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
-
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.
No, I am not commenting on whether they are deserved or not. Pensions are a part of pay and that should be a negotiation between employer and employee. However, it's important to be clear on how much this element of pay is worth.
It's disingenuous to say the least to suggest that an average pension promise worth £200k is 'meagre' in the context of the continued squeeze on living standards that the average person is facing.0 -
No, I am not commenting on whether they are deserved or not. Pensions are a part of pay and that should be a negotiation between employer and employee. However, it's important to be clear on how much this element of pay is worth.
It's disingenuous to say the least to suggest that an average pension promise worth £200k is 'meagre' in the context of the continued squeeze on living standards that the average person is facing.
Nobody said it was "meagre" ...its not the golden handshake the media try to say it is...which has many people mislead.
An average £5,600 is subject to tax and some will pay and some won't.
Its been pointed out that nobody lives on the basic £107 a week state pension...the government have a supplement for people who only have this...
If the basic needs level is £180 ??...then the government will provide....if public sector workers have a pension its taken into account..
Basically what is pushed out by the media and even the government is that people retire on best part full pay..the figure of £5,600 suggests otherwise..
Hopefully the world can return to growth and solve many of our present problems..0 -
There are plenty who start work at 16 and will now work till 77 before state pension entitlement. What age did she start drawing her state pension may I ask? I bet it wasn't 75, or even 77.
Who says people will work to 77 - the government or an insurance company who couldn't possibly have a vested interest in selling annuities or pension plans?0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »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".
I read the papers about the cost of weddings, don't you ?
I said typically in the range £12,500-£25,000. Don't believe it if you don't want to -- more denial and cloud-cuckoo-land, ageist, leftie thinking.
Undoubtedly some don't get married because they can't afford the Posh and Becks mega-spread. Ridiculous.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 -
On the other side of the coin not all elderly are vulnerable at least in a financial sense.
True.That's why vulnerable is a better determinator of need than age. But a lot of elderly are vulnerable of course for medical and financial reasons.
The trouble is that elements of the left have hijacked the term vulnerable to include anyone living off welfare even if it's of their own making or choosing. This discredits anyone who is genuinely vulnerable. Some of the Conservatives have got flack over the strivers v skivers talk, but they know that it strikes a chord with the majority, and that's why Labour is so much on the back foot over this. All the right people are objecting :- most Labour, some LibDems, a few Tory wets.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 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »I read the papers about the cost of weddings, don't you ?
I said typically in the range £12,500-£25,000. Don't believe it if you don't want to -- more denial and cloud-cuckoo-land, ageist, leftie thinking.
Undoubtedly some don't get married because they can't afford the Posh and Becks mega-spread. Ridiculous.
Your argument is about as coherent as that of a rambling tramp sitting on a park bench drinking methylated spirits out of a paper bag.
Young people don't have any money because they spend it all on getting married. It must be true because you read it in the papers.
Yeah, right mate. Keep at it.
Incidentally it would probably help you to at least come to some sort of internally consistent definition of what you think "Leftism" and "Marxism" actually is.
You throw these terms around with gay abandon without appearing to have the faintest idea what you are actually talking about.0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »Your argument is about as coherent as that of a rambling tramp sitting on a park bench drinking methylated spirits out of a paper bag.
Young people don't have any money because they spend it all on getting married. It must be true because you read it in the papers.
Yeah, right mate. Keep at it.
Incidentally it would probably help you to at least come to some sort of internally consistent definition of what you think "Leftism" and "Marxism" actually is.
You throw these terms around with gay abandon without appearing to have the faintest idea what you are actually talking about.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, all par for course. The last refuge of the intellectually challenged pursuing the lost argument -- just resort to an angry tirade of personal abuse which says nothing constructive and which does not move the discussion on one iota.
Pathetic.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 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »I read the papers about the cost of weddings, don't you ?
I said typically in the range £12,500-£25,000. Don't believe it if you don't want to -- more denial and cloud-cuckoo-land, ageist, leftie thinking.
Undoubtedly some don't get married because they can't afford the Posh and Becks mega-spread. Ridiculous.
This site quotes an average wedding to cost just over £16,000
http://www.ukweddingbelles.com/weddingmagazine/budgeting/267-wedding-costs-2012
I would just wonder who is actually termed Mr & Mrs average. None of my friends ever spent this amount and admitted it.
sorry for the deviation...0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »Yeah, yeah, yeah, all par for course. The last refuge of the intellectually challenged pursuing the lost argument -- just resort to an angry tirade of personal abuse which says nothing constructive and which does not move the discussion on one iota.
Pathetic.
And least self aware post of the thread goes to George.0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »And least self aware post of the thread goes to George.
Pathetic. You add next to nothing to any of the discussions -- just an angry, none-too-bright, disaffected, left-wing stirrer, who can't lose an argument without resorting to personal attacks, with the inevitable result that you get them back. Do everyone a favour and do one, so that the grown ups can try to have an intelligent discussion without every disagreement turning into playground jibes.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
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