Are the old paying enough?

[Cleopatra]

Oh deary me! We don't often, if ever, see you so angry Algy. Reading your post brought memories flooding back. I was born at the end of the WW2 so I think we saw and experienced much of a same lifestyle and, bloody hell, listening to my son talking to his friend I have forgotten what I was going to say.

Oh well, maybe it will come back to me later.

[Lt Kije]

Algy

 

You have a similar past to my Father, Can I presume you are on a a final salary scheme?, for the most part they are gone now, not available to the young, jobs for life has long gone, private pensions such as they are are not worth the money as you get nothing out. PFI schemes have mortgaged the young before they have even started work,. The way pensions are set up it is the young that pay for the retired, with an ageing population and people living longer their simply will not be enough young to pay for the old. It's a simple fact. If you were in work during the Maggie years you benefitted from artificially low taxes, as she spent the north sea oil money on keeping taxes low to get re elected rather than new hospitals and schools ect, that is why we have Pfi now because they were not building or investing. I know that most of the old worked DAMNED HARD for what they have got. But people such as your grandchildren as they start work will have the burden of the PFI we are enjoying and not paying for before they even as they start on their working career. They are going to have to work damned hard and alot longer, pay more in than you ever did and receive alot less. I was asking if that is fair, I don't think it is, but retiring when you did put you in a privaliged position over them, as it is them that is paying for it and they are paying for something they will never receive themselves.

 

If you took the post as a personal slant on you I am sorry, it was not meant that way.

 

When you started work you were tax neutral, today's young start in negative equity when they start paying tax and as I said they will pay more than you and work longer than you. It is a situation that cannot go on

[Evil Sid]

first thing to do is to stop the government spending money on things that are not needed. Get all politicians on a minimum wage of £100 per week and NO expenses. stop all loopholes as regards tax avoidance/evasion any body caught evading tax to have assets seized. All people currently drawing a pension to be put back into the workforce.

 

never happen though as governments never stop spending money on useless projects, no politician would dream of even getting out of bed for less than £300 a week plus expenses,dito with the tax and the lack of jobs prohibits the latter.

 

getting nearer and nearer to Logans Run scenario.

[Lt Kije]

Sadly your right Sid,

 

Thinking about it one possible solution anyone starting out in work pay their NI, into there own NI account so their contributions would be payed to them, obviously the government would have to pick up the shortfall for the people that have retired now, but it would insure that people starting out would get a pension. We cannot carry on putting the burden on the young for the old, I suppose when they bought the welfare state in they could not imagine an ageing population. An average man can expect good health till they are 77, The average was no where near that when the system was bought in. It is the failure of all political parties that know one has touched it, when they all could see what was going to happen.

[wolfie]

All people currently drawing a pension to be put back into the workforce.

 

And put even more youngsters out of work :unsure:

 

A study by consultancy firm Aon shows the state pays pensioners 
an income equivalent to just 17% of average earnings. 
This is the lowest level in Europe and well below the average 
for all European Union countries of 57%. Even the Netherlands, 
which has the second-lowest level, provides a state pension 
nearly double the UK figure, 

[Cleopatra]

Only one thing for it - compulsory euthanasia after the age of 69 - let no-one reach 70 and become a burden on the tax payer, eh?

[observer]

All that's happened Kije, is that the baby boomers were the first generation in history to benefit from the legacy of a "socialist" Government, the Atlee Gov created the Welfare State when we were all truly "in it together", and if they could do it despite the devastation left by the War and the sixty year payback on the Yanks loan - I'm sure today's politicians and voters could do the same, IF they had the long term vision and resolve. Problem is, we've developed a short term political and cultural system of instant gratification, " I want it and I want it now", no need to save up to get things, just flash the visa, and sadly Governments were at it too - result: personal debt in the UK reached over a £trillion prior to the crash. I suggest that the majority mortgaging their future wern't the baby boomers, but their kids and grand-kids. Those that have been paying in and prudently saving; are now being asked to pay for this fiscal binge by their sprogs. So instead of running round like headless chickens and trying to blame each other, we really do need a reality check, and address some fundemental long term issues on the basis that we really are "all in together" and the broadest shoulders bare the heaviest burden.

[algy]

Only one thing for it - compulsory euthanasia after the age of 69 - let no-one reach 70 and become a burden on the tax payer, eh?

