Boomers Pension Gravy Train Finally To Be Derailed

Cakeguts

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/about-us/how-citizens-advice-works/media/press-releases/soaring-debts-trapping-young-generation-in-financial-difficulty/ This is interesting because it says that the debt owed that makes it difficult for young people to buy houses isn't due to student loans it is due to payday loans, bank overdrafts, and borrowing from family and friends. There is a suggestion made that young people need help in managing their finances.

Does anyone know how many young boomers could afford to go to Spain on holiday and spend all their time there drinking? How many of them went on a weekend abroad for a hen or stag do?

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

By filling them up and not making any more.

So people under 50 are not capable of building houses.

ruggedtoast

Cakeguts wrote: »

Did you go to university? I really hope your subject wasn't History because you aren't very good at research.

The debt can easily be dealt with. All the government needs to do is to raise the tax levels to 35pence in the pound for basic rate tax. That is what the boomers were paying in the 70s. So before you blame the boomers for the debt you might like to think that today's workers are responsible for it because they don't pay enough tax. While you are thinking about that you might also like to think about who paid for the second world war.

The generation above you paid for the war, with their lives.

They also paid off most of the financial burden, National Debt was at almost 250% GDP by the end of the war, but back down to 100% by the early 60s, when the oldest boomer was at most in their late teens.

Its now rising steeply back to 100%. Shame they didn't invest a bit more in education in the 50s but you can't have everything.

Cakeguts

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Boomer theft, yes I know its American but the issues are broadly the same.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a13226/young-people-in-the-recession-0412/?click=main_sr

This is easily cured. We will just make sure that no one gets paid anymore for a promotion they can just take on more responsibility for the same money as they started on. Also experience of working won't count or degrees. Everyone who is employed will be able to earn the same salary for their entire life then older people won't earn more than young people. Of course the people most affected by this new rule will be people like the OP who will never get paid more for a promotion or taking on more responsibility but at least then when they are 60 they won't be able to accused of earning more than the younger people then.

I am not sure how you would manage the people who finish up with more money at 60 because they have saved more though.

Cakeguts

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The generation above you paid for the war, with their lives.

They also paid off most of the financial burden, National Debt was at almost 250% GDP by the end of the war, but back down to 100% by the early 60s, when the oldest boomer was at most in their late teens.

Its now rising steeply back to 100%. Shame they didn't invest a bit more in education in the 50s but you can't have everything.

So what are you on about? You have just proved that the debt is lower now than it was in the 60s which means that the people who are older than you have paid it down. "Now rising steeply" It is rising now because the young people who are working now are not paying enough tax. All that needs to be done is to raise the tax levels to where they were in the 60s when people were paying 35p in the pound basic rate. Problem solved.

Cornucopia

ruggedtoast wrote: »

No, I mean boomers.

Not possible. Most of your Boomer-rants are kind of... not true. Well not in the terms with which you issue them.

Not all Boomers are wealthy, and not all Millennials are poor.

Boomers did not "fill up" all the houses. Society (consisting of all age groups) has filled up some houses, that being the purpose of houses. There are still plenty in some parts of the country, though. It's an easy mistake to equate expensive housing with a physical shortage, but they are rather different phenomena.

Boomers did not "make" housing expensive. How is that even possible? Personally, I suspect that housing has always been expensive - certainly over the past 50 years. When I was a FTB it certainly wasn't easy.

Boomers did not choose Final Salary pensions - they were given freely by employers. The fact that some Boomers have Final Salary pensions does not, in itself, preclude anyone else from having the same.

Cakeguts

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The generation above you paid for the war, with their lives.

Shame they didn't invest a bit more in education in the 50s but you can't have everything.

What makes you think that there wasn't any investment in education in the 50s. If you sent a letter off to an office or bank in the 50s the information you got back was correct. Now you send something off and it comes back with wrong information or goes to the wrong address or has names spelt wrong on it. Sometimes you have to send things back 2 or 3 times for all the mistakes to be rectified. That makes me think that people are less well educated now than they were then. At least then they could read and copy correctly.

sun-n-moon

Nick_C wrote: »

Speak for yourself. I vote for and what I think is in the national interest, not for what benefits me personally.

I would support any move to scrap the triple lock, free prescriptions for all, WFA for all, bus passes for all, TV licenses for the elderly, even though I can expect to benefit from these things in the not too distant future.

As for all the rubbish being talked about pensioners living in poverty, the poverty industry has done a great job in getting relative poverty accepted as the definition. By this definition, you will always have poverty, unless you introduce a Soviet system of income control.

£155 a week after housing costs is not poverty.

But the state pension for many older pensioners, including me is £115 ish. £155 is the rate for recent pensioners.

chucknorris

chris_m wrote: »

It may have served one purpose but it still needs to continue - otherwise toastie won't have anything to seeth about :rotfl:

Don't worry I am confident that he will find something.

Cakeguts

chucknorris wrote: »

Don't worry I am confident that he will find something.

It is a bit worrying actually. Someone who blames one part of society for all their problems. There isn't a great deal of difference between "immigrants are taking our jobs." and "old people have taken all the housing." I know headlines like this sell papers but I don't think it is a terribly good idea to target one section of the population like this. For someone who can't take responsibility for their own actions it is great to be able to blame someone else but this kind of hate is not helpful.