Retired people could work for pensions..

PaulF81

CLAPTON wrote: »

You never did say whether or not you are still blaming the over 85s for fighting the WW2 and incurring that 250% debt to gdp what was left to their children and grandchildren to pay back (some of whom are often called babyboomers).

I did comment on that actually. What I said was, the GDP figure was massively distorted as a result of the UK economy being wrecked and with the only way out being massive re-investment in infrastruture as opposed to nonsense socialist policies, there was only one way the debt to GDP ratio was going to go. Lets also not forget there was a significant area of the global map still painted pink, with all the benefits to the state from those natural resources. Our companies were british run and british owned, we hadnt sold our crown jewels at that point to the highest middle eastern bidder.

The last 30 years have been realistically a race to the bottom, where do you suppose the opportunities for this nation to recover the structural deficit will come from in the face of a globalised economy? Its not as if Japan has recovered from their banking crisis, with negative real interest rates, huge QE expenditure and an economy in the doldrums for over 20 years. The reality its not the over 85's that are the problem though is it? Its the large demographic time bomb just about to enter the pensions system that never paid enough into the system, yet were left with grandfather rights, despite from benefitting from the extended longetivity that later generations are being told is the reason their state pension is being bugg.ered.

CLAPTON

To some extent I agree with you that the Thatcher years were a shocking waste, instead of using north sea money for re-investment inindustry and research to make UK great again, all the money was blown on doctrinaire nonsense and the race for the bottom.

Japan is I believe one of the richest counties in the world.

dzug1

PaulF81 wrote: »

There would be, but there would be an understanding for all UK citizens that there it comes with a contract of personal responsibility and the level of reward is directly corellated to the effort put in to the UK community. THat goes for all.

So how do you decide whether I am a worthy citizen deserving of the pension or not? Who is going to take that decision?

An given that you say in other posts that there would be a much reduced tax take under your regime, how would it be paid for anyway?

PaulF81

dzug1 wrote: »

So how do you decide whether I am a worthy citizen deserving of the pension or not? Who is going to take that decision?

An given that you say in other posts that there would be a much reduced tax take under your regime, how would it be paid for anyway?

In effect, there would be very little uptake from those with big pensions and therefore the largest haul in terms of taxation. By having a points system based upon the number of days a month contributed, you could quite easily scale pension taxation as a tax bnefit with an extra box on the tax form. You fill in the (auditable) number of points for that year, your tax code for the following year is adjusted to suit.

Look, I am not taking about trades getting back on the tools. But I do believe the experience most pensioners have could be good use, not only for the community but also for those wanting advice, needing help with light work (childcare being a prime example) or doing clerical work for the parish council. You could even have experienced bricklayers, plumbers and electricians going in to help at the local tech college, providing experience workshops. The options are endless, it would provide a scheme to cut the pensions bill (due to uptake rates, pensioners would be at net loss overall) and also provide a valuable service to communities. I cant see why people are against this. A number of generations had their public sector pensions cut as a result of affordability, pensions they were "promised", including teachers and the armed forces who have a contributory scheme. I dont see how this is any different.

PaulF81

CLAPTON wrote: »

To some extent I agree with you that the Thatcher years were a shocking waste, instead of using north sea money for re-investment inindustry and research to make UK great again, all the money was blown on doctrinaire nonsense and the race for the bottom.

Japan is I believe one of the richest counties in the world.

Maybe so, but is amazing that despite all you say, Labour inherited a surplus and managed to turn it into a 180 billion annual deficit in as little as 12 years. Areas of the north had greater than stalin levels of public expenditure as a percentage of local GDP.

I think there is only one party that can claim incompetence there and it aint the tories.

CLAPTON

PaulF81 wrote: »

Maybe so, but is amazing that despite all you say, Labour inherited a surplus and managed to turn it into a 180 billion annual deficit in as little as 12 years. Areas of the north had greater than stalin levels of public expenditure as a percentage of local GDP.

I think there is only one party that can claim incompetence there and it aint the tories.

All the actual facts show that labour inherited a deficit, turned it into a surplus for a few years and then back into a deficit.

By 2007 (just before the world financial meltdown) the government debt (% of GDP) was about the same as they inherited in 1997.

The subsequent rise in the debt was due to the world financial crisis which of course is still growing under the coalition.