Well that's me out of the equation then, I'm having all me' old photos burned on to a DVD and havin' em' placed in me' coffin for disposal at the Crem', if I can't ave' em' no one else can!. :grin:

[asperity]

If you were in work during the Maggie years you benefitted from artificially low taxes, as she spent the north sea oil money on keeping taxes low to get re elected rather than new hospitals and schools ect, that is why we have Pfi now because they were not building or investing.

 

 

Between 1979 (When Maggie was elected) and 1986 the basic rate of tax was 30% with higher rates up to 60%. It was only in 1988 that the basic rate dropped to 25% and the higher rate to 40% and they stayed like that for the rest of her time as PM. The basic rate only dropped when Labour came into power in 1997. Agreed the tax rates did start to fall during her stay in No.10 but you can't get away with saying they were artificially low. As for PFI, that started under Major, but was seized on enthusiastically by Prudence Brown as a way of keeping the expenditure "off the books".

 

Everyone who has worked all their lives has contributed to the welfare of this country and indeed the welfare of those who had retired before them. You cannot now pick on the OAP's of today and tell them they have to suffer because the government has spent all our savings! :shock:

[Cleopatra]

Observer, I never thought I would ever say this, but, you are (for once) talking sense and I can only agree with what you write on this occcasion.

Asperity, I admire you!

[Lt Kije]

Asp, I was not blaming Maggie I was blaming all governments I know that Blair liked PFIs, North sea oil kept taxes down during Maggies reign.

 

In the first six years of Maggies government oil generated 52.4 billion in taxes for the government, how much higher would have your taxes been without that. You might think they were high but they should have been higher.

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/apr/19/sentimentality-old-people-hitting-young?INTCMP=SRCH

 

Found this article makes an interesting read

[Cleopatra]

Well that's me out of the equation then, I'm having all me' old photos burned on to a DVD and havin' em' placed in me' coffin for disposal at the Crem', if I can't ave' em' no one else can!. :grin:

 

And don't forget your pc so you can look at your photos while you lie there doing nothing!

[algy]

And don't forget your pc so you can look at your photos while you lie there doing nothing!

Mrs algy has strict instructions that the following are packed within hands reach: 1x battery power drill & 12mm bits, 1x battery power saw, 2x mobile phones with spare fully charged batteries and a small folding commandos spade. She has strict instructions that I must be buried with at least a foot of clear space above the coffin lid - you watch, she'll have me cremated, just to get her own back!

[algy]

Between 1979 (When Maggie was elected) and 1986 the basic rate of tax was 30% with higher rates up to 60%. It was only in 1988 that the basic rate dropped to 25% and the higher rate to 40% and they stayed like that for the rest of her time as PM. The basic rate only dropped when Labour came into power in 1997. Agreed the tax rates did start to fall during her stay in No.10 but you can't get away with saying they were artificially low. As for PFI, that started under Major, but was seized on enthusiastically by Prudence Brown as a way of keeping the expenditure "off the books".

 

Everyone who has worked all their lives has contributed to the welfare of this country and indeed the welfare of those who had retired before them. You cannot now pick on the OAP's of today and tell them they have to suffer because the government has spent all our savings! :shock:

 

Well said Asp. & obs before you. :smile:

[asperity]

You're right Lt Kije, an interesting article. However it's only an opinion piece which obviously tickles you because it ticks all the right boxes for you. A lot of the comments are less than complimentary though :wink:

[Lt Kije]

Asp, I found the article after I started the thread. As for the comments I new most people on here are retired or have only a few years to go, I am glad you found the article interesting, what parts do you not agree with?

[asperity]

As I said it's an opinion piece, and his opinion is not the same as mine, although it would appear to agree with yours. Just because a point of view appears in a newspaper article doesn't make it the one to follow you know. :wink:

[Bill]

A friend told me the other day that her 24year old nephew asked for cash for his birthday in future because she was buying him stuff with the wrong label. A bit thoughtless really given is aunt is disabled and living on income support.

 

Can’t help but wonder if this is one of the people whose life us oldies are mortgaging?

 

Bill

[Lt Kije]

Yes it just opinion Asp, I would like to know where you disagree with it.

[Cleopatra]

A friend told me the other day that her 24year old nephew asked for cash for his birthday in future because she was buying him stuff with the wrong label. A bit thoughtless really given is aunt is disabled and living on income support.

 

Can’t help but wonder if this is one of the people whose life us oldies are mortgaging?

 

Bill

 

 

A lot of ungrates in the younger generation. Had it have been I my reply would have been, 'No and neither will you get anything else in the future!'

[asperity]

Same old ploy Lt Kije. I disagree with his opinion because it does not meet mine. This, of course, will not satisfy your needs because you want me to give you targets to shoot down - exactly what you accuse me of. So NO

[observer]

Perhaps instead of looking down or sideways on life's slippery pyramid; we all need to start looking to the top for a change!

[Sheila_P]

In tough times are pensioners paying enough, they benefitted from artificially low taxes, free higher education.In many cases they had jobs for life, they get free bus passes, help with heating. They are also benefitting from Pfi hospitals, which are being paid for by the young. The young have to pay for higher education, their are no jobs for life.

It is the young that are paying for the people who have retired pensions, they are paying for something they themselves are not going to get. We as a society have mortgaged the young. They are going to have to save even more money for their pensions that the current old ever did. And if they have gone to university they are starting out in dept. Lack of jobs means many are not going to start earning till they are in their 20's. So they will end up having to save more, work longer and have to pay higher taxes than our current pensioners ever had to. Things are only going to get worse for the young as our population is ageing, we cannot keep piling our young with dept.

 

Well, I can only answer from my own perspective.

 

I am retired now, having worked from the age of 17 to the age of 60+, that's 40+ years of contributions, as opposed to the obligatory 30 years.

 

I was from a humble but decent background but there was no chance to engage in Higher Education, having a handicapped father.

 

As a mature student I went to University, paying my own way by doing three and sometimes 4 part-time jobs. The study on top of the jobs didn't come easily. I was so tired for three years but I managed.

 

After I graduated, I worked to guide, encourage and develop young people for years.

 

In 2002, I worked for the Commonwealth Games, to make a difference to our region, as a volunteer for 3 months I reported to work at 7am, to make sure that I got my hours in, so that I could volunteer.I spent my summer leave working for them too.

 

After that, I became a volunteer for the Prince's Trust, working as a Business Mentor and I also delivered Enterprise courses, aimed at helping young people to become successful self employed people/entrepreneurs. I'm still a volunteer.

 

My household has never claimed the heating allowance, and I never claimed unemployment in the times when I didn't work.

 

On the other side, when I was guiding younger people, I had a student who said this. 'I'm not bothering (to go to University), I'll just pop out babies'.

 

There are many things wrong with this country and I have no politically correct solution to it. However, before you condemn us 'oldies', it's a good idea not to generalise!

[Lt Kije]

Sheila, it was not meant as an attack. I have no doubt you worked hard for all you have, I was making the point that we have mortgaged the young to pay for the retired, they do not have the same opportunities and will be paying alot more for alot less return.

 

Asp, Is that disagree totally or just some , even if you do not agree with the article it does bring up some interesting points

[algy]

Sheila, it was not meant as an attack. I have no doubt you worked hard for all you have, I was making the point that we have mortgaged the young to pay for the retired, they do not have the same opportunities and will be paying alot more for alot less return.

 

Asp, Is that disagree totally or just some , even if you do not agree with the article it does bring up some interesting points

Lt, I believe that some of your posts are to made to project an impression of academic and political awareness, sometimes this may done to compensate for the lack of other traits in an individuals personality, I am not making a personal attack on your own character, but one really should be aware of the effect on others before one posts, as the content may give an impression of extremism, the original statement in your post gives the impression that it is an attack on the aged of this country, so how would we senior citizens not see it as a personal vendetta against us, surely a gentleman of your intellect and eloquence would have the foresight and intelligence to anticipate that there would be a negative reaction regarding your statement, it is a volatile and emotive subject not to be taken lightly and not in the least amusing, so not really surprising, even to a simpleton like myself, that someone such as Sheila P who has obviously worked hard to achieve her goals and contributed a large portion of her life to the young of this country, would find your statement so offensive.

No doubt Lt you will continue your crusade to give the impression of controversiality and intellect, however I honestly believe with this particular subject you have gained no ground.