Retired people could work for pensions..

Thrugelmir

StevieJ wrote: »

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.

Makes you wonder what the chart would have looked like without inflation (induced by a 40 year credit boom).

Without "good" inflation the picture may well look very different in the years to come.

PaulF81

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Makes you wonder what the chart would have looked like without inflation (induced by a 40 year credit boom).

Without "good" inflation the picture may well look very different in the years to come.

no answer to the point that uk gdp couldnt have been much lower post ww2. nor our state assets were significantly greater and the potenital for significant growth from rebuilding europe were also there ww2 allowed many european nations to febuild from scratch, one of the main reasons france and germany have such good infrastructure, compared to ours which dates back in the main tonvictorian times and modified since.

for all those saying "we had no choice", sorry, you lived under a democracy and selfishly chose to believe you could grow a welfare state with excessive promises of your retirement. the reality was, you always knew that it wouldnt be your generation that picked up the tab.

sorry for the delay in responding, i have just got back from a 24 hour shift.

thorsoak

Oh dear! It looks as if there is a problem here .....it is mooted that OAPs get off their bloated backsides and get back to work - but at the same time, there are complaints about the older workforce not being willing to adapt and jump over some ever-increasing height jumps - not to mention stopping younger people from climbing the career ladders!

Make your minds up, fellas .......

grizzly1911

PaulF81 wrote: »

no answer to the point that uk gdp couldnt have been much lower post ww2. nor our state assets were significantly greater and the potenital for significant growth from rebuilding europe were also there ww2 allowed many european nations to febuild from scratch, one of the main reasons france and germany have such good infrastructure, compared to ours which dates back in the main tonvictorian times and modified since.

Fair comment. It also one of the reasons Germany outperformed us in Heavy Engineering with new machinery.

for all those saying "we had no choice", sorry, you lived under a democracy and selfishly chose to believe you could grow a welfare state with excessive promises of your retirement. the reality was, you always knew that it wouldnt be your generation that picked up the tab.

sorry for the delay in responding, i have just got back from a 24 hour shift.

It is a democracy and both parties played their part. Just how was the average guy in the street going change things? In the same way that changes being proposed/implemented now are being demonstrated against, literally and politically and their views being totally ignored?

Both parties renege on their manifestos so even if you voted for one hoping for change there is absolutely no guarantee they would follow through. The changes either party make are often ill thought through and often tactical rather than strategic. They endeavour to correct one position only for another front to break out elsewhere.

We would have just as much luck selecting a government by lottery.

GeorgeHowell

PaulF81 wrote: »

for all those saying "we had no choice", sorry, you lived under a democracy and selfishly chose to believe you could grow a welfare state with excessive promises of your retirement. the reality was, you always knew that it wouldnt be your generation that picked up the tab.

That is tosh, and surely is no more than a contrived wind up ?

How could anyone forty or so years ago have predicted the longevity issue and other factors which have put so much pressure on state and other pension provisions ? The experts did not predict it so how could the average punter have been expected to do so ? Everyone thought that state pensions would continue to be affordable at their relatively meagre level. They also assumed that what they are their employers were paying into pensions funds would be enough to cover their retirements, just like the actuaries and other experts told them they would. How could anyone second guess all that at the time ?

Regarding time-bombs left for future generations, the one that that today's younger generation is leaving for its children and its grandchildren is population explosion. With increased affluence and lunatic welfare policies the attitude of many is to keep knocking out kids as long as the whim takes them. "Two boys ? Let's try for a girl then." Oh dear it's another boy ... let's go for a fourth.". Five kids, two Labrador retrievers, six rabbits, a Chelsea tractor on the driveway -- what a lovely lifestyle. Or at the other end of the spectrum : five kids, and all the booze, fags, scratchcards, and Sky TV I want. But the chances are those kids won't be able to afford many kids of their own because sooner or later this overcrowded island won't be able to contain or afford that, financially or environmentally. And unlike the pensions and housing squeezes that is something that can be reasonably predicted decades ahead.

PaulF81

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

That is tosh, and surely is no more than a contrived wind up ?

How could anyone forty or so years ago have predicted the longevity issue and other factors which have put so much pressure on state and other pension provisions ? The experts did not predict it so how could the average punter have been expected to do so ? Everyone thought that state pensions would continue to be affordable at their relatively meagre level. They also assumed that what they are their employers were paying into pensions funds would be enough to cover their retirements, just like the actuaries and other experts told them they would. How could anyone second guess all that at the time ?

Regarding time-bombs left for future generations, the one that that today's younger generation is leaving for its children and its grandchildren is population explosion. With increased affluence and lunatic welfare policies the attitude of many is to keep knocking out kids as long as the whim takes them. "Two boys ? Let's try for a girl then." Oh dear it's another boy ... let's go for a fourth.". Five kids, two Labrador retrievers, six rabbits, a Chelsea tractor on the driveway -- what a lovely lifestyle. Or at the other end of the spectrum : five kids, and all the booze, fags, scratchcards, and Sky TV I want. But the chances are those kids won't be able to afford many kids of their own because sooner or later this overcrowded island won't be able to contain or afford that, financially or environmentally. And unlike the pensions and housing squeezes that is something that can be reasonably predicted decades ahead.

