Boomers Pension Gravy Train Finally To Be Derailed

Cakeguts

OP what would you consider would be the lowest amount that someone would need to have in disposable income for them and their partner to live in London?

[Deleted User]

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Unfortunately you are somewhat at a tangent with the typical aspect of those you are trying to bond with here.

An ex public sector employee, who has "worked all his life", but says he is retired in his 50s, on a juicy, and in all probability completely unfunded, gold plated final salary pension.

As you well know, those younger than you on whatever department you have left will be on salary average pensions, still a lot better than people outside government will be receiving. In any case, news out this week indicates that those in their 20s now better not expect to retire until their 70th birthday.

I guess we know now how we are going to cover the £171 billion expense of boomer state pensions (not including public sector benefits) - Millennials are just going to have to work until they die and never claim one themselves.

Still waiting for a rationale from you as to why they should do this.

I don't think I ever claimed that I worked all my life, after all, I'm not dead yet and it's some time since we sent bairns up chimneys (:D) but I did work between leaving school and starting Uni, and while I was at Uni, and was never unemployed from about 2 months after I left Uni until retirement. I'm also not trying to "bond" with anyone - if I see things I agree with, or disagree with and want to comment on it, I will. I neither expect nor require people to agree with me, but do value freedom of thought and expression. You might, in my view, post nonsense, but, as they say, I'll happily defend your right to post it, as long as you don't mind me asking for clarification.

Still waiting for you to commit to democratic means...... but I suspect we all know your answer to that, comrade .

As for the changing pensions entitlement and related issues, these things change all the time - and guess what - they'll change in the future too, as you grow older, and folk younger than you will be envious of some of the things that you have, or had, unless they get off their butt and save, invest and create like many of their peers will. Just think .... somewhere, there is a toddler who will grow up to hate you as much as you clearly hate me :rotfl: .

As for life expectancy, you appear to have missed the pretty obvious point that my so called "gold plated" pension is only payable for my lifetime. What do you think the projected lifespan of someone born in the late '50s in the west of Scotland is? Going a step futher, can you POSSIBLY think of any reason why someone in their 20s today might work until a higher retiral age? No?

Anyway, you still haven't answered another one - you will be content for anyone with a state pension paying 47% on all other income, yes? It's what you appear to have stated earlier on.

Typical - crush savings, crush thrift, crush investment, all in the interests of a totally deluded notion of "fairness" that has the only outcome of bringing the talented, the intelligent, the creative, the hard-working down to the same level of living standard as the idle and wasteful. Or putting it the other way, arranging the system so that the lazy are unfairly rewarded at the expense of the others. That's the left wing "fairness" we have come to expect.

I did not create the pension scheme that my employer set up. I did not set the rules, nor did I decide the employee contribution rate. I did not set the criteria for early retirement, nor the index-linking applied to it, (nor the change from RPI to CPI which in current circumstances, makes it less beneficial!) My contribution rate was 6% for many years, then rose in the years leading up to when I left. How much are you saving at the moment? I've advised my kids to save 10% of their gross income, so that they will have a hopefully reasonable lifestyle. When you have kids presumably you'll be telling them to spend every penny; you surely don't want THEM to be paying your 47% tax rate..... or is that just to apply to other people?

The elderly granny with her small cash ISA ..... 47% tax on her interest? You do realise that your "plan" requires the abolition of ALL tax-exempt savings for ALL state pensioners, don't you?

Nah, probably not. Thinking doesn't appear to be a strength of yours :rotfl: - have you ever considered standing for elected office to see how you'd get on? Oh, no, that's that "democracy" issue again, isn't it .

Off out now, to spend some of my ill-gotten gains .

WR

ruggedtoast

Cakeguts wrote: »

OP what would you consider would be the lowest amount that someone would need to have in disposable income for them and their partner to live in London?

Define "live in London."

Also define disposable income - this is otherwise discretionary spending so asking how much of it someone needs doesnt make sense.

hildosaver

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I want your bus pass you don't want, your tv license you don't need, your winter fuel payment that you shouldn't have, and your next year's increment you haven't funded.

And there are plenty who feel the same as I do.

On top of that I recommend a 0% personal tax allowance for anyone who claims a state pension and earns one penny over and above It from any other means. All else of which should be taxed at 47%.

So according to you all pensioners should be denied a bus pass despite many of them relying on it to be able to get out and about - no more going to the shops or social activity for them!


No tv licence either so even though you want them to stay at home more (without a bus pass) you also wish to deny them watching any tv.


No winter fuel payment either so not only should they stay indoors, without tv, they should also be restricted in the amount of heating they can afford.


They should also live on the (I'm assuming your view) overly generous state pension and anybody who had a personal pension built up from working throughout their life should have almost half of it taken from them because, lets face it - they dont need it.


Perhaps they should be publicly flogged for having the gall to live over 65 years?

ruggedtoast

hildosaver wrote: »

So according to you all pensioners should be denied a bus pass despite many of them relying on it to be able to get out and about - no more going to the shops or social activity for them!


No tv licence either so even though you want them to stay at home more (without a bus pass) you also wish to deny them watching any tv.


No winter fuel payment either so not only should they stay indoors, without tv, they should also be restricted in the amount of heating they can afford.


They should also live on the (I'm assuming your view) overly generous state pension and anybody who had a personal pension built up from working throughout their life should have almost half of it taken from them because, lets face it - they dont need it.


