Lt Kije Posted October 3, 2010 Report Share Posted October 3, 2010 But the equation does not work if you have more older people living longer than younger people, who are paying for the retired people. Extending the retirement age helps, but does not solve it, and puts all the burden on people that are still working. Should we not spread the burden more evenly, should people that have already retired take some of the pain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 3, 2010 Report Share Posted October 3, 2010 Nah, let those who are working now pay more to support us pensioners. We have done our bit for Queen and country, now it's your turn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 3, 2010 Report Share Posted October 3, 2010 Is it not unfair that someone working now will have to work more years pay in more and probably get less than someone who is retired now, It is a no win situation for people who are still working as they will retire one day. Surly a more even spread of the pain is the way forward Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 3, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 3, 2010 Errm. perhaps Kije; you could get hold of the stats for the UK's ?trillion of personal debt, to discover which age groups have been the most feckless - before advancing your theory further?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 3, 2010 Report Share Posted October 3, 2010 Just make the wrinklies pay for their healthcare..... that'll see 'em off! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 4, 2010 Report Share Posted October 4, 2010 Don't forget that pensioners do contribute if they have a works pension which gets taxed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 4, 2010 Report Share Posted October 4, 2010 Errm. perhaps Kije; you could get hold of the stats for the UK's ?trillion of personal debt, to discover which age groups have been the most feckless - before advancing your theory further?! That would be your generation Obs, who benefited through House prices ect going up, and ended up being the generation with more disposable income than any that came before, Yes you can find examples of people that did not, but your generation as a whole are the richest and more mobile so far . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 4, 2010 IF they had the most disposable income, they wouldn't need to borrow, thus we wouldn't be a ?trillion in debt - which generation has lived way beyond it's means Kije - the "me, now" generation. Well it's pay back time! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 Just hand it over Obs..... you have far too much if you can leave your computer on for as long as you obviously do...... Kije needs the money now!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 I would suggest Obs that it has been mostly your generation in charge of Business in the last 20 years, when are over spending started. and do not forget early on people were encouraged to spend money, Take some responsibility Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 I would suggest Obs that it has been mostly your generation in charge of Business in the last 20 years, when are over spending started. and do not forget early on people were encouraged to spend money, Take some responsibility Apart from the fact that my wife didn't need encouraging where did that idea come from? I would suggest that the FSA and previous government are responsible for doing NOTHING to stop the banks from encouraging people to live beyond their means, and as for the throw away society, I don't know where that started. Certainly not in my house. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 As I've exercised fiscal responsibility throughout, never buying what I can't afford - I take no personal responsibility for this fiasco. It's down to irresponsible lending by the Banks and the casino operations of the City (who btw will be rewarded with ?7billion in bonuses this year ); and irresponsible borrowing by a NuLab Gov and LAs, together with a culture of living on debt by a "I want it, I want it now" visa card carrying generation; who were brought up never hearing the word " NO"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazj Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 That's right Obs...... your generation never said no either. You should take some blame as well as us youger ones! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 What generation were in charge of thee banks for the last 20 years, Yours or Mine I am not asking you to take personal blame, I am asking your generation to take some of the blame and some of the pain. Your generation are by no means innocent in this financial crisis. I my self am not resposable for the wrongs my genaration had in this crisis, but I am going to have to pay, so why not your generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 What are you chirping on about Kije? The perpetrators (the bankers) have just given themselves another ?7billion in bonuses - when they should have been lined up in Canary Wharf and shot - so don't try talking about fairness or justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 You talk about fairness and justice, Its all right for you you are not going to pay for it, I am I want people of your generation to take some of the pain. Why should people of my generation pay all, When the people in power in the banks over the last 20 years have been people of your generation. I am asking for you to share the pain:!: As I said before people of your generation are more liquid than most as it was you who benafitted most out of house price going skyward in the last 30 years. you have had the pleasure now take some pain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 I'm a tad confused. What is a generation? Is it the decade you were born in or the latest decade you have lived? Also, what difference does the value of a house make? I would argue that it is the people who have bought houses in the last 20 years who have pushed the price up and who are now struggling to pay for them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2010 Correct Pierre; taking advantage of lenders who were literally giving away money to folk who couldn't really afford the mortgage, but "wanted" a house - leaving a legacy of toxic debt, which they've now nationalised - and were all paying for it with our taxes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 6, 2010 Report Share Posted October 6, 2010 People who started moving up the property ladder late 60s have gained most, as they benafitted most though the boom in house prices all the way though till the middle of the 90s. I am in my 40s, I would say the generation above me would be 60+, Or the baby boom generation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 6, 2010 Report Share Posted October 6, 2010 How is that a benefit to the house owner? It is a paper value only. If he/she decides to sell, he/she still has to buy somewhere to live, and that would probably cost around the same as he/she sold their house for? Also the higher up the property market, the greater your overheads. Upgrade, by all means if it is because of a growing family, but to do it for prestige, then reap what you sow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 6, 2010 Report Share Posted October 6, 2010 My Father, bought a house in Culcheth I think he paid about ?6000 sold it 10 years later for ?25000, bought another house in Culcheth, 35000 sold for over ?100,000 bought a house inear Tarpley For about ?150,000 sold it for over ?350,000, he now lives near Chester, and is selling again down sizing this time, It is people of his generation who lived though and were buying houses though that period of time when house prices started togo up on a masssive scale benafitted most. Yes it still can be done but not on the same scales as before. Last time I looked in Culcheth you could not by a terraced house for under ?250,000. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 6, 2010 Report Share Posted October 6, 2010 That happens if you move because of work, but some people do it just to make money. I couldn't do with the hastle. If I wanted to be a nomad I would have a caravan. Surely, it's the last 20 years that the problem of the housing boom where people wanted an up-market house that was encouraged by the mortgage people and banks and thus in a lot of cases, people were over-stretching themselves by ridiculously over inflated house prices. WHY keep up with the Jones? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Kije Posted October 6, 2010 Report Share Posted October 6, 2010 I am in no way blaming him for what he or many people did, he took all advantage out of the system, the trouble is it is my generation that is going to have to pay for the system. His generation were in charge, his generation took the profit my generation pay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter T Posted October 6, 2010 Report Share Posted October 6, 2010 I think the word "some" of his generation is more appropriate. Quite ironic really. I am always blaming the young who grew up in the 60's for the rubbish way that Blair and co messed the system up. He and a lot of his colleagues are a product of that era. So some issues run parallel with others. The common denominator with these financial issues seems to be taxation and evasion. Unless you are on a gold plated pension (ie civil servants and top business) your state pension is very basic, and if you have a company pension, you can lose half of it in tax. So perhaps the tax system needs urgent attention, which is unlikely to happen as it won't win votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
observer Posted October 6, 2010 Author Report Share Posted October 6, 2010 Kije, why for one second, do you think there was a house price boom in the first place? Cos lenders were literally throwing money at young wannabees who (under normal circumstances) wouldn't have got a mortgage cos they couldn't afford it. This increased demand, which in turn, caused prices to sky rocket. Add to this, the fact that NuLab wern't building Council Housing and there's your cause. As for your Pops; assets like a house are not disposable income; they just keep the rain off. If your Dad has any sense, he'll sell the house and spend your inheritance; so you can really have something to moan about! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.