Rift grows between young and old

Jimmy_31

cotleigh wrote: »

Very well said. If the "putter-inners" in terms of tax did not have to pay for those who are "taker-outers" from the general kitty, things would be much better.

Let them fend for themselves.

It is illegal to look after yourself in this country.

You recieve your prison number on a red and blue card when you hit 16.

ukcarper

PaulF81 wrote: »

I was talking about uk planning laws. And there is plenty of evidence, open the Telegraph, wanton nimbyism and hatred of new sensible planning laws. Happy that their little castle has been developed, boomers now want to keep the planning drawbridge firmly shut.

This was not the situation even 20 years ago. Its never been easy, but it was never impossible. Give young people something to aspire to, ie a decent spacious home at an affordable price in relation to salary, and they will work for it. Why are they going to work hard for the country when the best they can hope for is a shoe box flat till they are mid 40?

The boomer generation are restricting the younger generations in other ways, for,example the rediculous cash wasted on nhs treatment of the over 70s. Why spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on treatments for an individual that could go on infrastructure, education and research?Let me guess, because you lot will only vote in a shower of idiots willing to keep the merry go round from stopping, without any consideration to later generations. Want old age care? Pay for it yourself or hop on a ferry to Dignitas.

So the way I understand it you want to allow building all over the green belt and to let all people over 70 die so that you can own a house on a quarter of an acre.

PaulF81

No, not at all. I want people to take responsibility for themselves, preferably through putting enough into the pot so that others dont have to make up the difference once they reach retirement. Like is starting to happen now. Dont put in enough? We dont drain other services benefiting younger generations, infrastructure projects and dare I say it, public sector wages and pensions for highly competent and skilled workers employed by the government, many of whom are now looking for an out into the private sector. We cut back on the stuff we cannot afford, such as cancer treatments for palliative patients which cost a fortune and state paid retirement home places.

As for planning, I am as country as you can get, however, I also visit countries such as Norway, New Zealand and others where SENSIBLE development, when fitting with surroundings (generally timber framed therefore easy to restore land to its original use) is fully supported. The earlier Devon example was idiotic, there is very little industry down there thats worth supporting. In fact, the local greenbelt IS the industry and thus needs protecting. Its no easier getting PP up North than down south either; I live in the west and again its no easier despite much lower population densities. Why? Because every nimby boomer under the sun refuses further development, despite them living in houses built from 1940-1960 that was built on green belt land.

Hypocracy isnt in it.

olly300

RenovationMan wrote: »

I'll bear that in mind. They're still at school and don't have baby boomers as parents - but otherwise your point is valid.

My older brothers are baby boomers and they have children who are teenagers and at school.

They aren't unusual as not everyone especially men have kids in their 20s.

(My brothers are legally old enough to be my dad but that's a different story.)

londonTiger

learn mandarin and move to china. Britain profiteered from it's years of colonisation, and thus the citizens were so well off.

Our financial sector was a direct result of our reputation as world tradesmen which was built from travelling all over the world and raising the Union Jack. Now Britain has lost it's grip over it's colonies, for instance Britain no longer has aircraft carriers to defend any future assault into the falklands by the Argentinians, because we do not have any aircraft carriers.

One day the financial hub might move away from London to Shanghai or even the Middle East.

PaulF81

We do have carriers. We just dont have any jets capable of flying off them.

ukcarper

PaulF81 wrote: »

No, not at all. I want people to take responsibility for themselves, preferably through putting enough into the pot so that others dont have to make up the difference once they reach retirement. Like is starting to happen now. Dont put in enough? We dont drain other services benefiting younger generations, infrastructure projects and dare I say it, public sector wages and pensions for highly competent and skilled workers employed by the government, many of whom are now looking for an out into the private sector. We cut back on the stuff we cannot afford, such as cancer treatments for palliative patients which cost a fortune and state paid retirement home places.

As for planning, I am as country as you can get, however, I also visit countries such as Norway, New Zealand and others where SENSIBLE development, when fitting with surroundings (generally timber framed therefore easy to restore land to its original use) is fully supported. The earlier Devon example was idiotic, there is very little industry down there thats worth supporting. In fact, the local greenbelt IS the industry and thus needs protecting. Its no easier getting PP up North than down south either; I live in the west and again its no easier despite much lower population densities. Why? Because every nimby boomer under the sun refuses further development, despite them living in houses built from 1940-1960 that was built on green belt land.

Hypocracy isnt in it.

Nimbyism has nothing to do with babyboomers. No one I know lives in a large house on a large plot in the greenbelt. I live in a built up area in the Southeast and have no desire to see the few remaining green areas built on. Not all Nimbys are boomers the thing Nimbys have in common is wealth and the wealthy have always protected their own interests.

What would you do with old people who need care and where do you draw the line at cancer treatment.

What services to help the younger generation do you think should be funded.

A._Badger

The problem with pensions is that we are where we are. People put up with absurd levels of taxation at least in part because the were led to believe they would receive a good pension and a world class health service.

That they were lied to by successive governments is beside the point. Like anyone, they want what they were led to believe they were paying for.

As that old socialist fraud, Nye Bevan, one of the founders of the Ponzi scheme, said at the time: "“The great secret about the National Insurance fund is that there ain’t no fund.”

The voters were had. As usual.

PaulF81

Well the nimbyist boomer generation cant have their cake and eat it I am afraid. Later generations are having to work till much later, its only a matter of time before retrospective changes come out. How long do you think it will last when one generation is told to work to 70 and another retired at 65? It isnt going to work without serious trouble for the older ones who will be see to have had a free ride for too long. If they are going to do this, it has to be one and all, that includes getting OAPs back into the workplace.

A._Badger

I don't see how expecting to get what you paid for is 'a free ride'. Then again, I'm not eaten-up with jealousy when I see old people. In fact, I trend to feel sorry for them - especially the poor devils who had to live through WWII.