I'm unware of stalin levels of expenditure but I believe Stalin was a very evil sort of chap who would be unlikely to want to help UK northern regions.

StevieJ

PaulF81 wrote: »

Maybe so, but is amazing that despite all you say, Labour inherited a surplus and managed to turn it into a 180 billion annual deficit in as little as 12 years. Areas of the north had greater than stalin levels of public expenditure as a percentage of local GDP.

I think there is only one party that can claim incompetence there and it aint the tories.

Nice try but not actually true

Con/Lab GE May 1997 -11246 -11300 -8810

http://statistics4u-uk.com/html/current_budget.html

thorsoak

PaulF81 wrote: »

Maybe so, but is amazing that despite all you say, Labour inherited a surplus and managed to turn it into a 180 billion annual deficit in as little as 12 years. Areas of the north had greater than stalin levels of public expenditure as a percentage of local GDP.

I think there is only one party that can claim incompetence there and it aint the tories.

Of course it is all the fault of the electorate of 1945, more particularly the armed forces abroad who exercised their franchise in the theatres of war .....had they not voted in a Labour government, there would have been no modern Welfare State - and who knows just how well any of the current ungrateful young would be surviving now - how many would be enjoying the lives they now live, and how many of them would still be factory fodder for the few?

And the Old Age Pension? You can blame that on the liberals !

Sapphire

xylophone wrote: »

.

Glad to say I did......I expect that virtually all of today's pensioners who had the chance to go to University also worked hard - and they probably expected that having paid their NI and taxes that they could expect to be able to retire ......

Er––many of today's pensioners did not have the chance to go to university, yet worked very hard right starting from the most menial jobs in firms, then working their way up.

While I am here, those pensioners (many) who didn't have children, still paid for the upbringing of others' children, probably including people like this Paul who keeps posting what frequently amount to facist remarks on this thread. What he omits to say is that the massive rise in house prices that has distorted the economy and created so many problems in a variety of ways was not caused by any baby boomers. It really happened during the last fifteen years, so probably during the time when he was an adult.

I find his attitude disgusting, and thank goodness all younger people are not like this. People can post whatever they like about themselves on an Internet forum (other posters cannot check the information they provide), so I don't actually know who he is or what his background is. However, one wonders what his relationship is with his own grandparents and parents? Must be truly horrific for someone to develop such attitudes.

Is there really any point in continuing any kind of discussion with someone like this?

Jennifer_Jane

PaulF81 wrote: »

In effect, there would be very little uptake from those with big pensions and therefore the largest haul in terms of taxation. By having a points system based upon the number of days a month contributed, you could quite easily scale pension taxation as a tax bnefit with an extra box on the tax form. You fill in the (auditable) number of points for that year, your tax code for the following year is adjusted to suit.

Look, I am not taking about trades getting back on the tools. But I do believe the experience most pensioners have could be good use, not only for the community but also for those wanting advice, needing help with light work (childcare being a prime example) or doing clerical work for the parish council. You could even have experienced bricklayers, plumbers and electricians going in to help at the local tech college, providing experience workshops. The options are endless, it would provide a scheme to cut the pensions bill (due to uptake rates, pensioners would be at net loss overall) and also provide a valuable service to communities. I cant see why people are against this. A number of generations had their public sector pensions cut as a result of affordability, pensions they were "promised", including teachers and the armed forces who have a contributory scheme. I dont see how this is any different.

But what if nobody wants my skills, and what if the advice which I hand out is incorrect, let alone unwanted. Am I to be punished for not being wanted in the workplace?

I would be interested in how you would persuade the electorate on this new scheme. How would you sell it? Which party do you think could bring it in?

Frankly, since the State Pension is already taxed, and we have anyway all paid into it (some like myself with extra contributions for years, often from abroad), I cannot see this being an election-winner.

I get 62% of the State Pension, in fact, most people of my age get very different levels of State Pension, as well as the State 2nd Pension, or SERPS, the Guaranteed bit, and all the other bits and pieces. So how would that all work in practice.

If you are going to ask me to have to work, then I think that I would like all my years of contributions back, as well as the tax I've paid on the three years I've received the State Pension, and, of course, the two years I forfeited entirely in order to try to get a small increase on my weekly amount.

Because I only paid in so that I would NOT have to work.

Oh but then, that's it, you are actually asking for the State Pension to be stopped. There would be no point in it.

Sounds Victorian without the charity.