Retired people could work for pensions..

GeorgeHowell

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?

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.

No it doesn't mean that. The inflated national debt is for a number of reasons but state pensions are not part of it because they are funded as and when, not from a specific ring-fenced fund. What I think you refer to is the national deficit whereby government expenditure is higher than income from taxes and other sources. State pensions are one aspect of that, but so are for example :- waste and bureaucracy, public sector pensions, foreign aid to India, huge misguided IT initiatives that never work, the Millenium Dome .... need I go on ?

Most boomers who have property (and don't have dementia for years) will leave at least some of its value to their descendents. But too many of the younger generation want it all now, Mum ! They are not a patient generation, and that's one thing that can be blamed on the boomers because too many as children were given what they wanted when they wanted it, such that when they join the real world as adults they can't cope with a lack of instant self-gratification

If you have higher priorities for government spending above health then I would contend that puts you in a small proportion of the population.

Longevity may well continue to increase indefinitely-- nobody knows, but no reason why it shouldn't. The level of increase we have seen in recent times was not predicted by planners. We don't want to make the same mistake again.

Why do you think that Baby Boomers in general are responsible for turning down planning applications ? I have never had the opportunity to participate in a planning decision in my life, and nor has anyone I know. One could occasionally object, assuming that one even gets asked, but they take very little notice of that.

The old argument that the young blow all their money on gadget toys, holidays, and drinking because getting on the property ladder is a step too far is not a credible one. It's a cop out. Many of the boomer generation can and do help their offspring and younger relatives onto the property ladder in various ways. But they will be reluctant to do so if the latter show themselves to be financially irresponsible, f e c k less, and self-indulgent.

Anyone thinking that buy to let is a good idea now is self -deluding. Those still in it are unwilling to sell at a loss, and/or making irrational decisions because of present low savings rates and flat stock markets. The Rachmann-esque Baby Boomer landlord to whom you allude is probably losing money on the deal.

You propose that people about to retire should receive substantially less state pension that they thought they were entitled to within the tax vs benefit unofficial contract that they thought they had with the government, so that someone young can have a bigger, nicer house sooner. And yet you purport not to be ageist ...... oh no ?

PaulF81

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

No it doesn't mean that. The inflated national debt is for a number of reasons but state pensions are not part of it because they are funded as and when, not from a specific ring-fenced fund. What I think you refer to is the national deficit whereby government expenditure is higher than income from taxes and other sources. State pensions are one aspect of that, but so are for example :- waste and bureaucracy, public sector pensions, foreign aid to India, huge misguided IT initiatives that never work, the Millenium Dome .... need I go on ?

Most boomers who have property (and don't have dementia for years) will leave at least some of its value to their descendents. But too many of the younger generation want it all now, Mum ! They are not a patient generation, and that's one thing that can be blamed on the boomers because too many as children were given what they wanted when they wanted it, such that when they join the real world as adults they can't cope with a lack of instant self-gratification

I you have higher priorities for government spending above health then I would contend that puts you in a small proportion of the population.

Longevity may well continue to increase indefinitely-- nobody knows, but no reason why it shouldn't. The increase we have seen in recent times was not predicted by planners. We don't ant to make the same mistake again.

Why do you think that Baby Boomers in general are responsible for turning down planning applications ? I have never had the opportunity to participate in a planning decision in my life, and nor has anyone I know. One could occasionally object, assuming that one even gets asked, but they take very little notice of that.

The old argument that the young blow all their money on gadget toys, holidays, and drinking because getting on the property ladder is a step too far is not a credible one. It's a cop out. Many of the boomer generation can and do help their offspring and younger relatives onto the property ladder in various ways. But they will be reluctant to do so if the latter show themselves to be financially irresponsible, !!!!less, and self-indulgent.

Anyone thinking that buy to let is a good idea now is self -deluding. Those still in it are unwilling to sell at a loss, and/or making irrational decisions because of present low savings rates and flat stock markets. the Rachmann-esque Baby Boomer landlord to whom you allude is probably losing money on the deal.

You spropose that people about to retire should receive substantially less state pension that they thought they were entitled to within the tax vs benefit unofficial contract that they thought they had with the government, so that someone young can have a bigger nicer house sooner. And yet you purport not to be ageist ...... oh no ?

You could argue the same for any benefit, be it child benefit or JSA. Child benefit was seen by many as part of the contract, but that went. Why aren't they means testing winter fuel allowance for example?

CLAPTON

PaulF81 wrote: »

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.

