Inform the debate on the effect of the equalisation of the state pension age on women

buggy_boy

Pollycat wrote: »

Of course I don't. :rotfl:

But why do you assume you will pay for it in increased taxes?

Because the money comes from taxes.... I pay taxes, if the expenditure goes up then taxes need to go up or other things need to be cut... I would rather this money be spent on NHS and policing than going to well off baby boomers with a self entitlement attitude.

buggy_boy

saver861 wrote: »

Actually I did read all your post and noted that you felt 'lucky' that got your education etc. That did not cut it for me. That does not qualify your post on damming the baby boomers. Nor does your expression of generosity of giving to the 20 somethings who are having difficulty finding jobs.

How do you think the baby boomers managed in the 80's when the unemployment rate was double what it is now at over 3m???

Many of the young people to day have access to a great deal more information than 30 plus years ago. There is a great deal of online education often free, for those with the initiative.

However, in many cases the young are more obsessed with image than was ever the case 30 years ago. Just the other day I was talking to a 16 year old who had an iPhone 6+. For me it was too big and I asked why he got such a big one and the answer was verbatim "It looks cool". The same young man is getting an iWatch for his birthday next week.

Similarly, I recall speaking to young lady in her early 20's and in the conversation she said she spent £100 per month on her mobile bill. She had a lot of friends apparently.

The young will have the same relative experiences as their parents. They need to get priorities in order.

Going through life somehow thinking you have been 'screwed over' by the baby boomers will get you nowhere.

And .... when you are in your 60's I have no doubt whatsoever you will be posting with a different view to what you are doing today.

When for the average young person the hope of buying a place to live is all but a pipe dream, is it any wonder they feel disengaged with the whole work idea as unlike yours and even my generation there is no reward, not able to buy a house, no chance of a comfortable retirement.

Pollycat

buggy_boy wrote: »

Because the money comes from taxes.... I pay taxes, if the expenditure goes up then taxes need to go up or other things need to be cut... I would rather this money be spent on NHS and policing than going to well off baby boomers with a self entitlement attitude.

There you go.
Nobody said you should pay more taxes, did they?

There is an alternative - which you yourself have highlighted.

buggy_boy wrote: »

And now you want us to pay more tax to give you more money, my generation is going to be screwed and for most that have little or no plans for retirement they will have to work well into their 70's.

Do we?

colsten

Pollycat wrote: »

Do we?

OK, I'll bite. How exactly do you suggest the WASPI demands will be funded?

Pollycat

colsten wrote: »

OK, I'll bite. How exactly do you suggest the WASPI demands will be funded?

There you go.

buggy_boy wrote: »

Because the money comes from taxes.... I pay taxes, if the expenditure goes up then taxes need to go up or other things need to be cut... I would rather this money be spent on NHS and policing than going to well off baby boomers with a self entitlement attitude.

:rotfl:
My point to buggy_boy was that nobody had posted that they expected him to pay more tax.

ManofLeisure_2

buggy_boy wrote: »

When for the average young person the hope of buying a place to live is all but a pipe dream, is it any wonder they feel disengaged with the whole work idea as unlike yours and even my generation there is no reward, not able to buy a house, no chance of a comfortable retirement.

Each and 'every' generation have their 'own' problems to contend with.

Pollycat

colsten wrote: »

OK, I'll bite. How exactly do you suggest the WASPI demands will be funded?

FTR, I hope the WASPI demands will not be funded in any way from any Government money.

That's because I hope the WASPI demands (or 'asks') are not agreed to at all - because I believe they are outrageous, silly and poorly-thought-out.

bowlhead99

Pollycat wrote: »

There you go.

:rotfl:
My point to buggy_boy was that nobody had posted that they expected him to pay more tax.

Implicitly, he has to pay more tax towards WASPI women if they want to get paid from age 60 rather than 66 or 63.5 or whatever that we are currently planning to pay them from.

Put another way:

If WASPI demands to give cash to women who would have preferred to take a state pension from age 60 are met,

then I will pay more tax towards funding the cash that is given to the women and whom were otherwise destined under current rules to only receive cash from a later age.

This is called maths. There is no magic money tree. As a taxpayer, what the government pays, comes from me (and everyone else). So, if a niche minority group wants to get paid by the government, and they only make up 0.1% of taxpayers, then it is fair to say that I and everyone else who make up the other 99.9% of taxpayers are going to pay more tax to give it to them.

Sure, the government might decide they don't want to have to collect 100bn extra cash from taxpayers because it's politically unacceptable, and the only way to make ends meet (to pay out the 100bn without requiring taxpayers to pay an extra 100bn) is to cut back on other expenditure - so for example, give pay cuts to (or cease to employ) public sector workers, reduce the amount that would otherwise be spent on roads, hospitals, schools, police, the creation of useful legislation, etc etc etc.

