Retired people could work for pensions..

PaulF81

BobQ wrote: »

So this is where your spoutings emanate from. Willets, the man whose views can be interpreted as saying that a woman's place is in the home. Like you he failed to provide evidence for his assertions that the baby boomer generation has taken out more than it has put in.

One thing he is right about is that the rich are getting richer in our unfair society and its true that the baby boomer generation are certainly part of that problem. Of course, there has always been a disparity of wealth across society but its nothing to do with generational differences.

Recent policies (from Thatcher onwards and including Blair and Cameron) have encouraged the acquisition of personal wealth and its use to buy privilege. What exactly has Willets done to counter this trend? He has put up university fees and made it easier for those with wealth to buy privilege for their children abd beeb part of a Government that has reduced taxes for the weathy I am not suggesting that the previous shower did not do similar things, the disparity that Willets ponfificates about is not the fault of Baby Boomers and indeed as they enter retirement they may experience economic conditions that work against them.

They wouldn't have to had raise university fees if they hasn't ring fenced the NHS.

If you think that people shouldn't receive a good quality of life for working hard I suggest you move to Cuba. I hear their healthcare is great.

grizzly1911

PaulF81 wrote: »

for those of you outside of the outrage bus, i suggest you read David Willetts book, 'the pinch'. enlightening stuff.

The guy is a twit, he make have abrain like a planet but it devoid of reality. If that is what you rely on, says it all really.

ash28

s

PaulF81 wrote: »

its absolutely not. look, in 20 years from now, the cuts we have seen will completely pale in comparison to what we will face. if anyone is deluding themselves that we will see the sort of growth we saw to allow us the quality of life we enjoy you are simply wrong. the global population has grown far too big, something that is widely acknowledged but little talked about. there are plenty of leading nations that practice what i talk about in terms of rationed treatment,its just not widely advertised. it DOES happen within the nhs, again, not just widely talked about. gogle NICE.

we have grown fat on a fake boom which saw our quality of life propelled to far beyond what itmshould have been. that includes medical treatment, benefits, public sector jobs growth and pensions far in excess of what the nation can afford. i havent expressed any views of hatred towards older people, just that their slice of the pie in terms of state expenditure far exceeds the dues they paid during their lifetimes and also what later generations can expect. i make a point of these issues. no section of society should have a carte blanche ring fence away from discussion, especially at a time difficult decisions are made across government.

by the time i retire, i will probably not see a state pension; my current line of work is widely acknowledged to shorten lifespan by around 10 years due to disturbed sleeping cycles and solar radiation. i accept this and i believe my current salary makes up for this (in civvie street btw so no pension till 65, which will have been eroded by cpi so will be practically worthless).

i left at a point will see me recieve no pension till 65 now; the private sector pension however is forecast to be much better than what i would have had under the new post 2015 pension anyhow. so much for gold plated public sector pensions. the 6% non contributory scheme i am on will kick the crap out of what i was on, and long term pay 15 years from now) is double what i was on.

for those of you outside of the outrage bus, i suggest you read David Willetts book, 'the pinch'. enlightening stuff. not every under 35 year old rents and works at mcdonalds you know. some of us do our fair share for our nation, its a shame some to seem to think their age gives them a higher moral ground.

Willetts book is load of political claptrap.

His assertions about the post war babyboom in the UK is a nonsense - he assumes that the post war birthrate here exactly mirrored what was seen in the US - a long and sustained growth in the birthrate over about 20 years - it didn't.

The UK was virtually destroyed economically and physically after the war and the birthrate here spiked in 1946/7 then fell back to birthrates lower than those during the war itself. They started to pick up in the mid 1950s, peaking the mid 1960s and tailing off in the mid 1970s.

You need to look at the UK population pyramid.t

Willetts seems to think the babyboomers are a collective - a bit like the Borg. That they have collectively removed majority of the UK housing stock leaving nothing for those following. It's nonsense - there are plenty of older people who don't own property and plenty of under 35s that do.

