We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Current a level students won't get a pension till 77... Lets cut boomers pensions NOW
Comments
-
OK
let me re-phase the question
given our current circumstances and taking into account all known facts about population change, global warming, banking sector, rise of China and India etc etc
what do you think should (we can afford) be spent on children?
what do you think people of working age should have?
what do you think people over pension age should have?
People of working age get the money they make from their work less their bills. Rafts of benefits and payments have been taken off younger people who continue to have to pay tax to fund the retirements of older people who enjoyed the things that have been cut during their lives.
Should we be paying £800 plus all the other benefits every month for a retired middle class couple to rattle around in a 4 bed house with savings? No.0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »The majority of people who go into care homes nowadays do so because of dementia. Looking after someone with moderate to severe dementia at home is not a viable option. It's not beneficial to anyone to attempt this, including the sufferer. It needs professional care in a managed environment. No doubt someone will disagree with this, but you have to have experienced the effects of dementia in someone first-hand to know that it is indisputably true.
Got to agree 100% with this. My wife is a nurse who specialises in care of the elderly and her father suffered from dementia. Even with her knowledge and expertise there was no way we could have adequately coped with looking after him and providing him with a decent quality of life around the clock with a young family to look after as well. He had to sell his house to pay for the care home fees but this was the best thing for him to provide the best care he could get.
To suggest we should be looking after elderly relatives like this in your own home is unrealistic when you have your own jobs and a family to support as well.0 -
Your case, sound as parts of it may be, would be even more convincing if you didnt classify everyone you disagree with as Marxist, a politial/economic philosophy about which you seem to know very little. As to redistribution, the main purpose of any administration anywhere has been to move money from one set of people to another, against the natural flow of the market. So even before Tudor times there was the Poor Law whereby parishes were responsible for preventing the destitute from starving and providing the homeless with accommodation.
Of course those most against this are those who would lose out so any democratic government must ensure that the majority gain.
If you had read all or most of the posts I have made you would know that I certainly do not label everyone who disagrees as a Marxist. I reserve that term for what I would term the hard left who characteristically attack "capitalism".
You will notice also if you re-read the recent post that I refer to Marxists and also to quasi-Marxists. I am well aware of what Marxism stands for (contrary to your attempt to intellectually denigrate in your rather shoot-from-the-hip post -- playing the man and not the ball again, though I would accept in this case just a shirt tug and not a clatter), and am also well aware to what extent his philosophy (garbage though it mostly is) gets distorted and perverted to suit the purposes and arguments of the hard left and others.
As has been said many time before, redistribution to help those in genuine need or hardship through no fault of their own is a hallmark of a civilised society. Redistribution in order to try to achieve equality of outcome, with no regard to the realities of the vagaries of human nature, nor of the need to reward enterprise, ability, effort, and risk-taking is the hallmark of a Marxist, or quasi-Marxist society.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »People of working age get the money they make from their work less their bills. Rafts of benefits and payments have been taken off younger people who continue to have to pay tax to fund the retirements of older people who enjoyed the things that have been cut during their lives.
Should we be paying £800 plus all the other benefits every month for a retired middle class couple to rattle around in a 4 bed house with savings? No.
That's unfair, so unemployed young people don't receive any benefits
'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »People of working age get the money they make from their work less their bills. Rafts of benefits and payments have been taken off younger people who continue to have to pay tax to fund the retirements of older people who enjoyed the things that have been cut during their lives.
Should we be paying £800 plus all the other benefits every month for a retired middle class couple to rattle around in a 4 bed house with savings? No.
Repetitive and unconvincing I'm afraid. Savours of an ultra-left wing view, based on resentment and grievance, with more than a soupcon of ageism. No chance of anything around this changing substantially any time soon, under any UK government.
3/10 ~ must try harder.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »
Should we be paying £800 plus all the other benefits every month for a retired middle class couple to rattle around in a 4 bed house with savings? No.
So they are in a 4 bed house, they have to live somewhere. They have savings so won't be entitled to benefits other than a few hundred quid for fuel and TV and basic transport. Does the TV licences really cost anything? Surely it just makes the BBC budget less so they can't afford Premier Footie so what.
They will be paying full wack on their council tax and more than likely paying additional taxes.
In you previous example you state that people haven't got £800 after rent so how do you expect them to afford the 4 bed house you covet?
Why do premier footballer get paid so much BTW? What value and benefit are they to society and humanity? Perhaps it is because people squander vast sums of money voluntarily?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
wow, perhaps the op should try volunteering for age concern for 6 months you will see whos ripping off who, and im young ( ish) I support those who have worked all their lives, without benefits, paid for their own education, paid their stamps and taxes, only to lose investment, didnt use credit because if you didnt have the money you went without. Its not the older generations 'fault' at all. grrr gets my goat those who constantly blame the older generation, clearly have no community spirit, no grandparents or parents it seems0
-
grizzly1911 wrote: »Why do premier footballer get paid so much BTW? What value and benefit are they to society and humanity? Perhaps it is because people squander vast sums of money voluntarily?
Footballers rarely get mentioned by the hard left when they enter into their anti-capitalist, anti-wealth diatribes. This is because it is considered to be a working man's, non-elitist sport. In their class obsessed, tribalistic world, this makes football and footballers largely immune from criticism, regardless of what greed, exploitation of the masses, conspicuous consumption, and excesses of cras extravagance are exhibited within the sport.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »People of working age get the money they make from their work less their bills. Rafts of benefits and payments have been taken off younger people who continue to have to pay tax to fund the retirements of older people who enjoyed the things that have been cut during their lives.
Should we be paying £800 plus all the other benefits every month for a retired middle class couple to rattle around in a 4 bed house with savings? No.
I get £379 a month State pension AFTER TAX, (and rich pensioners will be paying their 40% if they are lucky enough to be so wealthy), plus the £200 WFA. I have a bus pass which I may use twice a year, sometimes less - so minimal cost to the taxpayer on that. What are "all the other benefits" please?
Out of this come all my costs for food, water, council tax, toiletries, energy, phone, dental costs.
I also need house maintenance, replacement of things like new glasses, and so on.
So how do you define "£800 clear" per couple?0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »So they are in a 4 bed house, they have to live somewhere. They have savings so won't be entitled to benefits other than a few hundred quid for fuel and TV and basic transport. Does the TV licences really cost anything? Surely it just makes the BBC budget less so they can't afford Premier Footie so what.
They will be paying full wack on their council tax and more than likely paying additional taxes.
In you previous example you state that people haven't got £800 after rent so how do you expect them to afford the 4 bed house you covet?
Why do premier footballer get paid so much BTW? What value and benefit are they to society and humanity? Perhaps it is because people squander vast sums of money voluntarily?
You have been asked to justify the disproportionate benefits and advantages shovelled onto the plates of boomers and what has happened?
You have wiggled and you have weaved (Premiership footballers?)
It seems an obvious case of "the lady doth protest too much". The fact is you are all well aware you have been overcompensated, and continue to be so, embarrassingly so in fact; yet not one of you have the decency to admit it. Instead you scramble to accuse the young of all sorts of malefactions.
As far as 4-bed house couple goes, they can sell up and downsize, like everyone else who has a drop in income but has assets has to do.
Maybe then for once, a young family might even have a chance at having a home.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.6K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.5K Spending & Discounts
- 247.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.6K Life & Family
- 261.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards