaxation – has evolved into a desire for greater work flexibility. The point is that those of us who have had the privilege to work – and who have the privilege to retire – also have the privilege to think imaginatively about what we want to do with our time, whether working or playing. If we are living longer, how can we add life to our years rather than just years to our life? Many South Africans do not have this opportunity – not just to retire, but to work in the first place. Our unemployment rate reached 41.9% in Q4 of 2024. Many will never be employed in the formal economy – they won't have retirement plans, phased or otherwise. It's a stark reminder that in our country, retirement and leisure are not universal rights, and we should not squander them. DM