There is some truth in the fact that we had virtually full employment (for a while) but on the other hand most of our living conditions would be classed as fairly primitive now.

We didn't actually start to be comfortable financially until the mid 1990s when we were about 40. The before that things were pretty fraught.

The parents couldn't help us out at all - there was no help with deposits - cars - driving lessons or anything else. As time went on it was us who helped support them.

I'm not complaining - it's the way things were and I feel OH and I have been extremely lucky in our choices - he wanted to be a pattern maker when he left education - fortunately a fairly savvy older relative told him to go into something technical, that the old skills were on the way out. And how right he was. OH heeded his advice.

BTW I think the state pension I should receive in 10 years time will more than likely be means tested, one of the reasons we didn't include it in our retirement calculations.

BobQ

PaulF81 wrote: »

They wouldn't have to had raise university fees if they hasn't ring fenced the NHS.

If you think that people shouldn't receive a good quality of life for working hard I suggest you move to Cuba. I hear their healthcare is great.

More deflecting........ I am notresposbible for what "they" did! I am very comfortable with my country and challenge you to state where I suggested that people should not have a good quality of life for working hard.

I was simply commenting on the views of the person you recommended as providing evidence to support your views here. This is an interesting take on the issues that you raise:

http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2010/02/15/baby-boomers-werent-that-lucky/

grizzly1911

PaulF81 wrote: »

vat raises a paltry 13 billion a year. pensioners have little expeniture and typically incur far below average duty (fuel, stamp etc).

raise taxes on big corporations and all their uk employees will be looking for new jobs. look what is happening in france right now due to socialist policies, their laffer curve will swerve right to the left and their total tax take will fall through the floor.

foreign aid needs cutting, but is around 10% of what pensioners cost us annually - a drop in the ocean really.

Ash28 has already answered the VAT element at post 98.

If you think 10% of what pensioners "cost" is a drop in the ocean then why are the Government so keen to save 10% of everything?

I wasn't suggesting that taxes be increased simply saying they should be recovered, loop holes sealed up and avoidance prosecuted fully. If the likes of starscmucks want to operate here then they should pay proportionately or leave it to home developed business.

Pensioners, particularly those with private pensions continue to pay large amounts of duty and VAT as they still have leisure time, activities, eating out, drinking/smoking (in some cases). Several round by me continue to buy new cars for instance and holiday several times a year both here and abroad. As such they must be at least basic rate tax payers too.

Many older people that are now taking up NHS resources for smoking and drink related illnesses have contributed heavily over the years through Duty. The fact the Government allows the sale of these items and collects the revenue suggest they are happy with cost/risk/revenue equation. Don't forget when somone curls their toes up early, from early onset disease, there is a consequential saving against future pension.

The £5bn a year on unnecessary wars, for the last 20 years nearly, would have been better spent. £bns spent on poor procurement from the Armed Services to PFI continues to be mismanaged.

Of course we could do away with the NHS and pensions going forward for new recipients. On the basis that you say it is being paid for out of debt then there will be absolutley no saving in tax for you merely increase payments by all individuals to provide for it privately so all would just be worse off.

I am totally with you, that we are up a creek with some pretty small paddles. We have been going up the creek for decades and successive Governments have been whittling those paddles away.

Unless we want to admit we are rapidly becoming a third world country then it is job creation and exports or reduced imports and in house supply that is required.

The vast majority of pensioners have fully contributed what they were asked by those successive Governments. They are not the culprits.





.

grizzly1911

PaulF81 wrote: »

They wouldn't have to had raise university fees if they hasn't ring fenced the NHS.

In reality they haven't raised University fees thaye have just transferred the cost off the Government balance sheet and into the heads of the students for now. That will come back to bite the Government in the future as they strive to write the unpaid amounts off and back to the exchequer.

The Government should be looking to get the cost of those courses down. It is questionable if they really are value for money for many.

