Retired people could work for pensions..

ash28

PaulF81 wrote: »

I have spent the last 5 years in and out of the Middle East. We're you in Kuwait, Saudi or UAE? I am preparing for a move to the UAE potentially in the next 5 years. I love it out there and love the ethic out there.

Saudi - Riyadh airport - we wanted Jeddah (for the diving) - but no such luck.

The UAE would have been nice - but the work for OH (at the time) and money was in Saudi.

thorsoak

PaulF81 wrote: »

I have spent the last 5 years in and out of the Middle East. We're you in Kuwait, Saudi or UAE? I am preparing for a move to the UAE potentially in the next 5 years. I love it out there and love the ethic out there.

So you'll become a landlord then?

PaulF81

thorsoak wrote: »

So you'll become a landlord then?

Probably not, will probably pass over to relatives to look after whilst we are on mega tax free desert wonga. 5 bed detatched with an acre and a half of paddock is a lot to risk going to rack and ruin to potential unknowns. I would prefer my family to enjoy it whilst I am away.

Problem is, the saying the money you are paid in the emirates stays in the emirates, its very hard to save over there even on rockstar wages. we are planning to do it more for the experience, travel opportunities and little uns education.

thorsoak

PaulF81 wrote: »

Probably not, will probably pass over to relatives to look after whilst I am on mega tax free desert wonga.

So you don't think that you should sell your property cheaply to the next generation when you don't need to live in it yourself?

You're surely not going to let the crumblies look after it, are you???

PaulF81

thorsoak wrote: »

So you don't think that you should sell your property cheaply to the next generation when you don't need to live in it yourself?

You're surely not going to let the crumblies look after it, are you???

I paid close to top whack for it unfortunately (30% discount due to post credit boom hangover, but still double what I would have paid a decade ago). Due to the sins of my forefathers. I get to repay the favour by withdrawing from the system for a number of years that pays their pensions.

Hoping to start home consultancy work once I return...

CLAPTON

PaulF81 wrote: »

You are the one talking rubbish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_GDP.png

And how interest payments compared to now:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_National_Debt_interest.png
The nation, on average, was paying debt off at barely 1% of GDP over the figure we are paying currently. Thats our overseas development budget right there. The vast majority of the debt, over 150% of GDP equivalent was seen off before the boomers were even in work. That left the remainder to be inflated away during the 70s and early 80s of course, the trashing your generation gave the purchasing power of the pound helped no end. As I said, the majority of the 250% figure was down to recovery of the economy (you divide by a bigger GDP, the debt to GDP ratio gets smaller, funny old thing).

Trashing the ppi of the pound helped of course. It's a shame coal costs so much now than when you got to buy it. Cheers for that.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-020.pdf

Chart 3.

so you consider the 4% of GDP paid in interest in the post war period was fairly insignificant but the 3% of GDP being paid now is daylight robbery by baby boomers?

and you continue with the view that the post war debt repayment had no adverse effect on the children (baby boomers) living at that time?

and you continue to maintain that high inflation is impossible over the next 40 years?


bizarre

PaulF81

CLAPTON wrote: »

so you consider the 4% of GDP paid in interest in the post war period was fairly insignificant but the 3% of GDP being paid now is daylight robbery by baby boomers?

and you continue with the view that the post war debt repayment had no adverse effect on the children (baby boomers) living at that time?

and you continue to maintain that high inflation is impossible over the next 40 years?


bizarre

Right, lets speak really slowly and make this really simple. Imagine you have a bank account. It pays no interest but you have a big overdraft. You plan to spend all of the money giving yourself a fantastic standard of living, even after you are planning to pay anything into the bank account. Your quality of life is great, why wouldn't it be, society says you are entitled to all the things society sees as the right things you are entitled to.

Except you won't be paying off the enormously huge overdraft. Your kids and their kids will be.

It must be great being you. It's going to be pretty crap for everyone else.its not the bill today, it's the bill in 20 years time that's unaffordable, without massive cutbacks in later generations infrastructure and benefits. Lets not forget the mess housing is in as well, a debt that will take generations to sort out.

CLAPTON

PaulF81 wrote: »

Right, lets speak really slowly and make this really simple. Imagine you have a bank account. It pays no interest but you have a big overdraft. You plan to spend all of the money giving yourself a fantastic standard of living, even after you are planning to pay anything into the bank account. Your quality of life is great, why wouldn't it be, society says you are entitled to all the things society sees as the right things you are entitled to.

Except you won't be paying off the enormously huge overdraft. Your kids and their kids will be.

It must be great being you. It's going to be pretty crap for everyone else.its not the bill today, it's the bill in 20 years time that's unaffordable, without massive cutbacks in later generations infrastructure and benefits.

I speak very slowly so if you think about it for the next 30 years, you might learn something.

Let's suppose you borrow money and spend it on improving infrastructure, education, health and preserving the skills base so that everyone can have a better life in the future.

Your immediate standard of living is not improved in any way at all but the future generations i.e. your kids and their kids will benefit massively.

So in 20 years time the benefits will come it and most rational people with celebrate the increased wealth and increased life span.

As in fact I do; as life for my children is massively better than my life at a similar age although we did invent sex.

So if you look at the post war world, right up to today, any rational person will see an improved lifestyle, infrastructure and lifespan.
Ok the banks were stupid enough to 'invest' massive amounts of money in US property and real estate all over Europe that was completely mad; but we are still massively better off that we were after the last war.


Now you may well wish for a UK without central heating, few cars, no foreign holidays, only 5% at Uni, poor housing, poor health services, expensive clothing but then you are in a massive minority.

Have you ever bothered to speak to your parents and grandparents about life in the past?

Dunroamin

StevieJ wrote: »

Yes the contribution was either paid to the state or invested in a personal pension (contracted out) as I said the state second pension/serps was contributory similar to a personal pension.

But it wasn't voluntary, which is the point I was making.

BobQ

PaulF81 wrote: »

Suck it up. The non boomers are feeling the pain, you should to.

People (boomers and non-boomers) should receive the pensions they have paid for during their lives. People should be taxed on the basis of their ability to pay for the services we collectively want.

All I see here is a very right wing agenda dressed up as an anti-boomer philosphy. On another day it could be anti-EU, anti-public sector, anti-immigrant, anti-NHS or anti-something else. Characterising some boomers as being selfish just because they do not support this philiosophy is just part of the tactics used.

Advocating that retired people should work for their supper is an interesting idea, but why not get the work done by employing unemployed people to do these jobs? Why not incentivise older people to retire early to create the jobs that are needed? Why not build things we need to provide the jobs we need?

Of course if the intention is to just create an underclass who rely on the defence that there are not enough jobs in a depressed economy and foment social tension based on a culture of fear that people must work until they drop like in Victorian times then it all makes sense.