Retired people could work for pensions..

ruggedtoast

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.
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.

Insults define you.

They define you as an ingracious indolent sod who happily sucks the milk of the NHS, house price inflation, and bulky state pensions while the younger generations wonder what the name of the creek is and who took their paddle away.

Well no prizes for guessing, we are most certainly not all in it together.

thorsoak

In our teens and twenties, we didn't give a tinker's sh-1-t for the future ....in October1962 we were counting our future in weeks!

thorsoak

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Insults define you.

They define you as an ingracious indolent sod who happily sucks the milk of the NHS, house price inflation, and bulky state pensions while the younger generations wonder what the name of the creek is and who took their paddle away.

Well no prizes for guessing, we are most certainly not all in it together.

And as for Rugged Toast - if we could go back on all his archived posts, we would be able to see that (1) he is on property 2 (or maybe even 3) - probably rented out as he is currently living in Hong Kong - and that all this bitterness derives from the fact that his FIL made a small fortune as a property developer/builder - and has the temerity not to die -or finance Rugged Toast's ambitions to rule the world!!!

grizzly1911

PaulF81 wrote: »

by cutting the largest item, you can achieve similar savings with a much smaller % reduction in that item compared to others.

This is one of the problems governments have got because the things they have got some control of are individually quite small.

That said if you are trying to protect bthe core values of civilisation there are a lot of other things that can be cut completely.

Nothing should be ruled out.

May I ask does an element of your anger because your career in the forces was "truncated" and your pension entitlement cut?

This is no different to many others in both the private sector and other public sector roles.

grizzly1911

Angry_Bear wrote: »

Perhaps the same as JSA? If I had ALL the answers I'd be running in the next election .

I would expect that everybody got the same (minimal) amount from the state pension, and that the poorest people got additional benefits such as HB and CTB as they do now. The only people relying solely on the state pension (i.e. without some form of private pension) should be those who have never worked - those who are working now would have (say) 5 years to start paying into a private pension before the first cut was made, or 10 years before the next cut etc.

5 year spayment into apension scheme for most would in reality make very little difference to the pension they would receive from that element. Not everyone would be able to contribute at the same monetary level so how would you assess what each individual would be entitled to.


Some people simply can't afford to a pension full stop even thiough they are working, despite all the good reasons for them doing so. They are simply fighting to stay afloat in the here and now.

Arbitary cuts a 5 years, 10 years (an example I know) would leave people severley hit if they cross these thresholds.

If people have a meaningful private pension in todays world they will then be taxed on the surplus income (above personal threshold) so money is clawed back through tax. Similarly if somone has private income, pension or savings that gives them surplus income they tend to spend it on luxuries (and extra heating) and thus the pay VAT. If you pare income back then this tax will be lost.

These are just some of the reasons there is no simple answer.

If there were it would have been sorted simples.

In all of this we must also recognise that substantial numbers contribute to the state pot and pass away before they claim anything. That is the reason why compulsory insurance payment (NI for example) should work more cost effictively than individual private purchase.

BobQ

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Insults define you.

They define you as an ingracious indolent sod who happily sucks the milk of the NHS, house price inflation, and bulky state pensions while the younger generations wonder what the name of the creek is and who took their paddle away.

Well no prizes for guessing, we are most certainly not all in it together.

I cannot see any point in trading insults on this, neither can I see this obsession with attacking other generations. Its easy to be dragged into doing this with generalisations about the attitudes of different generations. There may be some truth in such generalisations but what I cannot accept is that any generation has some kind of a grand plan that seeks to advantage itself at the expense of another which is the premise that pervades many of these arguments. In fact I cannot recall any decision I have ever made that was motivated by a wish to disadvantage anyone, of my own or another generation.

ash28

thorsoak wrote: »

In our teens and twenties, we didn't give a tinker's sh-1-t for the future ....in October1962 we were counting our future in weeks!

That brings back memories - we moved from Scotland to the Southeast when our kids were young and my mother was absolutely horrified to think we were moving to within a few miles of Aldermaston.

Every time she came to visit she would ask "what happens if there's a war".

And she was deadly serious, she was convinced that we were mortal danger if there was a first strike.

I was just surprised she knew what Aldermaston was.

Le73Uq86Uv

If they are entitled to a pension then they must have already worked for it.

If they keep on moving the goal posts people will stop paying into pensions.

First it was private companies who ripped of peoples pensions now it is the government trying the same trick.

But then who pays the piper plays the tune.

seven-day-weekend

Most of the people I know who have passed retirement age still work.

I myself (60s) am a professional house/petsitter. I also do voluntary work for my church and occasionally for CAP.

Friends of mine in their 70s - he is a retired teacher who still does private tuition and exam invigilation and voluntary community work His wife is a County Councillor.

Other friends of mine 70s/60s - he is a retired church leader and is now a part-time Chaplain, she still has a cleaning job. They are both voluntary counsellors.

Another retired teacher I know does exam marking .

I know many other active retired who still work for money and do voluntary work too.

So, we are already doing what the proposal suggests!

Angry_Bear

grizzly1911 wrote: »

5 year spayment into apension scheme for most would in reality make very little difference to the pension they would receive from that element. Not everyone would be able to contribute at the same monetary level so how would you assess what each individual would be entitled to.

As I said, there would be no "assess" - everybody would get the same amount and the private element would be a top-up. Much as it is now except that the private element should be mandatory (imo). But I do accept your point about the problems, and if I did have the time and energy to work out the problems and advantages of each proposal then I really would be trying to get elected!

Some people simply can't afford to a pension full stop even thiough they are working, despite all the good reasons for them doing so. They are simply fighting to stay afloat in the here and now.

That's why I'm in favour of making it mandatory for employers to contribute to a pension. The current changes are one of the few government initiatives in recent years that I am absolutely in support of.

That being said, in my experience most people (not all) could afford to contribute to a pension but believe they can't because they prioritise other things (expensive holidays, newish cars, iphones, etc). I pay a large proportion of my salary into my pension pot, and can do this only because I make sacrifices, not because I'm loaded.

In some ways I think increasing NI (or tax) and increasing the state pension for everyone would be a good idea, but this will always cause resentment at those who have never worked and then still get the same as those who have worked all their lives. Maybe unemployment should stop making NI contributions (jk).