On the answer to Ms. Jansen's question, any senior who lives to age 75, or an older age than that, would always be more vulnerable to outliving their savings, that just flows from the actual point of living that long. There's nothing new in this argument. I don't understand that answer as a reason why now this was a sudden policy consideration.
The trend of people living longer means that this will apply to more people, but any people who lived to 75 historically would have faced the same issues. I still don't really understand the rationale around this. Maybe to Tamara's point or others', supporting seniors when they were younger would help them to not outlive their savings and so would longer workforce participation of seniors, which is also something that I think we're going to see going ahead. Seniors who live longer would be more likely....
I don't quite understand the rationale again on this. Perhaps it's a political question, so I'm sorry to get into that right at the very end.