500,000 pensioners pay the price for the indebted.

mewbie_2

chucky wrote: »

you 'plastic' saver

I had to thank you, because if you go back to where you thanked me, you managed to thank me twice. Bit jittery on the old keys there mate, I should lay off the hard stuff - even if it is the weekend.

chucky

mewbie wrote: »

I had to thank you, because if you go back to where you thanked me, you managed to thank me twice. Bit jittery on the old keys there mate, I should lay off the hard stuff - even if it is the weekend.

lol - i think my mouse got stuck.
best report it to Dervish

mewbie_2

chucky wrote: »

lol - i think my mouse got stuck.
best report it to Dervish

Foreign mice coming over here.

GeorgeHowell

jay3 wrote: »

George, I agree with some of what you've said, but I think this comment is unworthy.

Would you like to elaborate on why you think it is unworthy ?

GeorgeHowell

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showpost.html?p=19466869&postcount=96

Super post, George. Agree with your post, but just want to add, that if people just accept that life is unfair, then standards drop. Do you see what I mean? I agree in part that reluctance acceptance is probably sanest, but if we are too accepting, then we never get change, nor is their any attempt by the very lucky to help the very unlucky.

Jen
x

I think I understand what you are getting at -- too much acceptance of unfairness might induce some to give up trying and just blame it all on the unfairness.

However I was really referring to the likes of Sir Fred Goodwin, who appears to have done nothing in his life that was not intended for his own benefit, but has caused immense harm to many. And yet he comes out of it huge wealthy, and is more or less guaranteed to remain so for the rest of his life. There is really nothing we can do about such incredible unfairness but to accept it with disgust, The establishment looks after its own -- always has, and probably always will.

Jennifer_Jane

Sapphire wrote: »

What utter rot. Many people I know in the 'post-war generation' have worked incredibly hard all their lives, and when they were young certainly did not enjoy the wealth young people enjoy these days – with their expensive ipods, computers, mobile phones, designer handbags, money gifts and loans from their parents so that they could keep up with the Jones's by getting themselves on the 'property ladder', etc, etc, etc. The people who have been 'investing' in BTL, for example, seem to be largely in their twenties, thirties and forties, with a smaller proportion doing so in their fifties...

Unfortunately, the 'me, me, me' younger generation has been spoiled by its permissive, PC 'baby boomer' parents, and brought up to expect that the world owes them a living. Now, this younger generation is repaying its 'baby boomer' parents with constant whining.

Get a grip, and stop spouting rubbish about a subject you know little about and obviously have a very skewed outlook on.

The way this 'government' is treating pensioners is disgraceful.

Well, this post is attacking one pensioner! Why is this a subject I obviously know nothing about?

Actually, I'm proud to be a whinging baby boomer! And as a Baby Boomer, and one who has many baby boomer friends, I think I do know something about this subject. Incidentally, I agree with you about the permissive Baby Boomer parents - who are now grandparents, of course.

What a nasty post! Where did I say that post-war generation hadn't worked hard! But we were spoilt compared with what our parents had to go through.

Jen
x

Sapphire

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Well, this post is attacking one pensioner! Why is this a subject I obviously know nothing about?

Actually, I'm proud to be a whinging baby boomer! And as a Baby Boomer, and one who has many baby boomer friends, I think I do know something about this subject. Incidentally, I agree with you about the permissive Baby Boomer parents - who are now grandparents, of course.

What a nasty post! Where did I say that post-war generation hadn't worked hard! But we were spoilt compared with what our parents had to go through.

Jen
x

I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick. I simply get very tired of seeing what must be very young posters ignorantly attacking 'baby boomers', many of whom are now pensioners. They seem to think that 'baby boomers' had it easy – when in fact I know that many did not, and had it a great deal harder in the fifties and sixties than people in their twenties and thirties do today. (You, of course, may be an exception.)

I do, however, agree that the 'baby boomer' generation had an easier time of it than their parents, who went through the trauma of war – what happened to many people in central Europe, for example, is beyond horrific.

How you feel I was 'attacking' pensioners is a mystery to me.:cool:

Jennifer_Jane

Firstly, I was saying that you were attacking me and I'm a pensioner. This was in response to Bogof_Babe's saying: "I don't think anyone is attacking pensioners or anyone else in this thread.". And you were attacking me. "What utter rot"/"Get a grip, and stop spouting rubbish about a subject you know little about and obviously have a very skewed outlook on." - this is attacking, and as I am a baby boomer pensioner, it fitted with Bogof_Babe's comment. I wasn't happy about what you said, and you and I may disagree, but you know nothing about me (obviously hadn't read previous posts) but I have a right to an opinion.


