End of the world?

Thrugelmir

Geoff23 wrote: »

but if most of the population under 45 don't have a decent pension plan then it is the whole of society which is heading for major problems.

Why the whole of society? If people opt for poverty that's a personal choice. Totally possible to survive on hand outs and soup kitchens. Shows a lack of aspiration to better ones self. Something the peoples of Asia have in bucket loads.

lisyloo

Why the whole of society? If people opt for poverty that's a personal choice.

It is a personal choice, but if they have to fall back onto benefits to support them then that costs society/tax payers.
Every person that's poor will need to be support if they get elderly.
That mean personal care - possibly 24/7.

That's why we are encouraged through tax breaks to have pensions and own our own properties and look after ourselves.

If a large part of the population don't then it's not just benefits through their retirement, it will be increased home care, increased hospital care and increased nursing/residential home care and possibly even the state has to pay for their funeral.

Thrugelmir

lisyloo wrote: »

If a large part of the population don't then it's not just benefits through their retirement, it will be increased home care, increased hospital care and increased nursing/residential home care and possibly even the state has to pay for their funeral.

More likely earlier death. In one part of Glasgow the life expectancy between 2 areas just 3 miles apart is 30 years. We live in an unequal society.

Geoff23

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Why the whole of society? If people opt for poverty that's a personal choice.

Except for the majority of people under the age of 30, and nearly everybody under 20, there aren't many choices left. Not compared even to those I had (I'm 43), and certainly not compared to the baby boomers who are now on the cusp of retirement.

Why the whole of society? Because there is an entire generation of people coming through now whose only sensible option is to refuse to pay for the retirement plans of the babyboomers who've ruined the ecosystem, ruined the global economy and stolen their children's future.

These people are not going to co-operate. When push comes to shove, they will turn to rioting, other forms of violent protest and collective refusal to play the game they are being expected to play.

I think the current situation (in the western world) is heading towards inter-generational conflict of a very similar sort to what we've seen all over the middle east. The young will rebel against the old.

Geoff23

Thrugelmir wrote: »

More likely earlier death. In one part of Glasgow the life expectancy between 2 areas just 3 miles apart is 30 years. We live in an unequal society.

We do indeed live in an unequal society, both within generations and inter-generationally as described above. These inequalities are getting larger, not smaller. That process can't go on forever. Eventually it leads to something resembling a revolution.

omits

Geoff23 wrote: »

Except for the majority of people under the age of 30, and nearly everybody under 20, there aren't many choices left. Not compared even to those I had (I'm 43), and certainly not compared to the baby boomers who are now on the cusp of retirement.

Why the whole of society? Because there is an entire generation of people coming through now whose only sensible option is to refuse to pay for the retirement plans of the babyboomers who've ruined the ecosystem, ruined the global economy and stolen their children's future.

That's unfair really. Gov. policies never included protecting the ecosystem untill the 80's. Bankers ruin the global economy which gets into crisis every 20 - 30 years! As a "child" I worked for my future and did not expect anyone else to provide it for me. Current generations seem to have an expectation of "where's mine then?".

These people are not going to co-operate. When push comes to shove, they will turn to rioting, other forms of violent protest and collective refusal to play the game they are being expected to play.

I think the current situation (in the western world) is heading towards inter-generational conflict of a very similar sort to what we've seen all over the middle east. The young will rebel against the old.

No, it's the plebs who are rebelling against the pocket lining bankers and those in power.

Hm? What do you think?

masonic

Geoff23 wrote: »

Why the whole of society? Because there is an entire generation of people coming through now whose only sensible option is to refuse to pay for the retirement plans of the babyboomers who've ruined the ecosystem, ruined the global economy and stolen their children's future.

These people are not going to co-operate. When push comes to shove, they will turn to rioting, other forms of violent protest and collective refusal to play the game they are being expected to play.

As one of the people you claim to speak for, I'm pretty disgusted by what you say. How dare anyone refuse to pay in to the system and then expect that the world owes them a retirement at the end. Personally, I think anyone who is capable of providing for their retirement, but instead chooses to squander their income, should be denied anything but a subsistence pension when they retire. So what if the baby boomers had it good. Well done to them. Petty jealousy won't help the next generation.

Geoff23

masonic wrote: »

As one of the people you claim to speak for...

I don't claim to speak for anybody. I'm just making observations about what I think is happening in British society.

I'm pretty disgusted by what you say. How dare anyone refuse to pay in to the system and then expect that the world owes them a retirement at the end.

Actually, I didn't suggest that was what would happen. These people aren't going to have pleasant retirement whatever happens, so why should they pay to support the baby boomers? I didn't suggest that having not paid, they have a right to demand that their own descendents pay for their retirement.

Personally, I think anyone who is capable of providing for their retirement, but instead chooses to squander their income, should be denied anything but a subsistence pension when they retire.

But my point is that a great many of these people cannot afford to provide for their own retirement. The enormous costs of higher education and of property, combined with very poor employment prospects, makes this inevitable.

So what if the baby boomers had it good. Well done to them. Petty jealousy won't help the next generation.

There's nothing "petty" about this. Anybody under the age of 30 has pretty much been sold down the river by the babyboomers, MEWing homeowners, the banks and successive governments. They have no future, so why should they co-operate?

masonic

Geoff23 wrote: »

Actually, I didn't suggest that was what would happen. These people aren't going to have pleasant retirement whatever happens, so why should they pay to support the baby boomers? I didn't suggest that having not paid, they have a right to demand that their own descendents pay for their retirement.

Well, unless you are suggesting a policy of euthanasia at 68, who is going to provide for these people who won't pay in to the system and won't provide for themselves?

But my point is that a great many of these people cannot afford to provide for their own retirement.

If people cannot afford to provide for their own retirement then I think that they are entitled to expect the welfare state (i.e. their children) to provide for their retirement. Otherwise, where is the money going to come from? If they themselves refuse to contribute, why should their children. Ultimately, we will have a generation of elderly who are even poorer if the welfare system is stopped in retirement.

The enormous costs of higher education and of property, combined with very poor employment prospects, makes this inevitable.

Why inevitable? Retirement provisions should be put before home ownership and student loans are income contingent. Some people may never pay back their student loans and some people will never own a property.

There's nothing "petty" about this. Anybody under the age of 30 has pretty much been sold down the river by the babyboomers, MEWing homeowners, the banks and successive governments. They have no future, so why should they co-operate?

Because not cooperating will make their plight much worse. Hence "petty". These people will be cutting off their nose to spite their face. Unfortunately, the rest of us will also be a lot worse off because of them.

omits

Remember, the "current generation" who are deemed to be in difficulty with money, pension, etc., are products of the 70's Thatcher "market forces" type of society where inevitably the marketeers, bankers went hell-for-leather to suck money from people for the sake of ever increasing profits. They are the ones who have benefited. This left a generation (or two) of finacially illiterate (my offspring included despite my attempts to encourage moneywise practices) spenders who could (can) not wait for the next "thing we must have to impress our friends" to come along.

Quote: one of my kids (38) when asked what are they doing about a pension "That can wait untill later". The other spends money like water. After a divorce and selling the house she was given to house her and the kids, sold it to get the money! She now has nothing to show for it! Am I going to leave my carefully nurtured wealth to go down the drain as well? I cal this generation the "can't be arsed generation"!

Sorry, just frustrated at the chaos that's coming in the next few months as the screws tighten.