Retired people could work for pensions..

xylophone

willy waving competition

Is this a game that they play in the mess?:eek:

PaulF81

You may be more interested in 'the dance of the flaming backsides'

GeorgeHowell

PaulF81 wrote: »

The answer is simple, I'm not ageist. I just don't see why any sector of so called society is entitled to a greater level of protection than others, especially when you account for the level of investment in the services they made. The problem is, someone will have to pay, and it will be my generation and my children.

Should.nt the question be what could those approaching the pension do to help out with the national deficit?

Of course it's very clear and unavoidable that if longevity continues to increase each generation will have to work to an older age, or pay more in whilst they are working, or both. Like a lot of your generation you appear to be in total denial about that reality.

As far as today's pensioners paying towards the national deficit is concerned. Firstly many of them do already pay income tax on the pensions. Secondly they are not all wealthy enough to make a bigger contribution without it hurting. Thirdly when they see many of the younger generation bung so much money at shallow rubbish like iPads, stag and hen weeks abroad, and designer gear then it's difficult to feel that sympathetic.

You obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder of some sort, presumably about your personal circumstances. Laying it all off on a whole generation may be a form of therapy for you, but that does not make it any less absurd.

PaulF81

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Of course it's very clear and unavoidable that if longevity continues to increase each generation will have to work to an older age, or pay more in whilst they are working, or both. Like a lot of your generation you appear to be in total denial about that reality.

As far as today's pensioners paying towards the national deficit is concerned. Firstly many of them do already pay income tax on the pensions. Secondly they are not all wealthy enough to make a bigger contribution without it hurting. Thirdly when they see many of the younger generation bung so much money at shallow rubbish like iPads, stag and hen weeks abroad, and designer gear then it's difficult to feel that sympathetic.

You obviously have a huge chip on your shoulder of some sort, presumably about your personal circumstances. Laying it all off on a whole generation may be a form of therapy for you, but that does not make it any less absurd.

But can't you see, the pure fact we have a national debt means they DIDI NOT PAY ENOUGH! If you have a bank account going more and more overdrawn every month, you need to pay more in or spend less. The boomers/current pensioners decided to do neither and hand that debt down to me and my children. You say each generation, each generation apart from the ones about to receive pensions they never paid enough in to, whilst in the main, sitting on a house nest egg that has priced other generations out of a family home, whilst refusing to allow further development for young professionals. Where is the equity in that?

I ask again, what happens when longetivity stops increasing or reverses? Will we see a reversal in current policy in all honesty? Do you ACTUALLY believe longetivity will continue as forecast? Really? Or will we have to continue to either grow the national debt, or cut back on other services to maintain the likes of the NHS and the state pension for those lucky enough to be born during the boomer years?

Have you ever thought that whilst youngsters are spending 60% of their take home on rent, unable to buy a house that is on average completely out of proportion with salaries, if they are lucky enough to have a job, with over 30k of student debt, they have no other option? why save 300 that you spend on an ipad (my biggest workplace tool by the way) when its pointless saving for a house as you will be 50 before you can afford the deposit anyway? Your stereotype is just as bad as mine on boomers in a way I suppose, but it is exactly that, and far from the truth. I intend to be mortgage free by 40. I have been incredibly lucky for my generation. I have also worked bloody hard for it. I know, discussing this with my parents and grandparents generation, that I have worked far far harder for the same home, whilst being able to hold a decent salary. They agree (although it 2 years for them to acknowledge that!)

Do yourself a favour. Put yourself in a youngsters shoes, say a engineering graduate. Work it out on a piece of paper with realistic costings of expenditure, and tell me how old they will be, as a professional on salaries you find online, they will be before affording a typical 3 bed family home in a normal area (ready to settle). Factor in a period for rent whilst saving (probably paying off a boomer mortgage), pay and go phone etc, living on food bought at asda and transport costs. factor student loans deductions. Purchase of a studio flat then work out how difficult that second step will be to the family home. its almost impossible for the average graduate . Do that and you may start to understand the level of disenchantment with the current batch about to graduate.

I really struggle to see (please help me with this) how the state pension is any different to any other benefit. They can stop cb for a whole sector of society due to the crisis, they can massively cut public sector pensions (despite a lot being contributory) but the minute the state pension is threatened, we get screaming blue murder. It's a socialist construct, nothing more, nothing less. To that end, it's fair game to Change the terms and conditions for those about to enter the system as it is for those forecast to enter in 20 years.

thorsoak

PaulF81 wrote: »

You may be more interested in 'the dance of the flaming backsides'

You obviously prefer talking out of yours!

PaulF81

Ha ha! Very good!

CLAPTON

PaulF81 wrote: »

But can't you see, the pure fact we have a national debt means they DIDI NOT PAY ENOUGH! If you have a bank account going more and more overdrawn every month, you need to pay more in or spend less. The boomers/current pensioners decided to do neither and hand that debt down to me and my children. You say each generation, each generation apart from the ones about to receive pensions they never paid enough in to, whilst in the main, sitting on a house nest egg that has priced other generations out of a family home, whilst refusing to allow further development for young professionals. Where is the equity in that?

.

After the second war the national debt was 250% of GDP;
this was reduced to about 30% of GDP by 2007

subsequently, the financial crisis led the debt to rise to the current level of about 70% of GDP

I am a little confused why you think that the generation about to retire are solely responsible for the current debt situation.

I suppose one could blame the over 85s for fighting the second world war.

PaulF81

CLAPTON wrote: »

After the second war the national debt was 250% of GDP;
this was reduced to about 30% of GDP by 2007

subsequently, the financial crisis led the debt to rise to the current level of about 70% of GDP

I am a little confused why you think that the generation about to retire are solely responsible for the current debt situation.

I suppose one could blame the over 85s for fighting the second wortld war.

Want to suggest where the killer levels of growth will come from that saw that debt reduction? It's not as if Japan are doing fantastically at repaying their debt 20 years after their bank crisis is it? And if you think we will see wage inflation of the sort that helped out in the 70s and 80s, I think you are slightly mad. It's not just the debt, it's the amount that's being added every year.

Uk GDP was in tatters post ww2 anyhow, significantly distorting this figure. The wasteland that was Europe, combined with the last vestiges of empire saw away a lot of that debt.

And let's not forget, back then British industry was actually owned by Britain, not by some Chinese state owned bank, linke the majority of the. Ftse250

wotsthat

PaulF81 wrote: »

But can't you see, the pure fact we have a national debt means they DIDI NOT PAY ENOUGH!

That's not a very good way of proving that boomers didn't pay enough. Since the end of WWII the UK has borrowed money every year with the odd exception.

I'm not sure what influence a 10 year old in 1964 or 1974 really had over government spending and taxation plans. We didn't see our first boomer Prime Minister until a fresh faced Tony Blair appeared in 1997.

I'll wager that when you pop off the mortal coil you will only have seen a handful of surplus years too - have you been paying enough?

System

PaulF81 wrote: »

The boomers/current pensioners decided to do neither and hand that debt down to me and my children.

Nobody "decided" to do anything. Individuals have no control over the national debt. Every government that has ever existed takes the easy way out and borrows money to spend on its programme. Democracy hastens this trend because the parties have to compete in offering bribes to the electorate to vote for them. A party that offered a balanced budget and no manifesto proposals would not get elected.

Individuals can only respond to the circumstances created by the government, and insofar as the government actually represents anyone's preferences, every single voter, boomer, young unemployed, struggling young graduate, connives at that situation and is responsible for the results.