Rift grows between young and old

olly300

toby3000 wrote: »

Surly if the system was that you were paying for your own future needs the Baby Boomer generation would be completly screwed due to rampant inflation?

I don't think most people begrudge older people some benefits, but then they're non means-tested (winter fuel allowance/bus passes/free tv licence) then it is annoying for the rest of us.

Problem is means testing these benefits would cost to much for everyone.

They would have to be changed. So for example:
1. Younger pensioners who were on means tested benefits got a fuel allowance.
2. Older pensioners, who like the TV license, where over 74 got automatically got the fuel allowance but the age of receiving both rose automatically as life expectancy increased.

This would mean the OAPs I know on decent pensions wouldn't get it as they are younger and well-off.

As far as free bus travel goes I rather more elderly people used them than drove. I've heard things in some situations, and have also seen the menace of older drivers in action who don't have all their senses.

pqrdef

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Maybe they shouldn't call it National Insurance then and make it compulsory, as that term implies you are insuring for YOUR future health and needs etc.

It doesn't imply anything of the sort. Insurance is always pay-as-you-go. Your car insurance this year pays for other people's crashes this year. If you don't make a claim, kiss the money goodbye. There is no sense in which you build up an entitlement by paying in for years.

Neverland

suburbanwifey wrote: »

I appreciate your point, but in my opinion and my husbands we are paying for our future needs, not anyone else's. They need to work hard, pay into the sytem for their needs to be taken care of.

Yes, my mother claimed child benefit for me and my father worked hard all his life paying into the system, never had a day not working his whole life and he is still working. They are entitled to what they get in old age too.

So basically after doing very nicely out of the welfare state you don't want to fund it for anyone younger than you while still getting benefits for old age

This was the point the FT article was making

You might want to try and read it, though it will probably go completely above your head..

suburbanwifey

Neverland wrote: »

So basically after doing very nicely out of the welfare state you don't want to fund it for anyone younger than you while still getting benefits for old age

This was the point the FT article was making

You might want to try and read it, though it will probably go completely above your head..

The only thing I begrudge, in a serious way, is those out there who are complaining about the baby boomers and those older than that. I say again, they deserve what they have, they earned it. It really is as simple as that, however you wish to turn that on its head to suit the younger generations. I personally have reaped NO benefits of the Welfare State, all I have ever done is pay out because of it. When I am old, I will take all I can, to get some of it back and will feel more than entitled as I earned it.

ukcarper

You would think that retired people stop contributing when they retire I get the winter fuel allowance but I pay much more than that in tax on my pension .

ruggedtoast

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Maybe they shouldn't call it National Insurance then and make it compulsory, as that term implies you are insuring for YOUR future health and needs etc. The whole system is wrong, open to abuse and misuse by the masses, as we are seeing of late. Contributions should go into a fund for yourselves, that way those that don't pay would have to do without, rather than being funded by all those boomers out there that they moan about, who paid in their whole lives so they could sit back and reap the rewards they do nowadays. It just galls me when the younger generation resent a generation that paid in their whole lives and then get moaned about as they have a sense of entitlement in the youths opinion. They have earned that entitlement in my opinion and that's the way I feel. Sorry.

Is it hard to breathe, what with your head being stuck so far up there and all?

olly300

ukcarper wrote: »

You would think that retired people stop contributing when they retire I get the winter fuel allowance but I pay much more than that in tax on my pension .

But they are stupid giving you money in one hand and taking back in the other hand. It's not very efficient the same with tax credits for working people.

I know why governments do that as it's a way to ensure lots of people feel they are benefiting from the welfare state and so maintain the social contract.

olly300

suburbanwifey wrote: »

The only thing I begrudge, in a serious way, is those out there who are complaining about the baby boomers and those older than that. I say again, they deserve what they have, they earned it. It really is as simple as that, however you wish to turn that on its head to suit the younger generations.

The complaints about the baby boomers are due to what toby3000 said.

In regards to those older a lot of young people do not know any people 70+ to talk to. So they won't get to hear first hand accounts of what it's like to not have a welfare safety net. If they had they would stop ranting.

suburbanwifey wrote: »

I personally have reaped NO benefits of the Welfare State, all I have ever done is pay out because of it. When I am old, I will take all I can, to get some of it back and will feel more than entitled as I earned it.

You are very lucky not to receive any healthcare as an adult.

I have and I'm grateful for it.

ash28

I'm a boomer - early retired - OH and I are both 56 and took retirement at the end of 2010.

We both still pay income tax and it's a not insignificant amount but neither of us pay NI now. So we will both contribute to the state coffers until we croak.

I fully expect the state pension to be means tested by the time we are eligible for it in 10 years time. And I certainly don't expect to be given winter fuel allowances or a bus pass - it would be a waste of time for us anyway - we've gone rural and there are no buses at all. So if the time comes when we can't drive we'll have to sell up and move to a more urban area.

I have been well looked after by the state - I got a decent education which allowed me to get a decent job. I've had medical care when I've needed it (not very often, but who knows what lies ahead) and had very expensive dental and optical care for quite a number of years. I had child benefit for my children and it wasn't a deciding factor when we were planning a family. We've never had anything else. Except for 2 weeks dole in 1977 for OH when he was between job - he had started his new job by the time it came through!

Coming from poor backgrounds OH and I were fairly driven in wanting a better life than our parents and worked hard to get it. Poverty is big driver - or it was for us. On the other hand my children weren't brought up in poverty and aren't driven in the same way - they aren't very ambitious at all - I'm not saying they have a sense of entitlement or anything because I don't think they do. They just don't have the same drive that we did - but they are happy and as a parent that's all you can ask. And of course mum and dad are there to lend a hand if it's needed which is something we didn't have - the hand went the other way as we helped our parents not the other way round.

I don't think our kids will do as well as we did (if you count doing well meaning financially) and I really don't think that's lack of opportunity (they're bright people) on their part, they really don't seem as interested - I'm sure I've put that badly - but hey ho.

kabayiri

50 years from now when the current young are posting in an identical thread, it won't be about young/old rift.

It will be the rift between those with jobs and prosperity and the robots, taking all "our work".

The point is a lot can change in a generation. I don't see the U.S handing over the keys to be world No. 1 to China without some disgruntlement. A disgruntled US with the largest Nuclear powered carrier fleet is not something to be dismissed.