Retired people could work for pensions..

paulmapp8306

Probably.

Must say, Im not suggesting all these things should happen - rather than if you view pensions as a benefit then they are things that should be considered.

Nor am I of the opinion the popultion should be reliant on handouts. Indeed I feel there is much to do in this area to reduce the reliance on state handouts and to get people off their fat !!!!!! (not all by a long way - but plenty).

However, hitting out at pensioners - many of who have been in low paid and manually hard work for all their lives plain wrong - and I just find the "Im alright Jack" attitude of a non pensioner who can afford to pay into a private prnsion, as he earnes enough to be in the 40% tax bracket - while at the same time making coments that hint at all people in his age group feel the same way utterly aborant.

ruggedtoast

I know pre retirement boomers who have the bald faced cheek to complain to me about their state pension "only" being £100 a week.

The fact that its actually my generation that has to fund this nice freebie for them, when there will obviously be no state pension whatsoever when i retire, seems lost on them.

I see they're leaving a nice big debt behind though.

GeorgeHowell

PaulF81 wrote: »

The fact is, the state would be better off giving you back all your NI contributions and giving you no state pension, because depending on your age, on average you will take out far more than you ever put in. Thats my whole point.

Once again you miss the key point. NI contributions are only nominally hypothecated in reality, which is why employee contributions might get rolled back into income tax. It is not a fully actuarially regulated pension fund like a private final salary scheme is supposed to be. Also it has never existed solely for the purpose of funding state pensions. Furthermore being effectively a form of taxation it is subject to political influences in terms of the level of contributions. It is what it says -- an insurance, theoretically against people being thrown into penury when they no longer work. HMG underwrites it out of current taxation.

So to say people didn't pay in enough is a nonsense. Similarly to say that people of a certain age are responsible for the mistakes and inadequacies of past governments is a nonsense. Do today's younger generations intend to accept responsibility if and when in the future some of the mistakes being made by current governments jump up and bite ? For example :- failure to deal with over-population, acceptance of the creeping loss of democracy within the EU; inadequate energy policies which will cause all the lights to go out and/or bankrupt us all; the destruction of our defences by running the armed forces down to nothing; the ever-increasing and highly damaging welfare culture; allowing the economy to be far too dependent on financial services, multiculturalism ...

ash28

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I know pre retirement boomers who have the bald faced cheek to complain to me about their state pension "only" being £100 a week.

The fact that its actually my generation that has to fund this nice freebie for them, when there will obviously be no state pension whatsoever when i retire, seems lost on them.

I see they're leaving a nice big debt behind though.

As the youngest boomers are only 47 or so and 20 years from retirement - they will also be funding the older boomers. As will I. And as I will continue to pay tax (considerably more when I get the state pension at 66) the state pension is worth considerably less to me than £100 a week - will I be partially self funding? The government will give with one hand and take away with the other.

Why won't there be a state pension when you retire?

There is no debt from the state pension - it's paid from current receipts.

Do you mean the national debt that rocketed after the financial crisis - you obviously had no hand in that and funnily enough neither did I.

ruggedtoast

ash28 wrote: »

As the youngest boomers are only 47 or so and 20 years from retirement - they will also be funding the older boomers. As will I. And as I will continue to pay tax (considerably more when I get the state pension at 66) the state pension is worth considerably less to me than £100 a week - will I be partially self funding? The government will give with one hand and take away with the other.

Why won't there be a state pension when you retire?

There is no debt from the state pension - it's paid from current receipts.

Do you mean the national debt that rocketed after the financial crisis - you obviously had no hand in that and funnily enough neither did I.

Current receipts that are going straight into the pockets of the boomers. The shortfall having to be borrowed.

Imagine what a difference it would make to the country's personal debt mountain, if those younger people didnt have to take out mega mortgages to buy boomer homes that were purchased by those boomers for much less.

But still they mortgage or rent from a boomer landlord, and work and toil and then their taxes go to the boomer overlords pensions.

