Baby Boomers: Generation Theft?

Quasar

So what are the baby boomers supposed to do, commit mass suicide to (a) expiate the terrible sin of having been born and lived at a time where economies were booming and (b) leave room for the younger generations who in turn will have to do the same and on ad infinitum?

If we want to play the blame game, we should see where the problem really lies: fat bankers who gambled with everyone's money, many if not most of whom are clever young things well past baby boomer birth date, and who show no sign of cutting their bonuses AND pay their due taxes to relieve the economic distress of the masses. AND large corporations who pay NMW while salting away fat profits on which they pay no taxes.

But no, blame the old, those who worked, had not much in the way of benefits to fall back on, yet managed to scrimp and save and yeah, had good luck in the housing market.

Graham_Devon

LOL. OK. I'm out.

Outdone too when i'm up against "should we commit mass suicide then". No, just accept a few less perks. We'd need a government with the ball's to take such a proposition on first though...

Accept you may have to move later in life when that 3-4 bed social house is far more than is needed and let another family make use of it. (The anger this caused is much documented). Just simple little things. This in itself was scrapped as a policy due to the anger it caused as these places were peoples "homes". How can we move on with resource usage like that (and thats just one example) when so many others are in need of it and were not building anything? Yes, those kind of things are tough, but hey, people have had these homes for decades. Others haven't had even the chance of a secure home to raise a family in.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Agreed, but not half as much as the increase others will face. Plenty of studies have stated and laid bare the simple fact that the pension ages needs to rise for ALL today, otherwise we are just fiddling with a massive crisis, not averting it in any way.

Over half of female boomers will have an increase of 6 years.

Quasar

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL. OK. I'm out.

Outdone too when i'm up against "should we commit mass suicide then". No, just accept a few less perks. We'd need a government with the ball's to take such a proposition on first though...

Accept you may have to move later in life when that 3-4 bed social house is far more than is needed and let another family make use of it. (The anger this caused is much documented). Just simple little things.

Ok, the suicide bit was a hyperbole to show a point.

What perks do pensioners get? A pension, I believe, a bus pass and a winter fuel allowance. How much does that add up to for someone on basic state pension?

I agree with a large house being unnecessary, but when I have an elderly, widowed acquaintance in council accommodation that is too large for her and when she asked to be moved to a smaller place was told they couldn't do it, I just say tough. Some old people can't win even if they try.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL. OK. I'm out.

Outdone too when i'm up against "should we commit mass suicide then". No, just accept a few less perks. We'd need a government with the ball's to take such a proposition on first though...

How much longer do you think these perks will last before they becomes means tested.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL. OK. I'm out.

Outdone too when i'm up against "should we commit mass suicide then". No, just accept a few less perks. We'd need a government with the ball's to take such a proposition on first though...

Ahh Logan's Run :eek: If my memory serves me right I think that would include your lot
as well.

GeorgeHowell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Winter fuel payments, pension changes made to people under a certain age, bus passes, TV licences, pension ages. The list goes on.

It's not just the welfare itself, it's how it's applied. Look how quickly student fee's hit students. There were whole swates of people with years of working left ring fenced from pension changes.

While a collosal mess up, look how quickly they introduced child benefit changes and working tax credit changes, but can't possibly do the same to older people, and again, ring fence certain ages.

Look at other stuff, such as SMI. Get it for 2 years if you are of working age. Over 60, get it for life.

Theres lots of stuff, just little things which effect us all, but effect us differently dependant on when we were born.

As for the debtors benefitting, this is just wrong on all counts. The only what they could benefit would be through wage increases or asset increases. They (in general) have neither.

It's not all about age, it's about retirement. The perception is that when people retire their income goes down and often does not increase as much as it does for workers, and that they have little chance to improve their financial situation. That's what underlies all the little perks. It is characterised as sugar-coating life for the old at the expense of the young by those who have an interest in pursuing this nasty and rather ridiculous "battle of the generations" agenda. If similar vitriol was aimed at women, or the disabled, or ethnic minorities those doing it would be vilified. But even though ageism is subject to anti-discrimation legislation, older people are still considered fair game.

StevieJ

ukcarper wrote: »

How much longer do you think these perks will last before they becomes means tested.

Or gone

Graham_Devon

Quasar wrote: »

I agree with a large house being unnecessary, but when I have an elderly, widowed acquaintance in council accommodation that is too large for her and when she asked to be moved to a smaller place was told they couldn't do it, I just say tough. Some old people can't win even if they try.

And to be fair, while many are quick to jump and hound anyone who dares mention baby boomers etc, we pretty much all agree that these sorts of things, such as one person rattling around in a state owned, 4 bed house, when so many are in need, is stupid.

However, when a policy is put forward, people are outraged that people will lose their "homes".

I'm not having a go at any one of any age. I've said many times before, you can't help what you are given.

However, you CAN accept, without campiagning, sensible proposals, such as the underoccupancy one, such as stopping fuel credits to wealthy people just because they are over 65 etc without the Guardian, and other such papers lambasting the government for being so cruel to old people.

You can see it every time you read welfare articles, the words: "But pensioners will be protected". Why?! Even now with the housing benefit issues, it's being suggested pensioners should be excluded. So not only excluded from having to move from their 3-4 bed home, but excluded from having to pay a bit towards it too, like everyone else.

Again, council tax benefits. 2 3rd's of working age people will have to pay up to 25% of the bill now. But no, not if your over 65. Why?

Prescriptions were bought up on an article, and it was being asked, for those wealthy retirees, do they really need free prescriptions.....it caused an uproar, even though it costs something like £100 for an entire years worth of prescriptions, it was stated "we've paid in". It was part of a consultation as to how to lower the cost of prescriptions for all. But it was seen as too politically sensitive to make people over 65 with the means to pay....pay. So the price goes up for everyone under 65.

As I said once above and once on the previous page....there is plenty that can be done, but no goverment is willing to do it. They must be scared, but scared of what? revolt? If so, people can't genuinely suggest that this age group are not wanting a larger slice,....otherwise they wouldn't revolt? Surely!?

StevieJ

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

It's not all about age, it's about retirement. The perception is that when people retire their income goes down and often does not increase as much as it does for workers, and that they have little chance to improve their financial situation. That's what underlies all the little perks. It is characterised as sugar-coating life for the old at the expense of the young by those who have an interest in pursuing this nasty and rather ridiculous "battle of the generations" agenda. If similar vitriol was aimed at women, or the disabled, or ethnic minorities those doing it would be vilified. But even though ageism is subject to anti-discrimation legislation, older people are still considered fair game.

I think it the current Govt who have most interest in seeing this play out, a typical divide and conquer play

David Willetts, the shadow universities and skills secretary, said that the post-war generation of “boomers” have been guilty of a “monumental failure” to protect the future of their children.

In a new book, ‘How the Baby Boomers Stole Their Children's Futures’, he said that pensions schemes and property booms have concentrated wealth and power in the boomer generation, and encouraged by the government and banks, “they borrowed as if there were no tomorrow

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/7012544/Baby-boomer-generation-have-failed-their-children-David-Willetts-says.html