The cost of the "fees" is the same, in relative terms, as in the past. We do hav efor too many students going to University. Many will end up in careers that could have be learnt on the job and educated through "diplomas". For those that do "need" to go the actual courses are in many cases way too long with uncessary cost. The 3 year courses that many follow should be condensed. I appreciate that there are some "specialist" areas that would need longer.

Cuckooclock

I still think PaulF81 is a very unhappy man who cannot accept his lot, but is jealous of others who can. We were never hight earners, but we paid into company pensions so consider ourselves comfortable.
As for not spending I think we have more spending power now, we still save, have holidays, do up our house, go out for meals etc etc. We don't stagnate have you ever heard of the U3A & other such organisations.
When its was mortgage, school outings, school holidays, 6th form, University etc. time we had very little disposable income.
When we were working who did we support, our parents & grandparents pension, there was never a magic pot of money the current taxpayer paid.
I have a nasty feeling I have fallen into the trap of answering a trouble maker, who enjoys working people up, the laughs.:eek:

timmmers

I'm never going to grudge someone who paid into the system a fair pension.

However I do wonder why our government is so keen to strip back on our "benefits" which we have paid for in preference to stopping all and sundry rocking up with hands out for benefits they have paid absolutely nothing into the system to earn? Ireland owes us hundreds of millions in pension payments we paid to Irish citizens and should claim back , same goes for many EEC countries...we just don't bother collecting it.
Anyone from ANYWHERE can turn up and register with a GP and get treatment on the NHS here.. try that abroad. We pay for this. We pay for so many benefits for people who shouldn't get them at all it's sick.
The law for asylum internationally says that to claim it you need to do so in the 1st safe country you reach....now how is that the UK for the majority of those who have travelled through Europe to get here? We know why they come here ...soft, easy money unlike any other EEC country.

Yet we suggest that we penalise the ones who paid for this system when they come to retire?

As for the younger generation being so hard done by? Who the hell fed and clothed them and made sure they had this cushy life to whine about now?

GeorgeHowell

The Baby Boomers are a lucky generation. But's let's examine how and why :-

They didn't have to fight in a war. Reason : nuclear weapons which made global war infeasible unless anyone wants to wipe out the whole race.

They had a relatively good school education. Reason : Labour's social engineering policy of abolishing selective education and dumbing down education in general had not yet kicked in.

Those who went into higher education got the tuition free. Reason : Labour's social engineering policy of putting 40% through higher education though totally unaffordable had not yet happened.

They mostly got decent pensions. Reasons : Labour's raid on pensions had not happened. Good pensions were seen as something for the UK to be proud of and firms could not easily move away from final pension schemes.

They mostly could afford to get on the housing ladder in their youth. Reasons : The country was not so overcrowded. Marriage counted for something so there were fewer individual households looking for homes. Banks and building societies were generally responsible organisations so the mortgage market was for the most part reasonable.

They could mostly get jobs when they finished education. Reasons : there were far fewer immigrants chasing British jobs. Their education was generally better so more of them were employable. British manufacturng had not been allowed to become a rump so there were more unskilled and semi-skilled jobs around,

These were all circumstances which the Baby Boomers enjoyed and benefited from but did not expect to change by the time they became middle aged (except nuclear weapons which were already there when they were born). Most BBs that I know are not pleased that these things have changed for the worst and that the younger generations are relatively disadvantaged.

But I wonder to how many of the anti-Boomer brigade the following apply :- support for nuclear disarmament; belief in a liberal immigration policy; support for EU membership; belief in anti-elitist policies towards secondary and higher education; support for the encouragement and subsidisation of procreation; voting Labour ?

Sapphire

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

They could mostly get jobs when they finished education. Reasons : there were far fewer immigrants chasing British jobs. Their education was generally better so more of them were employable. British manufacturng had not been allowed to become a rump so there were more unskilled and semi-skilled jobs around,

I would add that they had far less high expectations. Many started from the very bottom on extremely low pay and worked their way up. They did not expect to go into relatively highly paid jobs straight from university (that's if they went to university at all, and few people did until quite recently).