Baby Boomers: Generation Theft?

GeorgeHowell

grizzly1911 wrote: »

A lot of 16/17/18 year olds don't live with the consequence of their actions. Other, generally older, people often sort out the mess.

They often do not understand what the consequence of their actions will be.

I am afraid you have to live a lot longer to appreciate how little you knew at 16-18, when you thought you knew it all, and how much more you know now, whilst appreciating that there's still an awful lot that you don't know. Every generation reaches adulthood thinking that they could not possibly do as badly running the world as the ones who run it now -- and then proceeds to do just that.

mumps

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Its nothing to do with ageism, I just literally do not understand why one particular generation seems to think its entitled to endless handouts over healthcare, pensions, fuel allowances, housing, bus passes etc which we cant afford, when no generation before or after has enjoyed these privileges.

I will be 60 later this year and I remember my granny having free healthcare, a pension, council flat and a bus pass. I don't this she could be called a baby boomer as she was born in 1900.

ash28

ruggedtoast wrote: »

These "debates" on here always boil down to the same thing. A lot of angst insisting that people from the baby boomer generation continue to be given a lot of state handouts they couldn't otherwise afford themselves while later generations go without.

Its been round and round on here like an old sock on spin cycle and I have yet to see one single convincing argument alongside all the "We're entitled we paid in" Hyperbole. Well you didnt pay in enough or it wouldnt be a problem, and if you're all so good at saving and parsimony as we are led to believe not that many of you should need benefits anyway.

Its nothing to do with ageism, I just literally do not understand why one particular generation seems to think its entitled to endless handouts over healthcare, pensions, fuel allowances, housing, bus passes etc which we cant afford, when no generation before or after has enjoyed these privileges.

It just seems like a breathtaking sense of self entitlement to me, and may just indicate that all of these numerous articles in the media about the baby boomer generation being intrinnsically a teeny bit selfish may possibly have a point.

The generation before the boomers are certainly enjoying all of things you mention - not many boomers are though....they aren't retired.

The generation after the boomers, like the majority of the boomers have yet to retire.

So who exactly do you mean?

I'm a boomer and have yet to receive a state handout, I'm lying ofcourse, I've received child benefit, an education (not university) and health care, fortunately I've been pretty healthy all of my life and apart from having children, you could probably count the times on 2 hands that I've been to the doctor and apart from child birth I've never been to hospital - well except as a visitor. But you can never say never.

The winners in the welfare state are those people born before 1930 - they would take out far more than they would pay in and some paid in nothing - OH's mother, born 1907 (he was a late baby), died in 2006 - just before her 99th birthday....never worked - reached retirement age in 1967, spent the last 11 years of her life in a residential home - paid for by the state (and topped up by us)..

My own mother worked all her life and died when she was 56 - like many others she didn't live long enough to get a pension.

It's called risk pooling.

But I guess the real winners are older women - retired now - women live longer than men and up until recently less than 25% of women were entitled to a full state pension. A lot of these women have never worked and the years spent bringing up a family didn't count (as they do now), they either claimed as part of a couple or if widowed got the same as someone who had worked and contributed anyway.

What would you do with them?

What would you like to see changed?

Some sort of intergenerational accounting system? How would that work?

Would it work by treating a generation as a collective (like the Borg) the problem there is the oldest are dying when the youngest are entering retirement....

Or would we have individual accounts? The problem you would have there is that there is already massive inequality within each generation so how would you assess who had had too much and who too little.

Would it based on income tax and other contributions, the more you pay the more you will get, then when you get a poor pensioner suffering from ill health will it be, "Oh, sorry grandma Rugged, we're confiscating your savings/house - you've cost too much and you've been booked on trip down the LIverpool Pathway.

How would you treat disability for instance?

When I younger it was class warfare and now it's intergenerational.

What would you like to see:
a - happen to current pensioners
b - pensioners without enough contributions for a full pension
c - future pensioners - babyboomers, genx and beyond.
d - other welfare recipients.

Or is your only interest babyboomers?

Did someone already mention Logan's Run.

ash28

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

I am afraid you have to live a lot longer to appreciate how little you knew at 16-18, when you thought you knew it all, and how much more you know now, whilst appreciating that there's still an awful lot that you don't know. Every generation reaches adulthood thinking that they could not possibly do as badly running the world as the ones who run it now -- and then proceeds to do just that.

When I was 16 I knew I knew everything. I knew my parent's were stupid, I didn't have to be told.

My own children knew exactly the same thing....

N1AK

CLAPTON wrote: »

well, it does seem strange to me that 16/17 year old are less doctrinated in choosing who to vote for but lose that ability when they become 18 or older.

It would what with it being complete nonsense but then many of the views you hold seem to be based on that; oh wait, let me guess that was another painfully clumsy attempt to set up a straw-man. I guess I shouldn't be surprised, you'd need to imagine up an argument that weak in order to have any chance of slaying it with debating skills of the level you are thus-far displaying.

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

They often do not understand what the consequence of their actions will be.