I never said anything about anyone working harder or not, that was you. I did describe 'Baby Boomers' as being spoilt, and I think they pretty much were - in comparison with their parents - no war (except the Korean war that my father was in, and some food rationing in the 1950's which I remember), but ultimately the baby boomers (in the UK) had the National Health, good employment, bumper years in the 60's when life was great fun, and tremendous freedom. I believe that the children of the 60's are going to be pensioners who will not take things lying down. I hope that's the case!

I took some time today to look back at some of your posts, and I think we mistake to quarrel - essentially we have a lot in common. And I did have a great time in the 60's - didn't you?

As for people having it easier in their 20's and 30's, I agree they are having these easier that we did (see my post on Feminism), but whether that will continue over the next few years, remains to be seen.

Jen
x

Sapphire

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Firstly, I was saying that you were attacking me and I'm a pensioner. This was in response to Bogof_Babe's saying: "I don't think anyone is attacking pensioners or anyone else in this thread.". And you were attacking me. "What utter rot"/"Get a grip, and stop spouting rubbish about a subject you know little about and obviously have a very skewed outlook on." - this is attacking, and as I am a baby boomer pensioner, it fitted with Bogof_Babe's comment. I wasn't happy about what you said, and you and I may disagree, but you know nothing about me (obviously hadn't read previous posts) but I have a right to an opinion.


I never said anything about anyone working harder or not, that was you. I did describe 'Baby Boomers' as being spoilt, and I think they pretty much were - in comparison with their parents - no war (except the Korean war that my father was in, and some food rationing in the 1950's which I remember), but ultimately the baby boomers (in the UK) had the National Health, good employment, bumper years in the 60's when life was great fun, and tremendous freedom. I believe that the children of the 60's are going to be pensioners who will not take things lying down. I hope that's the case!

I took some time today to look back at some of your posts, and I think we mistake to quarrel - essentially we have a lot in common. And I did have a great time in the 60's - didn't you?

As for people having it easier in their 20's and 30's, I agree they are having these easier that we did (see my post on Feminism), but whether that will continue over the next few years, remains to be seen.

Jen
x

Yes, this is probably a misunderstanding.

I do agree that the Sixties were a lot of fun - it was as though a breath of fresh air swept in and that anything was possible. However, materially, people in their twenties and thirties were far less well off than people of that age are now – there was often no hot water, certainly no central heating, no TVs, far fewer cars, little expensive technology, and no 'bank of mum and dad' (for example).

There certainly was much more of a community/family spirit, no vacuous 'must-have-now' culture and less emphasis on the need to constantly change material fripperies, frequently funded by hugely excessive debt (a practice that has got this country into the worst economic mess of the 20th/21st centuries, and that is still being encouraged by Our Glorious Leader). People were encouraged to save, and getting into debt was regarded as quite shameful. All the people I know of the 'baby boomer' generation have also worked incredibly hard and productively throughout their lives.

That's why I feel that it is totally unjustified – and ignorant – for people in their twenties and thirties to state that 'baby boomers' were far better off than they are now. This is simply untrue in most cases I know of – again in my experience, it was only true for those who had inherited wealth.

As for the generation before the 'baby boomer' crop, well, when it comes to my parents, they came here from central Europe just after the war, as anti-Soviet political refugees. They'd seen their capital city systematically reduced to rubble by the Germans (well, they didn't actually witness it, since by that time they were POWs in Germany). One side had lost most of the family (shot on the streets by Germans or murdered by the Russians), while the other was (among other things) wounded several times. So, yes, undoubtedly that generation was mostly far worse off than either of the other generations spoken of here.:cool:

MyLastFiver

Baby Boomers: - my parents were both born into rationing just after the war, both from working-class families in the north of England - no Carnaby Street up here. Under-educated and under-employed, they worked their fingers to the bone, rose in their careers, brought up kids, rode out double-figure interest rates, strikes, recessions and multiple redundancies, re-educated themselves late in life when their jobs became graduate professions, saw their pensions plummet in the last recession just as they were retiring...

If my parents are in any way representative then Baby-Boomers did not have it easy. Or at least, no easier than anyone else.