Retired people could work for pensions..

thorsoak

PaulF81 wrote: »

12 hour shifts? I just finished a 24 hour shift thanks.

Again, yet another exceptionally well thought out post, with extensive detail in how my assertions are incorrect.

It already is affecting my generation. With future revisions of state pension age to maintain affordability (having already postulated possible decreases in longetivity will not cause a policy reversal),

So this is your plan to give everyone single tickets to Zurich at age 70+ - have you costed it out??

quite frankly, I would be much better off if a policy like I have suggested was brought into effect.

Can you please give us projections as to how your plan will work

I plan to assist the local community anyway (as I already do) so makes very little difference to me.

Oh well done you .....I am overawed at your magnaminity - do you not think that the older generation does that? Looking after grandparents, looking after parents, standing outside service stations and corner shops selling poppies?


Hear you go. For all you little tony blair/brownite groupies out there.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1489693/Some-spending-ratios-comparable-with-Cold-War-communist-states.html


What a fantastic way to run a country. cant see what the hell was going to go wrong, could you?

Sigh.....another history lesson coming up ....

In the early 1960s, the Conservatives allowed the sale of local authority housing - on the premise that all monies received from such sales was to be put into the building of more housing.

In the 1980s,under Thatcher, sales of local authority housing went through the roof - but the monies from these sales went straight into central government coffers - therefore no more local authority housing. Whilst much blame for the financial situation can be put at the door of Blair and Brown, this one cannot be.

vivatifosi

ruggedtoast wrote: »

It seems clear reading this thread that boomers have been on the make and on the take. They are taking out a king's ransom, but have only paid in a pauper's purse.

The state pension should be abolished immediately.

I'm sure those pensioners born during or before WW2 will be delighted to give up their state pensions immediately to help in your anti-boomer crusade.

dzug1

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Paul - still waiting to find out how you would persuade the electorate to vote for this ridiculously unfair and ideotic idea?

I suspect he'd rig voting qualifications to exclude the people he despises. Those on benefits disqualified for example. Anyone who works for the (shudder) state - unless they do it for nothing of course.

grizzly1911

What all this skirts around is the real problem –we are in decline and have been for the last 30/40 years

• Collapse in our manufacturing base
• Loss of manual work/automation
• Agriculture has changed
• Increasing imports of products of no “real” value to sustaining life.

That slide has been halted at various points and lengths. Successive governments have come up with short term fixes to mask the problem.

• Oil
• Sale of Utilities -asset paid for by earlier generations (Greece are now being told to do this)
• Sale of council house stock -assets paid for by earlier generations
• House price boom and bust
• Mortgages, re-mortgages, consumer credit boom
• City gambling and profits that turned into sand.

We have fought wars that were nothing to do with us and which we couldn’t afford over 20 years.


Immigration (not stemmed by any government of recent times) in some areas has been beneficial but is has also allowed in large numbers of semi/un skilled workers which has simply bumped the existing inhabitants. This has created pressures on housing, welfare, NHS, education to cater for both immigrants and now “redundant” local labour.


We simply don’t have enough employment opportunities at good rates of pay to sustain the current population of whatever age. We are not creating and selling enough real value as exports. We are not generating the volume of tax to fund society, to support the country we pretend to be, it is spiraling downwards.



Conscripting pensioners in large numbers will not help that position.


It will not bring any more money to the table.


We have the well off - who try to escape tax
We have the middle being squeezed to the point where they are now squealing with aspirations and hopes being squashed.


Turning off subsistence funding to the poorest in society will not solve the problem it will just cause another one.


The global financial crisis merely burst the bubble.


I don’t blame this Government they are dealing with a mess that has been building for decades. They are not alone in being unable to concoct a way out of our dilemma. They have made some poor decisions but they are panicking as the cat is now out of the bag. People are much more aware of our predicament than they have been. They cannot now depend on media lag and poor information dissemination to mask the problems.

PaulF81

Jennifer_Jane wrote: »

Paul - still waiting to find out how you would persuade the electorate to vote for this ridiculously unfair and ideotic idea?

quite simple really, wait till the current large demographic is old enough to vote then make them realise how much previous generations have screwed them over and how much debt interest they are paying for china. as i said,wait till the next generation reach power in the house.

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

But we all agree that bloomers had to pay down that massive debt 250% of GDP left to them by the over 85 years old who incurred the huge debt fighting the WW2.

Even Paul knows that this is true although he is a little shy about saying so.

Do you blame or praise the originators of that huge debt and do you blame or priase those bloomers who had a terrible life paying it all back?

The lion's share of the debt had been paid down by the time the 60s began. At which point the oldest boomer was 16. Unless the baby boomers really were babies when they were making these repayments I don't believe they can take much credit for this.

It was the 'heroic generation' that heroically fought the war, then heroically paid for it. Boomers lived it up on free love, and easy credit, but it seems no one got too high that they forgot to pull the ladder up.

jbreckmckye

One question: at what age, today, are people as infirm as the average 65-year-old in 1948, back when the OAP came into force?

Surely, that should give us the ideal retirement age?

ash28

e

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The lion's share of the debt had been paid down by the time the 60s began. At which point the oldest boomer was 16. Unless the baby boomers really were babies when they were making these repayments I don't believe they can take much credit for this.

It was the 'heroic generation' that heroically fought the war, then heroically paid for it. Boomers lived it up on free love, and easy credit, but it seems no one got too high that they forgot to pull the ladder up.

The debt was paid in annual instalments and wasn't mainly paid off by the 1960s.

Payments started in 1950 and were continue for 50 years and should have finished in 2000 - it was actually paid off at the end of 2006.

We suspended payment in 1956, 1957, 1964, 1965, 1968 and 1976.

ash28

PaulF81 wrote: »

quite simple really, wait till the current large demographic is old enough to vote then make them realise how much previous generations have screwed them over and how much debt interest they are paying for china. as i said,wait till the next generation reach power in the house.

Do you seriously think their vote will make any more of a difference than anyone's in the past has done?

It would take a revolution - not an election.

The next large demographic when it starts to vote will be exactly the same as previous demographics.

Unfortunately a demographic doesn't reach voting age at the same time - it's spread over about 18 years.

You end up as a pretty insignificant number in the scheme of things.

If you look at UK demographics you'll find that the baby boomer generation peaked in numbers at the very end - 1964/5 (age 47). The birth rate was still high after that. And the next peak was 1987/8 (age 24) - and is almost as big as the boomer generation's peak. 35k less births or point one of a percent less.

So the baby boomer generation are not the only issue - they might be the current issue.

http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/HTMLDocs/dvc1/UKPyramid.html

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The lion's share of the debt had been paid down by the time the 60s began. At which point the oldest boomer was 16. Unless the baby boomers really were babies when they were making these repayments I don't believe they can take much credit for this.

It was the 'heroic generation' that heroically fought the war, then heroically paid for it. Boomers lived it up on free love, and easy credit, but it seems no one got too high that they forgot to pull the ladder up.

In 1960 the government debt was about 100% of GDP and only fell to 50% by the early 70s.

I'm bemused by your opinion that the young in no way suffered from the debt (only the adults) but that was a different time where the young were busy inventing sex, were optimistic and were building a pretty good future for the succeeding generations. And they didn't 'blame' the older generations for the problems of the world but instead sought to improve life fo all mankind.