Current a level students won't get a pension till 77... Lets cut boomers pensions NOW

GeorgeHowell

StevieJ wrote: »

No that is a misquote, but I guess you are not quite as concerned for the unemployed and the sick? It wouldn't quite fit into your view of the world.

I don't know what it's a misquote of, because it isn't presented here as a quote in the first place.

Nevertheless it's a subset of the notion (not quote) that a measure of a civilised society is how well it looks after it's vulnerable.

It's tiresome to have to bat away yet another left-leaning attempt to put words into one's mouth, but playing the man and not the ball goes with their territory I'm afraid. I just posted elsewhere a statement that I most certainly do have equivalent concern for the sick and for the unemployed who want to work and who are actively seeking work.

What I do not have concern for -- other than for the way that they leech on society -- are the can't work/won't work, professional welfare claimant, know their rights brigade, who certainly do not qualify as vulnerable by any sensible and rational definition of the word.

grizzly1911

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

What I do not have concern for -- other than for the way that they leech on society -- are the can't work/won't work, professional welfare claimant, know their rights brigade, who certainly do not qualify as vulnerable by any sensible and rational definition of the word.

The sad thing is that in all this debate they will largely come out of this unscathed. All the current carpet bombing will do is cause alot of collateral damage.

GeorgeHowell

grizzly1911 wrote: »

The sad thing is that in all this debate they will largely come out of this unscathed. All the current carpet bombing will do is cause alot of collateral damage.

I think you're right. Even if there was a Conservative majority government led by someone more right-wing than Cameron they'd be too frightened of more riots and crime if they stuck it too hard on that lot.

StevieJ

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

What I do not have concern for -- other than for the way that they leech on society -- are the can't work/won't work, professional welfare claimant, know their rights brigade, who certainly do not qualify as vulnerable by any sensible and rational definition of the word.

On the other side of the coin not all elderly are vulnerable at least in a financial sense.

ruggedtoast

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

A characteristically rather poor attempt at laughing and fobbing it off. But it doesn't answer the point that I made does it. And it's a pretty significant and important point in this context.

The point that you made. What point was that? All I read was some nonsense about apocryphal weddings of people you don't know who dont exist and whom you have never met.

My wedding certainly didnt cost £25k and I dont know anyone elses who did apart from some distant family who are loaded.

While you are on the subject though I do know plenty of people who are putting off getting married and having children precisely because of the hopeless situation at the moment with housing costs.

But then I don't expect you to care about that because all you respond to is 2 dimensional stereotypes taken out of your lexicon of "Common Prejudices about People Younger than George".

thorsoak

I don't consider myself vulnerable - but neither am I commplacent. Yes, my mortgage is paid off. AND we downsized before my OH died. But my private pension has dropped by around £50 per month (foolishly, I chose to take my pension annuity "with profits" - and of course there have been very few profits in the past 5 years - and savings atm gain very little interest. I've chosen to go back into the workplace (pt at just over NMW) rather than rely upon the £14.50 per month pension credit - and therefore pay council tax at full rate less 25% single person discount.

I still feel the need to be "wanted" and whilst I still enjoy working, I intend to carry on. However I suppose that PaulF81/Rugged Toast will castigate me for keeping a job away from younger people

ruggedtoast

thorsoak wrote: »

I don't consider myself vulnerable - but neither am I commplacent. Yes, my mortgage is paid off. AND we downsized before my OH died. But my private pension has dropped by around £50 per month (foolishly, I chose to take my pension annuity "with profits" - and of course there have been very few profits in the past 5 years - and savings atm gain very little interest. I've chosen to go back into the workplace (pt at just over NMW) rather than rely upon the £14.50 per month pension credit - and therefore pay council tax at full rate less 25% single person discount.

I still feel the need to be "wanted" and whilst I still enjoy working, I intend to carry on. However I suppose that PaulF81/Rugged Toast will castigate me for keeping a job away from younger people :(

You can suppose away madam. It doesnt appear to make a blind bit of difference what I actually say so you may as well continue along the lines of atavistic prejudice and ad hominem criticism.

Jennifer_Jane

kabayiri wrote: »

As a relatively new entrant into the workplace, if you had to make a choice with finite resources , would you go the BTL route or put the money away into a private pension pot?

Based on recent events I can't say I would trust annuity rates. We have seen these can rise or fall significantly. By comparison a BTL seems to offer a more predictable income stream.

Tomorrows 2060 pensioner will have to be even more savvy it seems.

Am unsure who this was addressed to, but don't forget that with BTL the money you pay out comes out of taxed income, and the income you receive in rents (less management costs; maintenance, mortgage costs etc etc) is taxable. You also have to deal with empty periods, wear and tear, and so on. So quite a bit of managing going on.

If I were starting over I would have a combination of Stocks & Shares ISA's, pension (taking advantage of tax and Company input, and that pension money being actively managed, by me by changing funds etc if your pension fund people allow that, in Equities). I'd be less inclined to have a BTL, but that's just me.

MoneyWealthKnowledge

Pensions ages are increasing because we are living longer. Whilst you might have to wait till 77, you may live to over a 100 and hence you'll still get the same level of state payout.

Not only that but students now only have to contribute 30 years worth of National Insurance contributions to qualify for the basic state pension. Babyboomers had to work for 40+ years.

Having said that, by the time students now, reach age 77, the government in power at that point in time (doesn't matter which party is in power) will have kicked the can down the road to the next generation.

BobQ

robmatic wrote: »

That meagre £6000 pa would cost close to £200000 to provide if you purchased an equivalent annuity on the open market, or perhaps someone would need to own an investment property or two to provide a similar level of income.

So what? Are you suggesting that the pension is somehow undeserved? Or an unwarranted freeby.

Many of these pensions were earned years ago when salaries in the public sector were much less than the private sector and a non-contributory pension was used to aid recruitment and retention. Clearly in the past few years the salary gap has narrowed but this does not mean the pensions wwere not earned.