You didnt need to be a rocket scientist to figure out the levels of expenditure, particularly during the new labour years, were not going to be sustainable. In particular, this:



you might want to check this link in to see who voted them in.

http://www.britishpollingcouncil.org/nick-moon.pdf

It wasnt the younger generations. As for the birth rate, thats why I am all for cuts to child benefit past the first child, reductions in benefit for those not contributing to the system and generally making it as difficult as possible for those unable to have children to have them. Its really not the state, or more to the point, the tax payers problem. I use this phrase regularly on here - reverse darwinism. I do not use it tongue in cheek; that is exactly what I think of ALL socialist programmes, it supports those that actually are acting as a drag for the entire society and prevents progression of the country in a global sphere. We are currently getting trounced by the bric countries, due to the lack of socialist programmes in those countries. We are killing our nation as a result of socialism and its only when their work ethic is forced on later UK generations will we all wake up and realise the complete ride we have been taken for. How many poor union leaders do you meet?

Ironically, it could be the birth rate that bails out the boomers; without growth levels we have seen, their pensions WOULD have been cut as there simply would not have been the tax take to budget their pensions.

Despite being in the top 5% of earners, we have elected to only have 2 kids. Whilst I see the schemes used in china to control birth rate dispicable, it is not the states job to do the opposite - support the great unwashed to breed like rabbits and completely skew the work ethic of a nation. I dont see how retrievers and chelsea tractors affect the pensions issue, unless you are suggesting rediculous levels of taxation further reducing the level of my disposable income even further than it already is? If the families work hard for this lifestyle, they earn the cash, its their choice on what they spend it on. That includes fat cat traders on multi milion pound bonuses. If they use a skill to generate long term stable income, Why not? The flip side of the coin is the fred goodwin scenario, who was paid off for not only destroying a bank but also the nations finances. Its the same for him as those who chain smoke and have a full sky package on benefits, its down to personal responsibility and accountabilty. Those who shun both need throwing to the wolves.

Back to the OP, how would I administer a pensioners to work scheme? I would have a points based system, whereby the level of means testing and taxation on pensions (including private sector) depended on the contribution to your local community. I am not talking about sweeping the streets here. If an individual has the mental faculty to use skills and training they have perfected during a lifetime of work, why not use those skills to benefit the local community? Schemes such as voluntary childcare (increases state tax take through reduced maternity pay and increased income tax), teaching assistance in schools (cutting the state liabilities to ta pay and benefits), assistance and advice to local businesses (non-liable financial advice etc). There are an absolute raft of things that could be done, all which will keep pensioners active and bring communities closer together. I really dont see where the objections to such a scheme to could come from.

xylophone

teaching assistance

With regard to just one of your suggestions, that pensioners (presumably suitably qualified) should volunteer as teaching assistants, would this not mean that a non-pensioner currently being paid to do this job would lose his/her employment and claim state benefits?

margaretclare

I don't mind working, assuming there was a job I could do. However I object to the idea that I should have to work 'looking after the very old'. Setting aside the fact that I'm no longer strong enough and energetic enough to do things like pushing wheelchairs, this suggestion really throws in our faces 'this is what you'll be like in just a few short years. You might as well get used to it now, this is what you're going to be like'. Talk about having your nose rubbed in it!!

PaulF81

xylophone wrote: »

With regard to just one of your suggestions, that pensioners (presumably suitably qualified) should volunteer as teaching assistants, would this not mean that a non-pensioner currently being paid to do this job would lose his/her employment and claim state benefits?

Either that or choose another career. I see plenty of eastern europeans (very hard working btw, doff my cap) picking veg locally and sending their earnings back home. Thats a job for a UK worker with no qualifications, not an immigrant. Why do you automatically assume the loss of a TA post shoud result in JSA payments? If those born in the UK started accepting they needed to do low paid service sector jobs instead of relying on immigration, we wouldnt have an unemployment problem. Not everyone is up to (nor put the work in early enough) to become the CEO of BP; there is no point trying to make yourself a new career at 40, besides, if you left it late I would suggest you dont have the mettle to turn your life around at that stage anyway.

Qualification is a moot point. Another construct of New Labour was a requirement for qualifications to practically breathe. These jobs can be done without qualification; do you know how many top independent schools employ teachers with no formal teaching qualification? If its good enough for Eton, what makes you think it will be problematic for those under the state purse? Surely its about the capabilities of the individual, not some NVQ which cost the individual a small fortune in lost income whist attending the course, on top of course fees?

You pretty much need to be a member of a professional body to take a cr*p these days.

If you want to choose a career and not have one forced upon you, you need to work hard at school, college and uni, not doss around at the back of the class.

PaulF81

margaretclare wrote: »

I don't mind working, assuming there was a job I could do. However I object to the idea that I should have to work 'looking after the very old'. Setting aside the fact that I'm no longer strong enough and energetic enough to do things like pushing wheelchairs, this suggestion really throws in our faces 'this is what you'll be like in just a few short years. You might as well get used to it now, this is what you're going to be like'. Talk about having your nose rubbed in it!!

I would suggest those approaching very old age but with mental and physical faculty would complete these tasks with a fair sight more compassion than some doliete forced to do it as part of a back to work scheme.