UK failing it's young as gulf grows between generations

Sapphire

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Like young people who have had no start in life and are often chucked out of Education having spent years bouncing in and out of care .

Sorry – but that's always been the way of the world, and those people (a minority) are still better off in this country than they are in most other parts of the world in similar circumstances. Why do you think so many people from other countries are clamouring to get into Britain, and why do you think so many migrants have settled quite happily here?

You display your usual sneering hatred of your parents' generation. I've always wondered why? Perhaps you were in care – if so, then I can perhaps understand your feelings.

For myself, I'm sorry that some people these days have been raised to hate the older generations. I remember I always had huge respect for my grand-parents and relished listening to the stories of their experiences in life. I'm sorry you can't share such things – it would widen your perspective on life…

Sapphire

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Should the young get "compensation" and money thrown at them for missing out on marriage allowances, MIRAS, the Family Income Supplement, free uni education?

I know of quite a few people who received none of these things.

ruggedtoast

Sapphire wrote: »

Sorry – but that's always been the way of the world, and those people (a minority) are still better off in this country than they are in most other parts of the world in similar circumstances. Why do you think so many people from other countries are clamouring to get into Britain, and why do you think so many migrants have settled quite happily here?

You display your usual sneering hatred of your parents' generation. I've always wondered why?

For myself, I'm sorry that some people these days have been raised to hate the older generations. I remember I always had huge respect for my grand-parents and relished listening to the stories of their experiences in life. I'm sorry you can't share such things – it would widen your perspective on life…

Presumably your grandparents didn't treat you like an ATM with legs?

Generali

Sapphire wrote: »

I know of quite a few people who received none of these things.

When university education was free hardly anyone went to university; it was really the preserve of the children of the elite.

When ~10% of the population go to uni the taxpayer can afford to pay for them. That was the case in the 1960s. Basically if you went to private school you went to uni, if you went to grammar school you might go to uni and if you went to a secondary modern you almost certainly would not go to uni, or even matriculate for that matter.

When half the population goes to university, the taxpayer can't pay, largely because for between 33-40% of them it's a lousy investment as they simply don't need the degree and so the payback through increased productivity simple isn't there.

In fact for that 33-40% there's a double whammy because they spend time out of the workforce not learning skills that are of value whilst wasting money on a degree that will never be used.

Sapphire

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Presumably your grandparents didn't treat you like an ATM with legs?

I've certainly never seen pensions and other things received by pensioners in such a warped way – but then you do have a uniquely antagonistic attitude towards the elderly. Again, I wonder why, but that's your business…

To my mind those who grew up in the war and post-war decades were incomparably worse off (in material terms, though not in terms of social cohesion) than are people today. Just read some social history – plenty has been written about these periods, and if you don't want to believe the words, look at the photographs. I find your point of view very selective and biased.

Sapphire

Generali wrote: »

When half the population goes to university, the taxpayer can't pay, largely because for between 33-40% of them it's a lousy investment as they simply don't need the degree and so the payback through increased productivity simple isn't there.

In fact for that 33-40% there's a double whammy because they spend time out of the workforce not learning skills that are of value whilst wasting money on a degree that will never be used.

I absolutely agree with you on all your points, Generali.

Generali

Sapphire wrote: »

I absolutely agree with you on all your points, Generali.

I think that just goes to show what an intelligent and well rounded person you are:).

The bit where this report is absolutely correct on spirit, if not numbers, is pensions. Pensions, and to a lesser extent healthcare, is highly likely to destroy the finances of most of Europe, of China and probably the UK and USA too.

The rest of it really is just cherry picking data to make a point. The trouble is, some of us have gotten used to seeing this sort of BS data where dates are used to make a point rather than to reflect the actual situation. There is even a very good podcast by an FT Columnist (Tim Hartford/The Undercover Economist) called More or Less which talks about this sort of crap.

jay213

stator wrote: »

Does that mean you agree with abolishing all age related benefits?
Most people over 70 seem to be "over reliant on the state".
Time to scrap the Winter Fuel Payment, Cold Weather Payment, Free Bus Passes, Free TV Licence, Free Prescriptions, Free Eye Tests, Pensioner Bonds and Pension Credit. Also time to scrap the exemption they have from the cuts to Housing Benefit, Bedroom Tax and Council Tax Benefit.
Give them the gift of independence from the state!

Don't be silly, that will happen when todays young reach 70 :money:.

chewmylegoff

All the points about there being lots of very poor pensioners are well made and 100% valid.

They are not justification, however, for continuing to hand out benefits to other pensioners who are asset and income rich. It is possible to reduce the cost of pensions and other benefits paid to pensioners without harming poor pensioners.

It doesn't matter how much rich pensioners squeal that they paid NI so are "entitled". They didn't pay enough and it's time for them to pay by having their benefits that they don't need at all reduced.

I simply don't understand how it remains socially acceptable to transfer wealth from poor to rich by paying benefits to the rich....

Generali

jay213 wrote: »

Don't be silly, that will happen when todays young reach 70 :money:.

LOL. Today's young are pretty likely to see 100 if they don't smoke, drink to excess or wrap a car round a tree (the latter isn't likely to be a possibility in a decade or so anyway).

You can't start proper work at about 24-25 (degree, year or so traveling plus a year trying to get in-to a career job rather than the crap you did at uni keeping body and soul together). Work until you're 67 (42 years) and expect to be kept for a further 33 years unless you're prepared to save an awful lot of money to pay for it.

Most people couldn't pay for 33 years retirement even if they wanted to.

The current way of paying for old people will have to change as it will be bankrupted by the increasing longevity of people.

Perhaps people that quit school younger could quit the workforce younger. In Aus the expectation is that people that do physically demanding work (cheffing, building, mechanic) will move into educating young people to do the same as they move towards retirement. That or they'll own a business so will spend most time managing the business rather than carrying heavy loads all day or being on their feet all the time.