Some food for Ruggedtoast's soul

princeofpounds

I still don't think it relates to pensions.

Sorry, this sentence is a bit ambiguous, I can't reply to it without knowing quite what you mean.

The real problem is you can't compare the 60s to now. One thing that is not mentioned is that in the 60s people spent almost twice as much on food as people do now and didn't eat as well.

Actually this I agree with - the whole point of my original post is that some things will be worse for boomers, some for Ys. But overall life is, and likely will be, better for the Ys over time.


But despite that, I think they have an entirely valid complaint on housing. Because this is a scarcity that is entirely artificial, and imposed for political (if not always consciously so) reasons.

princeofpounds

However, to build a fund now for those costs makes little sense.

In the most basic of senses, you are right.


But there is a massive unspoken assumption here. Which is that the amount of pension is correct, sustainable, and there is no rising dependence ratio.


Unfortunately the dependence ratio is rising steeply. Even if everyone receive the same pension in real terms, Boomers had to pay for fewer parents, Ys have to pay for more parents.


The amount of pensions is also not sustainable as a result. That's why boomers get to retire at 65 or less, whilst Ys will have to retire in their 70s.


https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/12/01/article-1679780-0F00DC3800000578-483_468x238_popup.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-1679780/New-state-pension-age-retire.html&h=357&w=964&tbnid=9G6aZZO6drCKAM:&tbnh=67&tbnw=184&docid=penPFAap5imLfM&usg=__l9uivTCnk54-3Vi8N8kxaVjvPbw=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD09eM4vLKAhUEXg8KHUCsArUQ9QEIITAA


First pillar pensions only work fairly in a steady-state environment, or one where any changes are entirely predictable.


There is no link between contributions in and pension out, which is pretty much the foundation of any fair and sustainable pension system.

ukcarper

princeofpounds wrote: »

Sorry, this sentence is a bit ambiguous, I can't reply to it without knowing quite what you mean.

.

I don't see what you mean by selfishness cause problems with pensions.

CLAPTON

princeofpounds wrote: »

In the most basic of senses, you are right.


But there is a massive unspoken assumption here. Which is that the amount of pension is correct, sustainable, and there is no rising dependence ratio.


Unfortunately the dependence ratio is rising steeply. Even if everyone receive the same pension in real terms, Boomers had to pay for fewer parents, Ys have to pay for more parents.


The amount of pensions is also not sustainable as a result. That's why boomers get to retire at 65 or less, whilst Ys will have to retire in their 70s.


https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/12/01/article-1679780-0F00DC3800000578-483_468x238_popup.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-1679780/New-state-pension-age-retire.html&h=357&w=964&tbnid=9G6aZZO6drCKAM:&tbnh=67&tbnw=184&docid=penPFAap5imLfM&usg=__l9uivTCnk54-3Vi8N8kxaVjvPbw=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD09eM4vLKAhUEXg8KHUCsArUQ9QEIITAA


First pillar pensions only work fairly in a steady-state environment, or one where any changes are entirely predictable.


There is no link between contributions in and pension out, which is pretty much the foundation of any fair and sustainable pension system.

well, that is equally true for NHS and other state provided services.

in general we can only consume what we produce: taxation can alter that distribution of that consumption but doesn't really affect the total amount.

if in the future, we have a large number of dependents and only a few workers than we must address the problem at that time.
we can address expectations now by increasing future pension age, reducing the pension amount but we can't 'save' for the future in any meaningful way.

ukcarper

princeofpounds wrote: »

In the most basic of senses, you are right.


But there is a massive unspoken assumption here. Which is that the amount of pension is correct, sustainable, and there is no rising dependence ratio.


Unfortunately the dependence ratio is rising steeply. Even if everyone receive the same pension in real terms, Boomers had to pay for fewer parents, Ys have to pay for more parents.


The amount of pensions is also not sustainable as a result. That's why boomers get to retire at 65 or less, whilst Ys will have to retire in their 70s.


https://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/12/01/article-1679780-0F00DC3800000578-483_468x238_popup.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-1679780/New-state-pension-age-retire.html&h=357&w=964&tbnid=9G6aZZO6drCKAM:&tbnh=67&tbnw=184&docid=penPFAap5imLfM&usg=__l9uivTCnk54-3Vi8N8kxaVjvPbw=&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjD09eM4vLKAhUEXg8KHUCsArUQ9QEIITAA


First pillar pensions only work fairly in a steady-state environment, or one where any changes are entirely predictable.


There is no link between contributions in and pension out, which is pretty much the foundation of any fair and sustainable pension system.

Only boomers born before 1953 will retire before they are sixty five.

CLAPTON

ukcarper wrote: »

Only boomers born before 1953 will retire before they are sixty.

anyone born before 1953 is already 62

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

well, that is equally true for NHS and other state provided services.

in general we can only consume what we produce: taxation can alter that distribution of that consumption but doesn't really affect the total amount.

if in the future, we have a large number of dependents and only a few workers than we must address the problem at that time.
we can address expectations now by increasing future pension age, reducing the pension amount but we can't 'save' for the future in any meaningful way.

So, isn't that his point?

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

So, isn't that his point?

no...........................

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

anyone born before 1953 is already 62

Corrected my post it should have been 65.

mystic_trev

ukcarper wrote: »

Only boomers born before 1953 will retire before they are sixty five.

Cough!....this boomer born in 1954 retired in 1996, although has to be said, won't get his State Pension until he's 65 and 11 months!