Boomers Pension Gravy Train Finally To Be Derailed

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

This isn't Logan's Run, Clapton. Obviously there are many more older voters than younger voters, and they / you vote in your naked self interest.

You have gerrymandered the parliamentary system so that all political parties represent you and then you pour scorn on younger people for not voting for them.

When a candidate does excite the appetites of the young, like Jeremy Corbyn, you pour derision and scorn on their heads and put the full gamut of your propaganda to bear with lies and disinformation.

You are devious, crepuscular, hypocritical, facetious, capricious and vain.

simple arthmetic isn't your strong point is it toxic toastie?

probably went to a state school in labour area where they were more concerned with declaring themselve nuclear free zone and wanting to keep the kids ill educated to provide voting fodder for labour in the future : obvioulsy successed there.

Rinoa

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Boomer propaganda. You pay NI for the pensioners above you, not yourself. The boomers outnumbered their own pensioners and now they sit like a costly upside down pyramid of fiscal entitlement on the shoulders of young.

Splurging on house prices, free TV licenses, bus passes, state pensions, gold plated final salary pensions, and all the NHS treatment they feel like.

Your views on boomers are exactly the same as the BNP's on foreigners.

Living_proof

ruggedtoast wrote: »

When a candidate does excite the appetites of the young, like Jeremy Corbyn

God help us all if that is how deranged the younger generation have become. There won't be an effective opposition for many years to come.

steampowered

MobileSaver wrote: »

Conveniently forgetting that all those boomers were paying in to the State for decades before you yourself paid a penny and then continued to keep paying in for several decades more...

I think it is worth repeating this again:

During their life the average 65-year old receives £223,183 more in services and benefits from the state than they pay in tax, while the average new-born child is expected to pay £159,668 more in tax.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8384449/NIESR-Taxes-must-rise-by-90bn-a-year-to-fund-baby-boomers.html.

Cornucopia

There must be some huge assumptions in there regarding how things will be when a Baby born now reaches 80-90 years old.

Why wouldn't the generations coming after the present new babies pay the upkeep of that generation - that is, after all, how it has been since the inception of the Welfare State.

Cornucopia

ruggedtoast wrote: »

You have gerrymandered the parliamentary system so that all political parties represent you...

How has an entire, unconnected generation of people "gerrymandered" anything. You'll be saying that "we" control the Media, next.

... then you pour scorn on younger people for not voting for them.

You have that wrong. Scorn is reserved for anyone who does not vote and then complains about the outcome.

When a candidate does excite the appetites of the young, like Jeremy Corbyn...

Isn't he a Boomer? Is he "devious, crepuscular, hypocritical, facetious, capricious and vain"?

, you pour derision and scorn on their heads and put the full gamut of your propaganda to bear with lies and disinformation.

Only speaking for myself, here, but I have no propaganda, lies or disinformation. I only have truth and purity (maybe). I think you are confusing "Boomers" with The Establishment - easy mistake to make.

You are devious, crepuscular, hypocritical, facetious, capricious and vain.

Someone got out of the bed on the wrong side.

Vanity, in all honesty, is for the young and really always has been. When you look like, well, Jeremy Corbyn (or even Jeremy Clarkson) there isn't a great deal of room for it.

Cornucopia

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Boomer propaganda. You pay NI for the pensioners above you, not yourself. The boomers outnumbered their own pensioners and now they sit like a costly upside down pyramid of fiscal entitlement on the shoulders of young.

Again, I really think that Entitlement is for the young. Indeed, this entire "discussion" and every similar one is predicated upon it.

As someone of a "certain age", I came from nothing and had nothing until I was in my mid-20s. But I didn't whinge about it (no social media, then, you see).

Splurging on house prices, free TV licenses, bus passes, state pensions, gold plated final salary pensions, and all the NHS treatment they feel like.

I think you may be confusing cause & effect.

I don't know whether you've experienced the NHS recently, but I can assure you that it is not now, nor has it ever really been an all-you-can-eat healthcare buffet.

I wonder what the cost of young people's obesity will turn out to be?

steampowered

Cornucopia wrote: »

There must be some huge assumptions in there regarding how things will be when a Baby born now reaches 80-90 years old.

Why wouldn't the generations coming after the present new babies pay the upkeep of that generation - that is, after all, how it has been since the inception of the Welfare State.