Look at the opinions of 16-17 year olds on civil partnerships in the years prior to them being brought into law against the views of those over 60. Were we wrong to bring them in (thus making 16-17 year olds wrong) or were we right to (thus making them right and the elderly as a group wrong).

Take a look at the level of support for both Afghanistan (both groups in favour but the young by less) and Iraq (young not in favour). Were the elderly right and the young wrong again?

Late teens also treat global warming, environmental impact and recycling as being more important than the elderly as well. Changes to give women equal rights? The young led the way yet again. But I suppose these are yet more examples of the arrogance of youth; wiser older heads should have prevailed so that we could completely stuff the environment and keep women in their place!

We haven't allowed voting by 16-17 year olds thus far and our economy is FUBAR so why be confident that the wisdom of age is benefiting our political process.

ruggedtoast

ash28 wrote: »

The generation before the boomers are certainly enjoying all of things you mention - not many boomers are though....they aren't retired.

The generation after the boomers, like the majority of the boomers have yet to retire.

So who exactly do you mean?

I'm a boomer and have yet to receive a state handout, I'm lying ofcourse, I've received child benefit, an education (not university) and health care, fortunately I've been pretty healthy all of my life and apart from having children, you could probably count the times on 2 hands that I've been to the doctor and apart from child birth I've never been to hospital - well except as a visitor. But you can never say never.

The winners in the welfare state are those people born before 1930 - they would take out far more than they would pay in and some paid in nothing - OH's mother, born 1907 (he was a late baby), died in 2006 - just before her 99th birthday....never worked - reached retirement age in 1967, spent the last 11 years of her life in a residential home - paid for by the state (and topped up by us)..

My own mother worked all her life and died when she was 56 - like many others she didn't live long enough to get a pension.

It's called risk pooling.

But I guess the real winners are older women - retired now - women live longer than men and up until recently less than 25% of women were entitled to a full state pension. A lot of these women have never worked and the years spent bringing up a family didn't count (as they do now), they either claimed as part of a couple or if widowed got the same as someone who had worked and contributed anyway.

What would you do with them?

What would you like to see changed?

Some sort of intergenerational accounting system? How would that work?

Would it work by treating a generation as a collective (like the Borg) the problem there is the oldest are dying when the youngest are entering retirement....

Or would we have individual accounts? The problem you would have there is that there is already massive inequality within each generation so how would you assess who had had too much and who too little.

Would it based on income tax and other contributions, the more you pay the more you will get, then when you get a poor pensioner suffering from ill health will it be, "Oh, sorry grandma Rugged, we're confiscating your savings/house - you've cost too much and you've been booked on trip down the LIverpool Pathway.

How would you treat disability for instance?

When I younger it was class warfare and now it's intergenerational.

What would you like to see:
a - happen to current pensioners
b - pensioners without enough contributions for a full pension
c - future pensioners - babyboomers, genx and beyond.
d - other welfare recipients.

Or is your only interest babyboomers?

Did someone already mention Logan's Run.

Firstly you can stop moaning about how badly off you are when posterity will remember you as as the wealthiest generation in British history.

Second you can stop NIMBYing so younger people can actually have some homes built to live in.

Thirdly you can forego your winter fuel payments if you dont need them.

Fourthly you can forego your state pension if you dont need that.

Fifthly you can stop using silly specious arguments about eugenics to try and detract from the actual point of this argument, which is that the country cant afford to pay for millions of retiring boomers to have benefits they dont need, and pensions they dont need, and completely monopolise the housing stock, without causing undue hardship to younger people who will never own their own home or receive any of those benefits when they retire.

Harry_Boyle

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Firstly you can stop moaning about how badly off you are when posterity will remember you as as the wealthiest generation in British history.

Second you can stop NIMBYing so younger people can actually have some homes built to live in.

Thirdly you can forego your winter fuel payments if you dont need them.

Fourthly you can forego your state pension if you dont need that.

Will you be prepared to forego your state pension? We will only have to pay national insurance for 30 years, as opposed to my parents who paid for 44 years for a full state pension. We will also receive a flat pension, no matter how little our national insurance contributions were.

After paying into the system for your state pension, will you forego it? Especially as you have only paid in for 30 years?

If you have private pensions you don't need, will you forego them to help out the insurance company?

ruggedtoast

Harry_Boyle wrote: »

Will you be prepared to forego your state pension? We will only have to pay national insurance for 30 years, as opposed to my parents who paid for 44 years for a full state pension. We will also receive a flat pension, no matter how little our national insurance contributions were.

After paying into the system for your state pension, will you forego it? Especially as you have only paid in for 30 years?

If you have private pensions you don't need, will you forego them to help out the insurance company?

I'm not paying in for my state pension. No one is. Your NI contributions pay for current claimants.

As I said I highly doubt there will be a state pension, certainly not a non means tested one, when I retire. I am not expecting the government will bail me out of the 20 odd years when I won't be working so I am making my own provisions.

ukcarper

Ok so people do not pay for their own pension but we have paid other peoples pensions for the best part of 50 years.