We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
We're aware that some users are experiencing technical issues which the team are working to resolve. See the Community Noticeboard for more info. Thank you for your patience.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The end of austerity?
Options
Comments
-
Freezing/cutting the state pension (but not the means tested pension credit) would solve a lot of problems very quickly.
It's a shame it's the Tories in government who aren't willing to do what needs to be done. Instead more young/poor/disabled people will be victimised/made homeless to help subsidise massive benefits for the lazy old generations who all retired at 60 and will live for another 40 years at our expense.
'Lazy old generations'? As far as I'm aware, those who retired at 60 mostly worked hard for 40–50 years (often starting from the bottom and working their way up in conditions very far removed from the luxuries people have today), paying taxes and national insurance, not receiving benefits, or - very often - the 'benefits' of a university education, or any kind of 'inheritance'. Many of these decent people are now living in dire poverty without receiving the help they need (and I am well aware of this because of the situation within my own family). Shame on you for your disgusting language and the hatred and bias you display.0 -
Those that fought did so because they were conscripted and had no choice. They weren't fighting for freedom but for their own survival. It certainly wasn't for my benefit as I wasn't born.
More ignorant rubbish. My parents and grandparents certainly fought for their freedom and that of others against an enemy whose cruelty and brutally – and in the heart of Europe – was absolutely unbelievable. The stories my relatives who were deeply involved in the last war tell me would make you hair stand on end – if you wanted to learn them, of course, rather than closing off your mind to inconvenient truths. I hope you never have to go through what they did.0 -
Lord_Baltimore wrote: »....This point has already been made. Try to keep up
....
Then hopefully the point has struck home, and you realise that your arithmetic is iffy, and your argument fallacious.....Lord_Baltimore wrote: »..Uum, yes. The post war reconstructive generation. We all know that. He was a lazy sod wasn't he?
...
... or perhaps not.Lord_Baltimore wrote: ».
Not necessarily. You're old enough to vote aren't you? Successive Governments since 2000 have borrowed enormous sums. You must have voted for one of them given they have been red and blue?
I don't think there's much doubt that the "lazy old sods who fought for our freedom in ww2" (those that are left) have been 'old enough to vote' since at least 1950.
You should really learn to debate on the basis of facts rather than emotional outpourings.0 -
More ignorant rubbish. My parents and grandparents certainly fought for their freedom and that of others against an enemy whose cruelty and brutally – and in the heart of Europe – was absolutely unbelievable. The stories my relatives who were deeply involved in the last war tell me would make you hair stand on end – if you wanted to learn them, of course, rather than closing off your mind to inconvenient truths. I hope you never have to go through what they did.
Fundamentally, the issue regarding whatever generation of 'lazy old sods' you want to praise or insult is this;
The data shows that in 2012/13 the cost to the state of providing them (*) with basic and second state pensions and winter fuel allowance, and of providing pensions credits to the poorest pensioners, totalled £94bn.
The ONS's projections for the future costs suggest that figure will rise to £170bn by 2032/33 and to £438bn by 2062/63. When other benefits paid to some pensioners, such as housing benefit and disability living allowance, are factored in, the cost in 2012/13 rises to £110bn (7.1% of GDP) and the forecast for 2062/63 to £491bn (9.4% of GDP)
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/dec/10/state-pensions-age-68
(* there's about 12 million of them)
Somebody will have to pay the bill.0 -
Fundamentally, the issue regarding whatever generation of 'lazy old sods' you want to praise or insult is this;
The data shows that in 2012/13 the cost to the state of providing them (*) with basic and second state pensions and winter fuel allowance, and of providing pensions credits to the poorest pensioners, totalled £94bn.
The ONS's projections for the future costs suggest that figure will rise to £170bn by 2032/33 and to £438bn by 2062/63. When other benefits paid to some pensioners, such as housing benefit and disability living allowance, are factored in, the cost in 2012/13 rises to £110bn (7.1% of GDP) and the forecast for 2062/63 to £491bn (9.4% of GDP)
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2013/dec/10/state-pensions-age-68
(* there's about 12 million of them)
Somebody will have to pay the bill.
superficially that looks very responsible
12 million people is about 18% of the population so consuming 7% of GDP doesn't seem so bad.
of course those figures are only partial so dont really tell us a lot.0 -
superficially thta looks very responsible
12 million people is about 18% of the population....
It was 15% of the population in 1985, and is supposed to rise to 23% in 2035. That would be the issue.... so consuming 7% of GDP doesn't seem so bad.....
I think £94bn was more like 5.5% of GDP for 2012/13, and the ONS have the cost rising to 9.4% of GDP over the next 50 years.
That extra 4% GDP would be a significant some of money.... of course those figures are only partial so dont really tell us a lot.
It doesn't take account of the impact on NHS costs for one thing.0 -
You should really learn to debate on the basis of facts rather than emotional outpourings.
A debate is an exchange of views not the making of a few vacuous assertions to boost your (revealing) post count.Somebody will have to pay the bill.
Indeed, and that will be the likes of you and me. The difference being I am happy to provide the support for them to enjoy a dignified retirement whereas you want more for you and you want it now.
I hope the triple-locked pensioners continue to keep your nose to the grindstone.That extra 4% GDP would be a significant some of money.
Sum . Mornië utulië0 -
It was 15% of the population in 1985, and is supposed to rise to 23% in 2035. That would be the issue.
I think £94bn was more like 5.5% of GDP for 2012/13, and the ONS have the cost rising to 9.4% of GDP over the next 50 years.
That extra 4% GDP would be a significant some of money.
It doesn't take account of the impact on NHS costs for one thing.
I think we all agree that there are going to be more people over 65 as time goes on.
In my view that is a benefit as we can all expect a longer life.
There is nothing in the figures that suggests any sort of crisis over the next 25 years or so which is a reasonable planning timescale0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.6K Spending & Discounts
- 244K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 176.9K Life & Family
- 257.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards