Baby Boomers: Generation Theft?

Graham_Devon

And while I'm having a rant, it's not just pensioners that this applies too.

The government run scared from the disabled too. Yet the majority of disabled equally find this situation bizzare...

Free parking. Why? Parking in the space with the best access, wide bays, sure. But free? Why? 3 disabled people in my own family don't get why they should be able to park for free in a leisure car park, yet a family wanting to undertake the same leisure facilities pay.

Yet it would be a government with big cahonies which took that away. Instantly, they'd be the nasty party against disabled people. It's a nonsense. It just puts the costs up for everyone else.

Graham_Devon

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.

Sorry george. Not sure it was vitirol, but I've just included a scenario with the disabled.

Might have put a noose around my neck in doing so too, but genuinly haven't seen anyone able to explain it.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And while I'm having a rant, it's not just pensioners that this applies too.

The government run scared from the disabled too. Yet the majority of disabled equally find this situation bizzare...

Free parking. Why? Parking in the space with the best access, wide bays, sure. But free? Why? 3 disabled people in my own family don't get why they should be able to park for free in a leisure car park, yet a family wanting to undertake the same leisure facilities pay.

Yet it would be a government with big cahonies which took that away. Instantly, they'd be the nasty party against disabled people. It's a nonsense. It just puts the costs up for everyone else.

Your be glad to know nearly all the council run car parks in mine and surrounding areas charge for disabled parking.

kabayiri

I do think the younger generation should mobilise and act as a more unified voting force.

Older people are definitely more successful in this. My pensioner father was one of those who jumped on a coach to campaign in London for basic pension increases etc. It may seem futile, but such events make the press - protect dear old Granny and Gramps etc.

In the 80s the music and television of the day echoed the strifes of the younger generation. Think back to the alternative comedy, the pop songs about Thatcher.

Today's generation seem to be more easily bought off with X-factor. I'm with GD in that they should exercise their political voice a lot more. That means campaigning for rental security as well as jobs.

grizzly1911

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.

In another 5 years it will no doubt all be changed again and 5 years after that ad nauseum.

So debtors don't benefit from interest rates being on the floor:think:

I would suggest that "pensioners" are ring fenced because in the main they are in a locked in situation they don't have the room to manoeuvre and adjust in the same way as someone in their 20/30/40s.

I do think the universal benefits should be taxed if they take total income over prescribed thresholds, whether that is at the basic PA level or some other amount is up for grabs. I don't believe means testing would be cost effective and would also stop genuine claimants claiming.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You are making a point about World War debt, I assume?

If you simply take figures, you win the argument.

However, if you look at what the debt has been spent on, things are a little different.

What's a better use of debt? Saving millions of people being held in camps and burnt to death after exploitation? Or bolstering the pensions, asset prices and welfare payments for a certain age group of people living in one of the most developed countries in the world?

If debt is going to be left, we have to look at what it was spent on, rather than looking at arbitary figures.

Another point is that debt is one measure that can be paid down. Defecit however, is another.

No, I'm talking about the debt 'left' by the war 'generation' to the boomers but the history of the last 200 years or so.

so answer my question about 'generational ' debt transfers (whatever a generation is )

question 1
so first what do you mean by a generation?


question 2
do you mean people born
born before 1935?
between 1935-1945?
between 1945-1965?
between 1955-1975?
between 1965-1985?
between 1975-1995?
between 1985-2005?
between 1995-2015 (difficult here of course)


quesrtion 3
when do you consider that these generation groups dominate society to the exclusion of other such group?
i.e. at which age do they dominate?

question4

as a 20 year group is clearly not the majority how do they come to dominate?


question 5
how is it that today people aged 46-66 dominate over all other, both younger and older?

question 6
will they always do this ?


question 7

most of the money has been spent on the NHS, education, infrastucture, benefits etc etc

do you prefer war to this type of spending?

and as a matter of fact, the ww2 was not started by concern about the death camps....

ukcarper

The thing that seems to be missed or ignored is that over half the boomers have still got at least 11 years before they retire and some have got over 18 years.

Graham_Devon

grizzly1911 wrote: »

So debtors don't benefit from interest rates being on the floor:think:

Depends on the debt.

The older generations will propser far more from low interest rates, than younger people starting out today will.

They are afterall, starting out, and low base rates mean nothing to their student debts, rental costs, credit card debts.

They only mean something to people with mortgages, which is, by and large in terms of percentages, the older generations, and especially boomers right now, especially so those with BTLs, which again, is dominated (in figures released) by boomers.

Infact, you could easily make the case that low base rates go completely against the younger generations, as they have to pay more and more for their housing as BTL's take on more and more at lower costs due to the base rates and preferencial lending.

I dont think I'm saying anything AGAINST boomers on this thread, simply highlighting the issues. Most of the issues the government could do something about. A boomer themselves couldn't do anything, other than put themselves in a worse position to make some kind of weird point. However, the government won't. I'm not sure of the reasons, but if they are scared of touching these people, they must be scared for a reason....

kabayiri

Even between boomers we will see a real divide between those with pension security and those without.

Public sector boomer workers who are set to retire in the years to come probably didn't realise just how beneficial their guaranteed pensions would prove. When they started work things looked quite different.

It's another example of being a benign beneficiary of fortune. None of us have a crystal ball (*except Hamish *)

dryhat

Anyone who thinks youngsters today are better off than us boomers is talking out of their 4r5e.