Economics, Cost of Living, and Pensioners

Ladies and gents. Since Robbing is not a fan of debate and has decided to filter those that disagree with his ageist article from today I thought I'd add my tuppence worth outside of his article.

https://www.ja606.co.uk/articles/viewArticle/468589

His assertion is that, with the minimum voting age moving to 16, there should also be a maximum voting age imposed on the public, at 65.

I asked what those in favour of this maximum voting age deemed the most important topic in politics and the answer was economics.

Well, here's the thing: when the average voter talks about "economics," what they really mean — whether they realise it or not — is cost of living. It’s about how far their money goes. Can they afford groceries? Can they pay the heating bill? Will their rent or mortgage go up next month?

And who do you think is acutely aware of those pressures? Who’s navigating pension pots, skyrocketing energy prices, rising council tax, and creaking social care services? That’s right — the very people Robbing wants to disenfranchise: over-65s.

To argue that someone who has paid into the system for 40 or 50 years — who has raised families, contributed through work and taxes, and helped build the very institutions younger generations now rely on — should be stripped of their democratic voice is not only ageist, it’s anti-democratic.

This isn’t about political convenience. It’s about fairness. A healthy democracy doesn’t silence voices — especially not those with a lifetime of lived experience. If 16-year-olds deserve a say in shaping their future, then surely 70-year-olds deserve a say in protecting the world they helped create.

Debate is welcome. Disagreement is healthy. But let’s not pretend that excluding a generation from voting is progress. It's just prejudice dressed up as reform.