Boomers Pension Gravy Train Finally To Be Derailed

chucknorris

Cakeguts wrote: »

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.

I'm not worried, losers will always moan. What is really healthy is the number of students that I speak to at our university, who are managing to work part time, study and achieve decent marks, start a family, buy a house/flat that needs refurbishment, and do most of the work themselves, all at the same time! Can you imagine toasty coping?

mufi

Cakeguts wrote: »

Houses in London were unaffordable in the 1960s. Most people who lived in London had to rent. Now who was responsible for houses being unaffordable in the 1960s it couldn't have been the boomers they were not old enough to buy them so who was it?

Thank you. I'm a Londoner and a boomer; wanted to buy in 1973, couldn't afford to in London. so moved out to somewhere affordable in the sticks. Back then, I was a little miffed that my parents (father born in 1910) had a nice house in a leafy North London suburb with no mortgage that my generation couldn't afford.


'Twas ever thus.

missbiggles1

sun-n-moon wrote: »

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

But that's only for those who were contracted out for their working lives, in which case they'll have another pension. For someone who wasn't contracted out, pre 2016 pension could be over £250.

ruggedtoast

sun-n-moon wrote: »

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

So the boomers get a bigger pension than everyone else. Interesting...

Cornucopia

Does anyone want any toast?

p00hsticks

ruggedtoast wrote: »

So the boomers get a bigger pension than everyone else. Interesting...

Not necessarily - the opportunity for the £270+ a week state pensions previously afforded by SERPS and S2P for existing pensioners has now disappeared going forward. And any boomers who were contracted out because they are/were in private pensions are likely to get closer to the old £119 than £155 unless they carry on working or buy additional NI years over the 35 that youngsters will need.

[Deleted User]

p00hsticks wrote: »

Not necessarily - the opportunity for the £270+ a week state pensions previously afforded by SERPS and S2P for existing pensioners has now disappeared going forward. And any boomers who were contracted out because they are/were in private pensions are likely to get closer to the old £119 than £155 unless they carry on working or buy additional NI years over the 35 that youngsters will need.

I think you are missing the key point -

- anything that RuggedT doesn't have, BUT could have had, could have saved for, or could have invested in but didn't, or any occupation that carried with it any sort of benefit package available to anyone in that occupation that Rugged could have joined, but didn't = unfair and thus :mad: .

Once you get past that, virtually everything he/she says falls neatly into place.

A few weeks ago I met up with some of my school classmates - it's not really difficult for me to understand that those who studied hard, achieved good grades (including ones who "failed" at school, but worked for the qualifications later), who were prepared to move to find work and later on, find better jobs, now have a higher standard of living than those who sat on their backsides and @rsed around in class . The latter group includes some who "came from money" and encouraging backgrounds, and now frankly don't have a pot to p!ss in.

There were also those who didn't do spectacularly well at school, but who sacrificed then current income to set up businesses and are now doing very well. One bloke that I haven't seen for years who found funding for his start-up business told me that oddly, when looking at his business plan, at no time was he asked if he had passed his "O-Grade" geography...:cool:

Am I jealous of the ones who are now GPs, lawyers etc who are probably going to retire within a year or two, in their mid to late 50s? Absolutely not. I suspect that Toastie would like to see them forced into labour camps or flogged in the street but that just goes to show what a horribly destructive force jealousy can be.

Maybe if Rugged would say what he/she does for a living, how much if anything he/she has saved, what training or self-study he/she has undertaken, or how far he/she is willing to move to find a better job, etc, we might get to the root of the difficulties he/she has with people.

I'm content to state that I worked for decades in the public sector, and retired early, so i'm pretty sure I'm in the target group for the labour camps!

In another post, someone pointed out to Rugged that the workers in the 60s and 70s paid much higher income tax rates than the downtrodden masses do nowadays, but maybe Rugged decided that wasn't worth commenting on? Maybe Rugged thinks that tax rates should go back up to where they were when I was in secondary school - basic rate of 33% with a top rate of 83%? Or when I started work - basic rate of 30% with a top rate of 60%?

Come on Rugged - what do you think? What should Corbyn and his shadow cabinet propose? I understand that on the one hand they want to halt the tax cuts for the wealthy by not cutting tax rates, but that they still seem to want to help the downtrodden wealthy by increasing their personal allowance .

source - http://www.itv.com/news/2016-11-20/mcdonnell-labour-will-support-increasing-tax-giveaway/

Happy about that, Rugged?

WR

westernpromise

p00hsticks wrote: »

Not necessarily - the opportunity for the £270+ a week state pensions previously afforded by SERPS and S2P for existing pensioners has now disappeared going forward. And any boomers who were contracted out because they are/were in private pensions are likely to get closer to the old £119 than £155 unless they carry on working or buy additional NI years over the 35 that youngsters will need.

Don't confuse poor old toastie with facts. He just hates you, OK?

westernpromise

Wild_Rover wrote: »

In another post, someone pointed out to Rugged that the workers in the 60s and 70s paid much higher income tax rates than the downtrodden masses do nowadays, but maybe Rugged decided that wasn't worth commenting on?

This is a very awkward point for out pet envy monkey, because in those years, the rates of income tax everybody paid were about the same as those now paid by those with student loans. The difference of course is that then, you paid the tax whether or not you had the degree.

Another key tax penalty until 1988 was wives got no personal tax allowance and their salaries were taxed at their husbands' marginal rate. The wife of a man who was just on the top rate tax band paid that rate on every penny she earned. If she was owed a tax rebate for any reason, it was credited to him, not her.

Toastie's wittering nostalgia for the past is thus ignorant as well as nasty. He is the cynosure of the Corbyn supporter.

Another interesting point is how expensive entertainment was for that generation. In the late 1970s a vinyl album typically cost £5 to £6 to buy. Per track, that is the same nominal price as a download today, 40 years on.

Cakeguts

ukcarper wrote: »

You really are bitter can you explain exactly how a boomer has stolen from the younger generation.

Rugged has not given an answer to this. I wonder why?