Over Privileged Boomers are not 'Sacred Cows': Wilby

Graham_Devon

Most boomers don't think anything individually I wouldn't think.

The problem comes when the government states "we have a problem, therefore, from today, anyone under the age of x will find themselves worse off".

It wouldn't cause quite so much of a divide if it was simply stated "everyone from today will have to work longer".

But that's not what's said, it's everyone under a certain age. Every time. Doesn't matter if it's working longer, reduced pensions, changed pensions. It only hits a certain group of people. The younger ones.

Sure, theres the argument that these people have longer to deal with it, but that is, put bluntly, an easy way to massage the message, which is basically we'll protect one sub section of society.

I work with people who fall in the right age range, therefore are entitled to the full blown pension thats creating the problem. Yet other people I work with, are not entitled, simply because they are 5 years younger, and must put their hands in their pockets and work longer to make sure the other bloke can retire earlier and take more.

Were all in it together apparently, until it comes to ageism.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Most boomers don't think anything individually I wouldn't think.

The problem comes when the government states "we have a problem, therefore, from today, anyone under the age of x will find themselves worse off".

It wouldn't cause quite so much of a divide if it was simply stated "everyone from today will have to work longer".

But that's not what's said, it's everyone under a certain age. Every time. Doesn't matter if it's working longer, reduced pensions, changed pensions. It only hits a certain group of people. The younger ones.

Sure, theres the argument that these people have longer to deal with it, but that is, put bluntly, an easy way to massage the message, which is basically we'll protect one sub section of society.

I work with people who fall in the right age range, therefore are entitled to the full blown pension thats creating the problem. Yet other people I work with, are not entitled, simply because they are 5 years younger, and must put their hands in their pockets and work longer to make sure the other bloke can retire earlier and take more.

Were all in it together apparently, until it comes to ageism.

You seem to imply that most boomers have some form of defined benefit pension when in fact most haven't and will have to buy an annuity that's assuming they have the funds to.

Graham_Devon

[QUOTE=ukcarper;52655625]You seem to imply that most boomers have some form of defined benefit pension when in fact most haven't and will have to buy an annuity that's assuming they have the funds to.[/QUOTE]

I don't imply that at all. Regardless of how many may or may not have one, it's still the old age cut off thing.

Infact, my post wasn't about any particular pension at all. Even the state pension is covered by my post.

A certain section of the boomer generation were even able to overturn the decision to implement a higher retirement age on them....because it's was "unfair". This is about unsustainable, unaffordable state pensions, not fairness, but they succesfully overturned it, and managed to make the most of the unaffordable pension at the cost of everyone else below them.

Again, I'm not saying people set out to do something simply because they are of boomer age. All I'm suggesting is that people should be able to evaluate the sitation and see they have had it better than the generation before them, and those after them. This is undeniably true. People of below boomer age (in the most part) will have to work longer, for less, in a variety of situations. It's not even working longer for the same.

vivatifosi

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The problem comes when the government states "we have a problem, therefore, from today, anyone under the age of x will find themselves worse off".

But this is happening to boomers too. I've gone from being told I'll retire at 60 (which I never agreed with as it was sexist), to 65, to 66 and now to 67, along with many GenXers. People born after that currently face working to 68. By the time I retire I will have worked 50 years as I started at 17. However I'm still expecting as the date is sometime in the distance that it will be later than 67. Probably closer to 70 at the rate it's going up.

To think that all boomers are going to retire at 60 or 65 is just a fallacy. Also, don't forget that the reason we are being expected to retire later is because people are expected to live longer. Therefore people born after us may actually spend longer in retirement, even if they retire later.

FWIW I think the big issue facing younger people is not house prices or retirement age, it's access to decent pension schemes to supplement whatever the state gives us at whatever age we reach retirement.

pqrdef

Graham_Devon wrote: »

All I stated wad that boomers need to accept they have had it very good. I included pensions in that too.

Why? Just as the first boomers start drawing their pensions, the women's state pension age goes up from 60 to 65 and beyond, and the men's age goes up as well. Indexing changes to CPI, age allowance is abolished, and annuity rates fall through the floor.

There's been no good news for boomers on the pension front. And it isn't over yet. Many of us think it's only a matter of time before the state pension is means-tested and we may well never get one at all.

We paid for the pensions of our predecessors, but you lot are all selfishness and greed. We must hope that you reap what you sow.

Graham_Devon

vivatifosi wrote: »

But this is happening to boomers too. I've gone from being told I'll retire at 60 (which I never agreed with as it was sexist), to 65, to 66 and now to 67, along with many GenXers. People born after that currently face working to 68. By the time I retire I will have worked 50 years as I started at 17. However I'm still expecting as the date is sometime in the distance that it will be later than 67. Probably closer to 70 at the rate it's going up.

To think that all boomers are going to retire at 60 or 65 is just a fallacy. Also, don't forget that the reason we are being expected to retire later is because people are expected to live longer. Therefore people born after us may actually spend longer in retirement, even if they retire later.

FWIW I think the big issue facing younger people is not house prices or retirement age, it's access to decent pension schemes to supplement whatever the state gives us at whatever age we reach retirement.

As I said, I'm not against boomers, not at all. Many (probably the majority?) have already retired at those ages, my parents being one of them.

All I'm suggesting (again) is that there needs to be acceptance, but as we see above, I simply got labelled as ditesting my parents because I suggested that.

Wish I'd stayed out of this thread!

JanCee

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As I said, I'm not against boomers, not at all. Many (probably the majority?) have already retired at those ages, my parents being one of them.

Baby boomers are the generation born between 1946 & 1964. The majority haven't even reached retirement age yet.

pqrdef

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But that's not what's said, it's everyone under a certain age. Every time. Doesn't matter if it's working longer, reduced pensions, changed pensions. It only hits a certain group of people. The younger ones.

Everybody will have to work longer unless their pension from work will be big enough to live on without the state pension. For most people, it's irrelevant when they can draw their work pension, because they can't afford to retire until state pension age.

pqrdef

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A certain section of the boomer generation were even able to overturn the decision to implement a higher retirement age on them....because it's was "unfair".

You mean, the Treasury tried to change its timescales at unacceptably short notice, when people had already made definite retirement plans? That was just gross maladministration.

When the Treasury changed its mind, the result was that people who'd been given a state pension date under the transitional arrangements already announced were able to retire on the date they'd been given.

And you're seething with resentment over this. How sick are you?

pqrdef

JanCee wrote: »

Baby boomers are the generation born between 1946 & 1964. The majority haven't even reached retirement age yet.

It won't sink in, no matter how often we say it.