Perhaps they should be publicly flogged for having the gall to live over 65 years?

Your illustration of the impoverished pensioner is a bit 1980s. Of course that was when none of the Boomers were pensioners themselves.

Retirement is a bit different now isn't it for the Golden Generation. No freezing council flats with one bar on for them.

There is no particular reason why the government should give you free money for failing to prepare financially for your own retirement but as long as it does, it would be nice if those financing it could have some reasonable chance of receiving those benefits themselves. And that peculiar largesse like Christmas handouts, be confined to people who aren't already by most definitions, rich.

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Your illustration of the impoverished pensioner is a bit 1980s. Of course that was when none of the Boomers were pensioners themselves.

Retirement is a bit different now isn't it for the Golden Generation. No freezing council flats with one bar on for them.

There is no particular reason why the government should give you free money for failing to prepare financially for your own retirement but as long as it does, it would be nice if those financing it could have some reasonable chance of receiving those benefits themselves. And that peculiar largesse like Christmas handouts, be confined to people who aren't already by most definitions, rich.

If all these boomers are as rich as you think with their gold plated pensions they will be paying enough tax to pay for their own state pension with a bit over to pay the tax credits they didn't get.

hildosaver

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Your illustration of the impoverished pensioner is a bit 1980s. Of course that was when none of the Boomers were pensioners themselves.

Retirement is a bit different now isn't it for the Golden Generation. No freezing council flats with one bar on for them.

There is no particular reason why the government should give you free money for failing to prepare financially for your own retirement but as long as it does, it would be nice if those financing it could have some reasonable chance of receiving those benefits themselves. And that peculiar largesse like Christmas handouts, be confined to people who aren't already by most definitions, rich.

I work with the elderly and I can assure you that the vast majority of the ones I have contact with are not in anyway well off, quite the opposite in fact.

chucknorris

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Running in both the Guardian and Independent today.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/nov/06/triple-lock-pension-should-scrapped-mps-generational-inequalities

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/scrap-the-triple-lock-on-pensions-mps-say-a7399721.html

Millennials worse off than their parents, retiring boomers living the high life and quaffing expensive drinks while they celebrate their vandalism of the EU.

It seems the country's patience is finally running thin - or, there are now enough younger voters for MPs to consider worth worrying about.

Top comment on the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/nov/06/triple-lock-pension-should-scrapped-mps-generational-inequalities#comment-86951018




An end to free movement, and young people's opportunities devastated by Brexit. All apparently irrelevant to cash rich boomers, flush with housing assets, state pensions, winter handouts and other freebies, not a penny of student loan debt to their name


The month that cruel benefits cuts wipe thousands off the incomes of the poorest. Social mobility lower than in recorded history, homelessness and poverty in the young back to 90's levels. But every year is an inflation busting publicly funded handout for triple locked boomers

Has it ever crossed your mind, that instead of whinging on internet forums (for what seems like an awfully long time), that if you diverted all that time and effort into doing something productive, then you might be in a far better financial position?

BobQ

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I want your bus pass you don't want, your tv license you don't need, your winter fuel payment that you shouldn't have, and your next year's increment you haven't funded.

And there are plenty who feel the same as I do.

On top of that I recommend a 0% personal tax allowance for anyone who claims a state pension and earns one penny over and above It from any other means. All else of which should be taxed at 47%.

Corbyn will get elected on the basis of that?

Not all older people have a fat pension. Some live solely on the state pension. I would agree that winter fuel payments etc should not be given to everyone but I find your attitude lacking in compassion.

For example, for those without a car a bus pass makes it affordable to lead an active life and those on lower incomes should not have to struggle to heat their home particularly as they get older and are less mobile.

But I would restrict bus passes to those who do not have a car and I would make people pay tax on winter fuel payments and the value of a TV licence. That ensures that they largely go to those who need them, reduces administration costs and avoids means testing.

Those pensioners who can afford it already pay tax at basic and sometimes higher rate for the rest of their life. These people paid for their state pension through their NI contributions and when they have other income they pay tax on it. Why should they be taxed higher than those in work?

seven-day-weekend

BobQ wrote: »

Corbyn will get elected on the basis of that?

Not all older people have a fat pension. Some live solely on the state pension. I would agree that winter fuel payments etc should not be given to everyone but I find your attitude lacking in compassion.

For example, for those without a car a bus pass makes it affordable to lead an active life and those on lower incomes should not have to struggle to heat their home particularly as they get older and are less mobile.

But I would restrict bus passes to those who do not have a car and I would make people pay tax on winter fuel payments and the value of a TV licence. That ensures that they largely go to those who need them, reduces administration costs and avoids means testing.

Those pensioners who can afford it already pay tax at basic and sometimes higher rate for the rest of their life. These people paid for their state pension through their NI contributions and when they have other income they pay tax on it. Why should they be taxed higher than those in work?

Why? Surely it is better to have fewer cars and (some would say) fewer elderly drivers on the road? And to keep bus routes going?

I can and do drive, but also use my bus pass a lot for local journeys. I would not object to paying a fee for it, say £100 a
year.

My husband and I actually use our winter fuel allowance to buy winter fuel (logs for the woodburners), but could afford to pay for this if it was withdrawn.

We don't get a free TV licence, nor free dental treatment.

My husband has always paid tax, still does and always will. I have paid none since 2004 (not enough income), but may start doing so in the next tax year (depending upon what my tax code is).