Retired people could work for pensions..

ruggedtoast

You're asking them to care about an issue that they benefit from immensely but that which doesn't immediately negatively affect them there Angrybear. Thats a BIG ASK of today's boomers.

Tell them they'll pay a penny more in tax and only receive £7 more in benefits though and they will go beserk.

Here is an interesting video report where Justin Rowlatt of the BBC probes some boomers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/8551766.stm

Have the baby-boomers ruined things for the young - enjoying an economic boom, low tax, and big pensions while the young are unemployed, saddled with debt and unable to buy houses?

CLAPTON

zygurat789 wrote: »

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

If that were so then the current government needn't worry about the debt as it's bound to go down, so all the austerity is for nothing?

Angry_Bear

I'm not sure I really get the boomers vs. youngsters argument, it just seems a bit pointless and not really true of either side to me.

As I see it, it is unreasonable to cut the pension of people who have not had sufficient warning that they have to make alternative provisions. I also don't think it's reasonable to increase the pension age (as you might have guessed by my previous post).

So the options seem to be:

1. Increase taxes to ensure that future pension liabilities are covered at a similar level to today's pensionsers. I suspect any government would have a hard time getting that past an electorate who can't seem to see beyond today.
2. Reduce the state pension in stages until it is a subsitence-level benefit while giving incentives (or making it mandatory) for working people and their employers to make provision for private pension. The state pension would then be a top-up for all except those who have never worked, and for those it should be subsistence-level.

Personally, I'm in favour of number 2 but this would only be manageable for those already on the state pension if they continued to receive their current amount (rising in line with inflation or some other measure). I suspect that this would provoke another outcry of "greedy boomers" although it seems to me to be the most sensible solution.


I think that the notion of forcing people to work is ridiculous, when the reason they are in receipt of a pension is because there is a good chance that they are beginning to physically struggle to work.

Mr._Pricklepants

Have the baby-boomers ruined things for the young - enjoying an economic boom, low tax, and big pensions while the young are unemployed, saddled with debt and unable to buy houses?

No they haven't.

This so called generational conflict between the boomers and the young, egged on by the media and parroted by muppets like ruggedtoast isn't doing anyone any good.
We are in a recession, yes, and it's hard for some, both old and young.
The only blame that can be laid at the boomers' feet is raising a large proportion of a generation with an "everybody's fault but mine" attitude. Immigrants were one target, the elderly are another. Despicable.

GeorgeHowell

ruggedtoast wrote: »

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

Why is it assumed that government debt is caused by state pensions ? What about the following as examples of excessive and wasteful government spending that adds to the deficit :- welfare payments to the workshy and the f e c k less; child allowance and winter fuel allowance to those who can afford to do without it (including some living in Spain); the inflated and wasteful public sector (caused in large part by Blair and Brown's 'client state' policy); freebies in Scotland and Wales that do not apply in England; foreign aid to India; payments to the EU (much of which supports the Common Agricultural Policy); full time trade unionists on the civil service payroll; subsiding of onshore wind farms ....

So apart from the fact that it supports the wind-up, chip on the shoulder, ageist argument that some are trying to promote, there is no reason to single out state pensions as a primary source of government spending deficit and government debt.

Angry_Bear

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

No they haven't.

This so called generational conflict between the boomers and the young, egged on by the media and parroted by muppets like ruggedtoast isn't doing anyone any good.
We are in a recession, yes, and it's hard for some, both old and young.

Absolutely!

The only blame that can be laid at the boomers' feet is raising a generation with an "everybody's fault but mine" attitude. Immigrants were one target, the elderly are another. Despicable.

Hmm, there are good and bad people at all ages - categorising an entire generation as having "an 'everybody's fault but mine' attitude" is a bit hypocritical don't you think?

Mr._Pricklepants

Angry_Bear wrote: »

Hmm, there are good and bad people at all ages - categorising an entire generation as having "an 'everybody's fault but mine' attitude" is a bit hypocritical don't you think?

Of course, you are right.
I also have the pleasure in knowing several youngsters who just get on with life, acquire skills, secure decent jobs and have no problem getting on the housing ladder.
Didn't mean to generalise and I have amended my post accordingly.

Frogletina

Angry_Bear wrote: »

Reduce the state pension in stages until it is a subsitence-level benefit while giving incentives (or making it mandatory) for working people and their employers to make provision for private pension. The state pension would then be a top-up for all except those who have never worked, and for those it should be subsistence-level.

What would you envisage a subsistence level to be?

At the moment, the poorest people are getting the most from the state pension when you take into consideration housing benefits. How will you reduce it further?

And can anyone explain what difference it matters whether someone retires with a full pension or a pension of perhaps 60% because surely with a guaranteed minimum pension it won't matter unless you have a private pension as well. In fact surely it is better to have less than a full pension because you will then get pension credit which is a passport to further benefits.

PaulF81

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

Why is it assumed that government debt is caused by state pensions ? What about the following as examples of excessive and wasteful government spending that adds to the deficit :- welfare payments to the workshy and the f e c k less; child allowance and winter fuel allowance to those who can afford to do without it (including some living in Spain); the inflated and wasteful public sector (caused in large part by Blair and Brown's 'client state' policy); freebies in Scotland and Wales that do not apply in England; foreign aid to India; payments to the EU (much of which supports the Common Agricultural Policy); full time trade unionists on the civil service payroll; subsiding of onshore wind farms ....

So apart from the fact that it supports the wind-up, chip on the shoulder, ageist argument that some are trying to promote, there is no reason to single out state pensions as a primary source of government spending deficit and government debt.

because pensions are the largest single benefit paid out by the dwp and perhaps you need to target the biggest outflows if you hope to make a difference?

PaulF81

paulmapp8306 wrote: »

Um. Having got this far - you are an !!!! IMO.

I have no idea how old you are, but Im 45 and cant believe you feel this way - and you seem to be talkimng for ALL of us of a similar age. Well your not. your figures are all "made to fit". I agree about your "tax paid" figures, but not the ones you quote regards pensions received. I believe the average life expectance is still in the 70s - so the pensions received ar about half that which you quote.

You cant ask pensions to work longer without impacting on the younger generation - theres only so many jobs to go round. It just mean other benefits will be paid instead - which generally cost more. Having said that, the working life does need to be extended a little as life epectance goes up - but its a fine ballancing act.

Pensions are NOt a benefit oin the true sense of the word. If you want to make is so - then fine, in which case anyone with a private income more than the state poension should get NOTHING. I dont think thats the way it should go - but if you want to cut costs and treat the state pension as a benefit then thats the way to do it.

If your going to make people work for "benefits" then you have to make people work for ALl benefits - throughout your life.

If pensions are BENEFITS - then the government should stop topping up peoples personal pension funds, or allowing Tax benfits against them. If you can afford to pay into a personal pension pot then you dont need benefits.

i seriously cant believe anyone with an ounce of humanity in them has the views you do - your a disgrace.

i dont really care. In 20 years roles will be reversed and it will be patently evident what this country has been left with to pay for real term rises in nhs pension and gold plated pensions for boomers.

i love the double standards about how its abhorrent to suggest a rise in pension age for the boomers, but the minute it is suggested for those say in their fiftys, its all fine and dandy.

your figures on current life expectancy are wrong. my sums were much closer to the mark.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19410699