No country for young men — UK generation gap widens

jjlandlord

The 'young' (20-24 if we take the example of the graph showed at the very beginning of the thread) have never been so educated, so healthy, and so comfortable.

Hardly a catastrophe.

Actually, I suspect that the fact that the time in full time education has been increasing is one major reason why the stats show the age range as getting poorer relative to the average: You don't get paid to attend secondary school or university.

thorsoak

N1AK wrote: »

No your not funding anyone. If you've only just managed to pay off your mortgage then you clearly didn't have a high enough income to be one of the ~20% of people who pay as much or more in tax than they receive in state services.

Moan all you like about 'just' getting £728 pa more for doing nothing. You don't begrudge them the benefits, but you'll happily defend the policies that are slashing them and handing the money to wealthier pensioners instead... How very noble.

Maybe I did not make myself clear in my previous post: I shall not be in receipt of an addtional £728 per annum it will be £182 per annum - the £14 increase I quoted is £14 PER 4 WEEKS - ie £3.50 per week. Of which I shall actually receive £2.80 per week after the tax has been taken from my employment.

And no, I have never defended the policies of slashing benefits, nor protecting wealthier pensioners. My opinion, for what it is worth, is that pensioners who pay tax at 40p in the £1 should not be eligible for additional benefits.

lisyloo

My opinion, for what it is worth, is that pensioners who pay tax at 40p in the £1 should not be eligible for additional benefits.

I agree, but as a pragmatist I wonder about the cost of means testing.
For example if you take away Alan Sugars bus pass (which he proably doesn't use anyway), does the cost of taking it away exceed the cost of offering the benefit.
Most of these bus jouneys are not actually costing anything anyway.

If you make it hard to apply for benefits then the vulnerable wouldn't be able to get them. There are lots of elderly people who cannot fill out forms on their own or can't use the internet. Some have helpers, some don't and it would be the most vulnerable who were affected.

Whilst I agree in principle - in practice if it costs more to withdraw than to give it or means it's not accessible to the vulnerabe then I don't think it should be implemented.

I don't think bus passes cost much to give because the actual cost of putting someone on a bus that's travelling anyway is negligeable.

thorsoak

lisyloo wrote: »

I agree, but as a pragmatist I wonder about the cost of means testing.
For example if you take away Alan Sugars bus pass (which he proably doesn't use anyway), does the cost of taking it away exceed the cost of offering the benefit.
Most of these bus jouneys are not actually costing anything anyway.

If you make it hard to apply for benefits then the vulnerable wouldn't be able to get them. There are lots of elderly people who cannot fill out forms on their own or can't use the internet. Some have helpers, some don't and it would be the most vulnerable who were affected.

Whilst I agree in principle - in practice if it costs more to withdraw than to give it or means it's not accessible to the vulnerabe then I don't think it should be implemented.

I don't think bus passes cost much to give because the actual cost of putting someone on a bus that's travelling anyway is negligeable.

..and a bus pass is not much good when you aren't on a bus route :rotfl:

In actual fact it wouldn't be that difficult for HMRC to adjust tax codes of higher rate taxpayers to pull back any additional benefits. I've been notified of my lower tax code already which will take into account my extra largesse from April!

CLAPTON

lisyloo wrote: »

I don't think bus passes cost much to give because the actual cost of putting someone on a bus that's travelling anyway is negligeable.

Do buses travel anyway?

If so then a very good argument why 99.9999% of people should be exempt from bus fairs.

pollypenny

Cyberman60 wrote: »

Well, I am retired since the age of 52 and will get absolutely none of that for many more years. I built my own wealth through WORK and investment, and that choice is there for all !!

Good on you. However, for the country to function it needs teachers, nurses, cleaners, bin men, sewage workers etc.

Not everyone can build their own wealth.

Graham_Devon

N1AK wrote: »

Here you go Graham, bet every time you see stuff like this it makes you proud of your flag waving for the monster raving racist party?

Labour?

That's who my vote is going to. Made up my mind last night based on the fact that they at least had the principle to try and stop corruption in government.

I don't like many things they do....but that's the same for all parties.

So what they did last night made my mind up. If there was ever an indication that the tories are looking out for the rich, last nights vote was it. It made things simpler - it removed the tories from the possible list. Quite simply, I've not got anyone left to vote for, but labour, so by process of elimination, that's where my vote is going.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Labour?

That's who my vote is going to. Made up my mind last night based on the fact that they at least had the principle to try and stop corruption in government.

I don't like many things they do....but that's the same for all parties.

So what they did last night made my mind up. If there was ever an indication that the tories are looking out for the rich, last nights vote was it. It made things simpler - it removed the tories from the possible list. Quite simply, I've not got anyone left to vote for, but labour, so by process of elimination, that's where my vote is going.

what exactly did they promise to do?
or was it an 'aspiration'?

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

what exactly did they promise to do?
or was it an 'aspiration'?

I never said they promised to do anything.

I said they showed principle. If the vote had gone through it would have made it very difficult for MPs to be directors of companies. Upon hearing some of the stuff that's gone on in Parliament (such as trying to change rules and putting motions through specifically to benefit the company that the MP is a director of) I feel it's something that is morrally wrong currently in parliament. The power of an MP, and that of a collective party, IMHO, should not benefit certain companies just because one of the directors bought to the board happens to be an MP.

You may disagree. The tories did. But then they do have 500% more MP's on their side acting as directors in companies Companies which just so happen to also make donations to the tory party

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I never said they promised to do anything.

I said they showed principle. If the vote had gone through it would have made it very difficult for MPs to be directors of companies. Upon hearing some of the stuff that's gone on in Parliament (such as trying to change rules and putting motions through specifically to benefit the company that the MP is a director of) I feel it's something that is morrally wrong currently in parliament. The power of an MP, and that of a collective party, IMHO, should not benefit certain companies just because one of the directors bought to the board happens to be an MP.

You may disagree. The tories did. But then they do have 500% more MP's on their side acting as directors in companies Companies which just so happen to also make donations to the tory party

I've found that all parties have plenty of principles but the devil is in the detail (that often has the exact opposite effect of that intended).
It is certainly strange that this new principle emerged in such a sudden way or perhaps it had been long planned.