In that case my total tax bill might not go up but I am not getting as much of those other services any more, for my money, and am demonstrably paying more tax towards waspi women.

If those other services can be cut without harm to society at large, great. Cut those services then please, and leave me with a tax rate of 38% instead of 40%. Having done that, we have the question of WASPI demands. Either we can put my tax rate back up to 40% and pay them, or we can keep my tax rate at 38% and not pay them thank you very much.

To imply that "nobody said YOU must pay more taxes just because WASPI want to take a load of money from the government budget??? Why do YOU assume that YOU will pay more taxes just because WASPI are getting a big payout???" is a ****ing !!!!!! attitude. If you are going to protect me and the other taxpayers from the impact of the cost of WASPI pensions, then the only way to do that is to have WASPI pay for their own pensions. That's fine with me but is not what they are proposing.

I appreciate you are not on WASPI's side but the 'who said you would have to pay for it' is stupid. Of course we have to pay for it if they want it and they get it.

Pollycat

bowlhead99 wrote: »

Implicitly, he has to pay more tax towards WASPI women if they want to get paid from age 60 rather than 66 or 63.5 or whatever that we are currently planning to pay them from.

Put another way:

If WASPI demands to give cash to women who would have preferred to take a state pension from age 60 are met,

then I will pay more tax towards funding the cash that is given to the women and whom were otherwise destined under current rules to only receive cash from a later age.

This is called maths. There is no magic money tree. As a taxpayer, what the government pays, comes from me (and everyone else). So, if a niche minority group wants to get paid by the government, and they only make up 0.1% of taxpayers, then it is fair to say that I and everyone else who make up the other 99.9% of taxpayers are going to pay more tax to give it to them.

Sure, the government might decide they don't want to have to collect 100bn extra cash from taxpayers because it's politically unacceptable, and the only way to make ends meet (to pay out the 100bn without requiring taxpayers to pay an extra 100bn) is to cut back on other expenditure - so for example, give pay cuts to (or cease to employ) public sector workers, reduce the amount that would otherwise be spent on roads, hospitals, schools, police, the creation of useful legislation, etc etc etc.

In that case my total tax bill might not go up but I am not getting as much of those other services any more, for my money, and am demonstrably paying more tax towards waspi women.

If those other services can be cut without harm to society at large, great. Cut those services then please, and leave me with a tax rate of 38% instead of 40%. Having done that, we have the question of WASPI demands. Either we can put my tax rate back up to 40% and pay them, or we can keep my tax rate at 38% and not pay them thank you very much.

To imply that "nobody said YOU must pay more taxes just because WASPI want to take a load of money from the government budget??? Why do YOU assume that YOU will pay more taxes just because WASPI are getting a big payout???" is a ****ing !!!!!! attitude. If you are going to protect me and the other taxpayers from the impact of the cost of WASPI pensions, then the only way to do that is to have WASPI pay for their own pensions. That's fine with me but is not what they are proposing.

All the above are based on WASPI's demands.

Despite you saying this:

bowlhead99 wrote: »

I appreciate you are not on WASPI's side but the 'who said you would have to pay for it' is stupid. Of course we have to pay for it if they want it and they get it.

I don't believe you do appreciate that otherwise you would not have written the above from a WASPI slant.

bowlhead99

Yes, the above are WASPI demands - not your demands - which will result in increased taxes for me and buggy boy and all the other taxpayers if the demands are met. That is how government expenditure is funded. Taking taxes from taxpayers.

buggy_boy wrote: »

You think that the money will come out of thin air?

Pollycat wrote: »

Of course I don't. :rotfl:

But why do you assume you will pay for it in increased taxes?

he assumes that he will pay for it in increased taxes, because he along with the rest of us taxpayers, will pay for it in increased taxes, as explained by my long post. Which you I assume you read - as you copied all of it, and highlighted where I had written the word waspi.

Buggy wrote a post having a rant about how he feels his generation is screwed over. Among other things, the WASPI generation went through life with costs that were driven by only having to fund the state pensions of retirees with a short life expectancy, and now they themselves get to retire with a couple of decades of life expectancy and have Buggy's generation pay for it. To throw out a 'and now you want me to pay more taxes so you can retire even earlier?!' is hardly a shot out of nowhere. The 'you' is directed at anyone supports WASPI's cause to give them money at the expense of taxpayers like Buggy.

Yes, 'they' want him to pay more taxes to pay for it because they do not want to pay for it themselves. So, to your question, "why do you assume you will pay for it in increased taxes". Can you think of a situation in which WASPI pay for it themselves? Presumably not. So, he will pay for it by paying more taxes than he would otherwise have paid.