Japan doesn't seem to be suffering because of their huge savings and their debt; one could see it simply as recycling the money.

I made no specific reference to the huge inflation in the 70s and 80s but I can see no logical reason why such inflation can't return during the next 40 years or so.
Do you have some particular reason for saying it's now impossible (maybe of the 'no more boom and bust school' of economics?).

As far as increasing the current level of debt then one could say we are all equally responsible.

As you don't mention it, can I assume you forgive the over 85s for fighting the second world war?

GeorgeHowell

PaulF81 wrote: »

You could argue the same for any benefit, be it child benefit or JSA. Child benefit was seen by many as part of the contract, but that went. Why aren't they means testing winter fuel allowance for example?

I agree with you about winter fuel allowance -- it's a nonsense brought in by Labour and unfortunately upheld by the coalition because Cameron was put on the spot in one of the pre-election debates.

However state pension is different from most other benefits. People over state retirement age are not expected to work, and in the absence of any occupational cover may have no other source of income. They paid, and still pay, something called National Insurance. It is no longer ring-fenced for the purpose but maintains the principle that you pay in now to get back later. Most other benefits go to people who do, or could, or should, work, as a substitute for, or a supplement to, earned income. I will never convince you because you have a bee in your bonnet about this. But I repeat that if you think state pensions should be reduced to enable the young to have bigger, nicer houses then that is ageism.

exarmydreamer

xylophone wrote: »

Fishy stories and statistics?:rotfl:

Thanks, I would of said soul, but I don't think he has one. But I agree with talking out of his A***!

StevieJ

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.

I am not really with you, according to this chart debt has been falling since the first of the Boomers were born? In fact when the first of the Boomers were making their entrance into the world UK debt was over 240% of GDP? This trend only recently being reversed with Labour spending on health (GP''s salaries) and education in addition to the greed induced global banking recession.



http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

]

MacMickster

PaulF81 wrote: »

if i do, i can accept that with grace and humour.

I seriously doubt that. Grace and humour have been conspicuously absent from any of your posts that I have read.

You have a chip on your shoulder believing that you and your generation face a particularly hard life, and that this is down to the actions of just about everyone who is at least a generation older than you.

I suspect that you, personally, will indeed face a particularly hard life. If so, then don't blame that on your elders (and betters), but instead on the grace and humour which so spectacularly fails to find a way out of your imagination.

ruggedtoast

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?

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.

Good post good post! This has stuck it to the boomers good and proper. They are pinned and wriggling! They have raided the cookie bank and the cupboard is bare, but its the kids that go without.

GeorgeHowell

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Good post good post! This has stuck it to the boomers good and proper. They are pinned and wriggling! They have raided the cookie bank and the cupboard is bare, but its the kids that go without.

I suspect that post was made with a heavy dose of irony and with tongue firmly in cheek.

But in case it is not, I will put it on the record that I feel neither pinned nor wriggling in the slightest. The prominent anti-Baby-Boomer poster on this thread, like all others I have seen, makes a very poorly argued, toys-out-of-the-pram type case, based on embitterment and resentment.

The Baby Boomers have been a lucky generation in some respects, as has already been admitted and explained numerous times. But they certainly are not deliberately responsible for the problems currently facing the younger generations. Except for one area, that is -- they let their children have it all too easy. So we now have a "want it all now, Mum !", non-resilient, younger generation, some of whom look for someone to blame for the fact that reality has caught up with them and they face difficulties and challenges in adulthood, as all generations face -- albeit not always the same ones.

thorsoak

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Good post good post! This has stuck it to the boomers good and proper. They are pinned and wriggling! They have raided the cookie bank and the cupboard is bare, but its the kids that go without.

Sorry - but I don't think that we pinned and wriggling ...we're the ones who are looking after our children's children so that our children can continue to fulfil their own desires; we're the ones who funded the deposits for their homes now, the ones who have changed our retirement plans in order to help our children take up careers/change careers. What is more, we have done it lovingly and have not begrudged one minute nor one penny.

We remember what it was like paying 60% of our income to fund our mortgages, paying into pensions which failed to reach the figures we were promised - life is what it is - not one of us was/is in a position to CHANGE all that is wrong with the financial situation both here and abroad, any more than PaulF81 or RuggedToast can change things now.

As I've said before it is sad that part of our children's generation is sad and bitter and begrudges their elders everything that they worked for, and whose only wish for us is that we hurry up and shuffle off this mortal coil!