Boomers Pension Gravy Train Finally To Be Derailed

westernpromise

Cakeguts wrote: »

You also have no evidence that the imaginary Mercedes that you are talking about was bought with pension money

Who needs evidence when there's blind hate and envy?

ruggedtoast

westernpromise wrote: »

Are you honestly this thick or are you putting it on?

If the former it would explain why you're such a loser but not why you're so full of hate.

........
Rude.

ruggedtoast

Sapphire wrote: »

I don't have a car and have never aspired to own one. Too many cars on the roads, causing too much pollution, and unless you absolutely need to drive, there's no need to have one. And I don't feel the need to impress anyone by buying a car of any type.

That's the spirit.

chucknorris

Thrugelmir wrote: »

My current car is 12 years old. See little point in wasting good money on something which is little more than occasional transport. Feel
no need to impress the neighbours with shiny metal on the drive.

The last car I sold was my almost 10 year old mondeo for £225, about 9 years ago. I really didn't want to sell it because it was almost like having a 'free car', with no depreciation, but unfortunately it was becoming unreliable. People have always made fun of me for the cars that I have when they are near the end of their life, but like you, I really don't care what they think, I knew where the value was.

CLAPTON

chucknorris wrote: »

The last car I sold was my almost 10 year old mondeo for £225, about 9 years ago. I really didn't want to sell it because it was almost like having a 'free car', with no depreciation, but unfortunately it was becoming unreliable. People have always made fun of me for the cars that I have when they are near the end of their life, but like you, I really don't care what they think, I knew where the value was.

I'm a little shocked personally : my last car was 13 years old and that went to a member of the family who needed a car rather urgently.

chucknorris

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm a little shocked personally : my last car was 13 years old and that went to a member of the family who needed a car rather urgently.

Sorry, but I don't understand why you are shocked? If you meant that I should have gave it to a family member, my immediate family had a much newer car than mine, and they wouldn't have use for a much older unreliable car, that needed work. Non of my wife's family can drive. If you meant that I got rid of it prematurely, I would have kept it if it had not become unreliable.

Maz

My current car is a P reg Corsa! Hardly in the luxury class that toastie imagines all boomers drive is it?

I think I paid £1k for it about 10 years ago but it's starting to show it's age in the bodywork. Been a great car tho, very low costs and sailed through the last MOT.

When I do decide to send it to car heaven, I'll only be looking to spend around £1.5 - £2k to replace.

Cornucopia

Maz wrote: »

My current car is a P reg Corsa! Hardly in the luxury class that toastie imagines all boomers drive is it?

If you imagine that when he says "Boomers", he means "Wealthy people", it all begins to make much more sense. It should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that not all "Boomers" are wealthy, not by a long way. And even fewer of them exercise (or have exercised) any meaningful political or economic influence.

The "war" is actually on wealth and the wealthy, just as it has always been. I'm not clear (yet) on whether the "Boomer" nonsense is self-delusion or an elaborate smoke-screen (the antithesis of the far Right's attitude to immigration).

pop_gun

ukcarper wrote: »

I agree the triple lock should stop it has served it purpose.

Where did you get the government are planning to raise pension age to 81.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/georgeosborne/12179375/Work-until-youre-75-or-even-81-under-Government-review-of-state-pension-age.html

I realise this was under the last government, but it was also that government that introduced the triple lock.
The present government is already hinting at changes.

ruggedtoast

Cornucopia wrote: »

If you imagine that when he says "Boomers", he means "Wealthy people", it all begins to make much more sense. It should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that not all "Boomers" are wealthy, not by a long way. And even fewer of them exercise (or have exercised) any meaningful political or economic influence.

The "war" is actually on wealth and the wealthy, just as it has always been. I'm not clear (yet) on whether the "Boomer" nonsense is self-delusion or an elaborate smoke-screen (the antithesis of the far Right's attitude to immigration).

No, I mean boomers.