Why the baby boomers shouldn't feel guilty

Graham_Devon

Frogletina wrote: »

Ok. I guess a baby boomer with any savings/personal pension cannot win whatever they do, which are the ones which I am sure you are talking about.

Should that baby boomer work for longer than they need to (I mean their personal circumstances, not age) and pay taxes on their earnings, or leave and release a job for a younger person - and pay taxes on their savings/pension.

You decide

It's not about each individual persons circumstances.

It's about the government changing the goalposts for specific age ranges. There is a very recent U-Turn, large one, specifically reducing the age at which at female can retire, as those just about to retire found it unfair they should have to work longer due to pension defecits.

No other age group is enjoying those sorts of U-Turns. They all just have to work longer to be able to draw their pensions.

Ministers are facing a mounting revolt by Liberal Democrat and Tory MPs over controversial plans to fast-track the rise in women’s pension age.

Coalition backbench MPs yesterday broke ranks to criticise the ‘deeply unfair’ proposals which will force around 330,000 women to wait 18 months or longer to receive their state pension.

Nineteen Lib Dems - a third of the parliamentary party - are among 161 MPs who have signed a motion opposing the plans and increasing numbers of Tory MPs have now voiced their concerns.

The Government will raise the state pension age to 66 by 2020 - six years earlier than previously planned - and accelerate the rate at which women’s pension age is increased to 65 in line with men’s.

These changes will result in a total of around 2.6 million women having to wait at least one year longer for their state pension.

But 330,000 women born in 1955 and 1956 will be hardest hit as they have been given just seven years' notice that they will have to wait up to two years longer to collect their state pension.

During an opposition debate in the Commons, MPs yesterday warned that they had been inundated with letters from angry female constituents who fear they will lose out on up to £15,000 if the changes go ahead.

It's these kind of things I'm talking about. Not individual circumstances. That u-turn above cost the rest of us nearly £1bn....all because it's unfair a women of that age coming up to retirement should "lose out". Of course, anyone under that age can go jump.

All the pension age revisions. They were all revised to have minimal impact on the babyboomer age, and a larger impact on the younger generations. It was estimated that it would have saved £12bn if they hadn't excluded certain age ranges from the pension changes.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's not about each individual persons circumstances.

It's about the government changing the goalposts for specific age ranges. There is a very recent U-Turn, large one, specifically reducing the age at which at female can retire, as those just about to retire found it unfair they should have to work longer due to pension defecits.

No other age group is enjoying those sorts of U-Turns. They all just have to work longer to be able to draw their pensions.

It's these kind of things I'm talking about. Not individual circumstances. That u-turn above cost the rest of us nearly £1bn....all because it's unfair a women of that age coming up to retirement should "lose out". Of course, anyone under that age can go jump.

All the pension age revisions. They were all revised to have minimal impact on the babyboomer age, and a larger impact on the younger generations. It was estimated that it would have saved £12bn if they hadn't excluded certain age ranges from the pension changes.

of course it depends upon your definition of cost

the government proposed making changes that would cost all pensioners (including the bloomers) lots and lots of money in reduced pensions.

They then changed it so the government takes a bit less that originally proposed.

Devon describes this a costing everyone else lots of money; other people could decribe it as taking less from pensioners


Certainly one way of looking at it

olly300

CLAPTON wrote: »

of course it depends upon your definition of cost

the government proposed making changes that would cost all pensioners (including the bloomers) lots and lots of money in reduced pensions.

They then changed it so the government takes a bit less that originally proposed.

Devon describes this a costing everyone else lots of money; other people could decribe it as taking less from pensioners

I'm confused by your last sentence. Why would it mean taking less from pensioners?

The majority of them aren't working and the ones who are aren't paying NI.

Also it means when you retire you get a more equal pension to what you realistically put in over your working life.

You can't expect the working population to support you for 40 years of retirement or the government not to have problems with having a reduce pool of workers to support the increased number of pensioners.

ruggedtoast

I think it is time to bring Paxman into this, one of the chief boomers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055497/JEREMY-PAXMAN-Baby-Boomers-selfish-generation-history.html

'I am part of the most selfish generation in history and we should be ashamed of our legacy,' says Jeremy Paxman .

If anyone attempted to name their children — those born between about 1945 and 1965 — the so-called Baby-Boomers, they might consider calling them The Worst Generation.

It is now received wisdom that today’s young people may be the first generation in modern history to expect to be poorer than their parents.
Earlier this month, a report suggested the young will be 25 per cent worse off than their parents when they reach the age of 65 — the so-called ‘baby bust’ generation, having accumulated £400,000 less by the time they retire.

By contrast, if you were born after World War II, you spent most of your adolescence enjoying the freedoms of the Sixties, were never obliged to serve in the Forces, could expect a more-or-less constantly improving standard of living and, as a consequence, never forsook many of the habits of teenagerdom.

In contrast, consider the children (and grandchildren) of this fortunate age group.
Almost a million young people between 16 and 24 today have no work — for the jobs many might have expected to fill have been exported to China, India or Vietnam. Those who do find employment will enjoy none of the pension expectations of their parents.

Paxman has told it like it is. At least there is one boomer out there with the decency to appreciate how lucky he has been. Shame he appears to be the only one.

A._Badger

Jeremy Paxman, eh? The noted economist, Jeremy Paxman?

You're getting desperate, Toasty. Very desperate indeed.

Why not go back to the article that sparked this thread and try to tackle some of the issues it raised? Or is addressing factual information automatically trumped by the opinions of an overpaid talking head? "'cos 'es on the telly'"?

cotleigh

If we want pensions to go back to being as generous as they once were, then we'd have to agree to also go back to dying much younger as well, so that most people only lived a few years past their retirement age. If we're all going to insist on living long enough to spend 20+ years as pensioners, then the maths doesn't add up. Especially with people having fewer kids.

Similarly, if we want to go back the days of no tuition fees for students, and student grants for all those that need them, then we'd have to also go back to having only 5% or so of each crop of 18 year olds actually going to university at all.

Maybe we COULD stop buying cheap products from parts of the world where people earn a lot less, and insist that people in Britain must buy only British-made cars, TV sets etc etc?

Graham_Devon

A._Badger wrote: »

Jeremy Paxman, eh? The noted economist, Jeremy Paxman?

Do you need to be an ecomonist to comment?

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Do you need to be an ecomonist to comment?

No, but you do need to spell it correctly.;)

Graham_Devon

ILW wrote: »

No, but you do need to spell it correctly.;)

Fair play. How did I even type that!?

A._Badger

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Do you need to be an ecomonist to comment?

No, but a more grown-up answer than simply quoting that BBC air head's opinions might have contributed something to the debate.

Too much to hope for, of course.