Well, the worm is turning, the canary isn't singing, the pot is calling the kettle black and these chick chick chickens are coming home to roost big style.

zygurat789

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

GDP is measured in current values, the government debt had been incurred in the pre-inflationary pounds - the percentage is bound to go down.

ash28

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Current receipts that are going straight into the pockets of the boomers. The shortfall having to be borrowed.

Imagine what a difference it would make to the country's personal debt mountain, if those younger people didnt have to take out mega mortgages to buy boomer homes that were purchased by those boomers for much less.

But still they mortgage or rent from a boomer landlord, and work and toil and then their taxes go to the boomer overlords pensions.

Well, the worm is turning, the canary isn't singing, the pot is calling the kettle black and these chick chick chickens are coming home to roost big style.

There is no shortfall in NI receipts that go to pay state pensions and contribution based benefits - there is a surplus of £42billion (currently). However, if the money is going straight to the pockets of the boomers - can I have some?

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/about/ni-fundaccount10-11.pdf

BTW your wind up skills are getting better. I'm sure with a bit of effort they could be truly outstanding.

givememoney

Sapphire wrote: »

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.

What happened to house prices goes back to 1989 - early 90s when the recession hit and people were fearful of losing their jobs. They were expected to work longer hours (not something I approve of) to keep their jobs.

House prices fell creating negative equity along with redundancies.

To help (very questionable) couples buy their own property in the austere times, building societies and bank started taking the womens wages into account when giving out mortgages.

By comparison, when we (the dreaded BBs), bought our first properties they used the old fashioned, but time honoured idea, that the women would have babies and their income would cease as they left work to bring up their families. Therefore, mortgages were issued in line with the wages brought in only by the man of the household.

Guess what, this kept house prices down to an acceptable level.

grizzly1911

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Current receipts that are going straight into the pockets of the boomers. The shortfall having to be borrowed.

I am a young boomer by definition. I am still paying taxes. I do not receive state pension obviouslyand apart from Child Benefit have never received anything by way of benefit. Apart from state pension , which will be heavily taxed, I have absolutely no intention of claiming anything.


As a basic rate tax payer, back then, my starting rate was 30%.

Imagine what a difference it would make to the country's personal debt mountain, if those younger people didnt have to take out mega mortgages to buy boomer homes that were purchased by those boomers for much less.

I had to take out a mega mortgage compared to previous generations too. The pesky house prices were rising all the time. When I puurchased my first house we were lucky as we weren't gazumped, we had honourable vendors, there were no bargains it was a sellers market. We paid some highrates of interest if my memory serves me correctly.

But still they mortgage or rent from a boomer landlord, and work and toil and then their taxes go to the boomer overlords pensions.

QUOTE]

Same here, toil away. Life is a!!!!! and then some. Funnily enough I don't resent paying towards pensions, never have. My parents worked into there late 60s all those years ago to balance the books. Nothing new there either.

Many older people had nothing to start with and knew hard times that is why most worked very hard to make things better for themselves.

Angry_Bear

BobQ wrote: »

Paul, if the longevity trends continue you will probably live much longer than someone who is now in their 60s.

This is a fallacy, or perhaps deliberate propaganda by governments who want to justify raising the pension age.

Firstly, the life expectancy of a 60 year old man today is 80.9 years, 100 years ago it was 73.9. The suggestions that todays young will get "decades" more life is laughable. The statistics are generally skewed by dramatically reducing infant mortality (and early death from disease).

Are you suggesting that everyone retires at the same age without considering how old they are or how much retirement they are likely to enjoy?

I honestly doubt that improvements in life expectancy have improved the health of the elderly (iyswim). So yes, in 30 years a 65 year-old may have a couple of years longer to live, but they'll still feel as old as you do at 65, and at 75. They're not getting their extra years aged 20 (more's the pity). So it's entirely plausible that someone will have to work 15 years more for 2 extra years in a care home.