In a situation where the younger generation pays a sustainable amount for the older generation, each generation would during the course of their lives pay roughly the same amount in tax as they receive in benefits/services.

I accept that the figures I linked to contain big assumptions when looking at the predictions for new-borns. However this is not the case in the figures for baby-boomers. Data setting out how much boomers paid in tax during their lives is easily available. Data setting out how many benefits/services boomers consumed during their working lives is available. It is possible to make a reasonable estimate of how many benefits/services boomers will consume during retirement because we know what today's state pension and health spending look like.

The fact is that boomers receive far more in benefits/services during their lives than they paid in tax. £223,183 more in fact. Or about a third of their lifetime income more (if you take the similar figures given in the book written by the Conservative minister, David Willetts).

That is why the current level of benefits/services given to baby boomers is not sustainable.

If each generation takes more in services/benefits than it pays in tax, that deficit can only be funded by (1) increasing taxes year-on-year or (2) more government borrowing each year. In the long term that is not sustainable because there is a limit as to how high taxes can do and there is a limit as to how much debt a government can take on.

I don't blame the baby-boomers. They didn't intend for this to happen. Largely because boomers did not know that life expectancies would increase so much, and failed to make the necessary adjustments (such as increasing the state pension age dramatically) until it was too late.

But at some point there does have to come a recognition that the existing system is completely unsustainable. Either the boomers have to accept that more of the wealth they have accumulated should be put towards paying for their own pensions and benefits/services; or we have a situation where the young will be funding boomer retirement benefits at a level far in excess of what will be available to young people when they retire.

Cornucopia

steampowered wrote: »

The fact is that boomers receive far more in benefits/services during their lives than they paid in tax. £223,183 more in fact. Or about a third of their lifetime income more (if you take the similar figures given in the book written by the Conservative minister, David Willetts).

What form does the £223k take? I have paid vast amounts of tax in the past, and never claimed benefits for much longer than a few weeks (probably less than 3 months in total). If this is some kind of averaging based on a few people who have barely worked, then I want to opt out of that argument, because that isn't me, and I would never have agreed that anyone could have a lifetime on benefits, if I had been asked (which I never was).

That is why the current level of benefits/services given to baby boomers is not sustainable.

Bit late, now.

If each generation takes more in services/benefits than it pays in tax, that deficit can only be funded by (1) increasing taxes year-on-year or (2) more government borrowing each year. In the long term that is not sustainable because there is a limit as to how high taxes can do and there is a limit as to how much debt a government can take on.

I think you may be confusing individuals and their entire generation. The size of generations vary - that is part of the "issue" with the Babyboomers. There was a boom... in babies.

I don't completely blame the baby-boomers. They didn't intend for this to happen. Largely because boomers did not know that life expectancies would increase so much, and failed to make the necessary adjustments (such as increasing the state pension age dramatically) until it was too late.

Again, you are confusing and conflating several different causes and effect, here. I did not decide my pension age. Full stop. It was imposed upon me by the Government, and they may yet change it before it comes into effect.

But at some point there does have to come a recognition that the existing system is completely unsustainable. Either the boomers have to accept that more of the wealth they have accumulated should be put towards paying for their own pensions and benefits/services;

I saw this coming and am already financially self-sufficient. If I am given an option to forego my State pension, then that could be a possibility. Another reason why I think I should be excused the Boomer-bashing rhetoric.

... we have a situation where the young will be funding boomer retirement benefits at a level far in excess of what will be available to young people when they retire.

I don't, personally, see State Pensions as particularly generous to start with. I know that you (all) have an issue with Private Pensions, too, but that is an entirely different issue.

westernpromise

Linton wrote: »

Lets assume that Boomers are those born 1945-1970

I don't think so. You're about 5 to 10 years off and they make a big difference.

The ONS produced this chart
http://www.ons.gov.uk/resource?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationprojections/bulletins/nationalpopulationprojections/2013-11-06/1e03dca7.png

which shows that the end of the boom, the outermost portion of the chart, was among people who were then around 50 and would now be in their mid-50s. Even people a bit older than that are in an economic situation much closer to that of a 40-something than a 60-something in that they bought their first house after everyone older had already bid them up and yet they are still 10 to 15 years away from a defined contribution pension.

The ideal years to be born were the war years. If born after October 1939 you didn't have to do National Service, you bought your house ahead of the rush in about 1965 and you stood a good chance of retiring early aged 55 in 1990 with a final salary pension and the mortgage paid off.