Retired people could work for pensions..

grizzly1911

PaulF81 wrote: »

IF is a big assumption! On what basis do you base this upon? Can you guarantee this, or are the government cynically projecting forward a line to meet their policy requirements and to protect the large proportion of their voters, thereby inflicting further restrictions and pain on other sectors of society? Can you imagine this being reversed if longetivity decreases?

QUOTE]

Yes I think they are cynically projecting forward a line to meet their own objectives to make us all contribute more, for longer, for less. A back door increase in taxation.

No I can't, see them reducing it down, because they wil have banked the revenue assumption and used it.

If a Government, of any persuassion, simply had a progressive tax system based on income, a single collection medium, stripping out all stealth taxes, local taxes and duty, there would muted anarchy.

givememoney

PaulF81 wrote: »

I'm no townie by the way. I love the countryside, I just think giving our hard working young professionals a decent home to raise their family in close enough to their place of employment shouldn't be too much to expect when a lot of them are in the higher rate of tax within 5 years of graduation with extensive university debt to pay off on their professionally required degrees.

I think you believe that BB are living on a crest of wave that has been up there supporting them from the time they went to work up until now when they are retired/retiring.

I was born just a couple of years after the war when food was still on ration. I went on two holidays as a child funded by London Transport as my dad was a bus conductor. Other than that we went to the seaside one day a year and I was taken to the zoo once a year. We didn't have a car and my mother made my clothes.

When I went to work I gave half my wages to my mother. I married at 19 and divorced at 25. I remarried at 26 and when our daughter was born 2 years later I stayed home to look after her and her brother who came 2 years after that.

My husband was paid only if he went to work, sickness was not paid so you had to manage on less money. His job in the furniture trade was also up and down so if he went on `short time` we had less money coming in.

We were buying our own house and interest rates were much higher than they are today. Once I believe they rose to 15%. There wasn't all these mortgage options like there is today. If the interest rate went up, so did your payments, if it went down it also reduced but that didn't seem to happen that often. My husband did all the DIY and I made the children clothes also curtains for the house. We couldn't afford to pay professionals.

We struggled believe you me. I felt very upset once when my husband was on short time and we couldn't afford to send our daughter on a school trip she wanted to go on.

This state of affairs continued, I in the mean time also worked part time to try to make ends meet. We only had camping holidays and our cars were bangers.

When our children went out to work things go easier and they left home and it was easier still.

I hope you can now see that life for me anyway and I guess a lot of others wasn't a bed of roses. We worked hard and feel that now we have reached retirement we shouldn't be expected to carry on till we drop.

grizzly1911

PaulF81 wrote: »

I'm no townie by the way. I love the countryside, I just think giving our hard working young professionals a decent home to raise their family in close enough to their place of employment shouldn't be too much to expect when a lot of them are in the higher rate of tax within 5 years of graduation with extensive university debt to pay off on their professionally required degrees.

Another option would be to distribute the work rather than concentrate the housing.

grizzly1911

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

As for your history to date, well firstly this is an internet forum, so you could just be saying that, and secondly you have had the benefit of a terrific education. May I ask how much that cost you? I'm not being challenging, I would genuinely enjoy knowing how much it cost. .

The poster has ben fairly consistent on various postings and did point out vast sums (~£1m?) had been spent on their military training in addition to personal debt to pay for education.

StevieJ

BobQ wrote: »

Fair point about sterotyping and generalisations and credit to you for all you have done. However, are you typical of your generation?

He is typical of his generation (on this board) in stereotyping old people and 'boomers' like is his forte

exarmydreamer

StevieJ wrote: »

I wonder what the surviving Battle of Britain pilots would make of this excuse for an RAF officer

PaulF81, Remember to wear your poppy with pride on Sunday for all our retired elderly veterans dead or alive and for all those who served and died for our country to be a free and better place to live.

Your an absolute disgrace to the service and should know better, shame on you.

thorsoak

PaulF81 wrote: »

It's a benefit. Ask those who have private pensions and are means tested through taxation of their pension.

May I point out that not only those who have private pensions are means-tested......as a pensioner who still works at nmw, I too am taxed because I receive pension.

The "age allowance" which precluded a certain amount of pension before taxation has been frozen - which means that a lot of us who do receive state pensions are paying back tax - in my case my state pension of £584 per month means that I pay £74 per month in tax - so stop generalising about rich baby boomers!

I have no problem with the fact that I am paying tax - I am still contributing to the well-being of the country - its just sad that certain of the younger generation are so dismissive of the older generation.

PaulF81

exarmydreamer wrote: »

PaulF81, Remember to wear your poppy with pride on Sunday for all our retired elderly veterans dead or alive and for all those who served and died for our country to be a free and better place to live.

Your an absolute disgrace to the service and should know better, shame on you.

Outrage brigade alert.

I will be doing more than that(not serving now btw) I would never denigrate our service veterans all of whom i have ytter respect for. The veterans pension is a joke, but I have never commented on this so why confuse the 2 issues? I don't see much defence for those who served to within 1 month of their 22 then were made redundant on here. Lets not confuse every pensioner with service veterans, there is a definite difference. I simply point out that those in receipt of their pensions and about to enter them never paid enough into the system to warrant the current state pension, and thAt other areas of so called society are now taking what I see as an unfair burden to allow that level of payment. Can you give me one good reason why they tiered the pensions changes instead of changing it for all overnight? I also point out that those who typically shout the loudest about planning changes to green belt are typically close to, or otherwise in receipt of their pension. Thors, I would suggest that the feeling regarding disregard is nothing other than a feeling reciprocated. I see no evidence to suggest the bulk of policy is purely designed to protect the bulk of those expected to vote, as opposed to the long term Wellbeing of the country. Investment in education and infrastructure rarely features as a discussion point in the house, I wonder why?

As for excuses of 'I'm retired abroad enjoying the good life, how could I go back to work' how unbelievably selfish.

GeorgeHowell

PaulF81 wrote: »

One of the big reasons why I get narked off at youngsters who are wasters, when people of similar backgrounds serve their country with complete dedication and refuse to use their social background as an excuse.

Make your mind up, in an earlier post you said that the younger generations are not wasters and much more hard working than the Baby Boomers, who had it too easy. The truth is that all generations have their hard workers and their wasters -- but then my perspective is not distorted by rampant ageism.

Anyone who knows which end is up knows that pensions planning has to be geared to the expected period that people will spend in retirement, not to the period that they will spend working. Anything else is emotive nonsense.

And I repeat my previous question, which of these apply to you :-
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 ?

Are you partly creating your own problems ?

thorsoak

So what is your excuse for being selfish? The fact that you have benefitted from an expensive education, from a even more expensive training which now allows you to earn at the higher rate of taxation?

You obviously begrude those that raised you, that educated and trained you, that contributed to that - and think that they are no better than something that you would scuff off the sole of your shoe - well, no matter - that is how most of us opposing your views view you!