[Dorkins]

dances with sheeple, on 09 September 2010 - 05:08 PM, said:

Younger people are going to have cheap houses, but have to face up to peak oil etc?

Fine by me, I'll take that trade any day of the week. I need somewhere to live, I don't need to drive 10,000 miles and take two overseas holidays every year.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

Bruce Banner, on 09 September 2010 - 04:46 PM, said:

I wouldn't have paid a penny into the state pension system if I'd had a choice, I'd much rather have put the money into my private scheme or just saved the money. But the government took it from me and in return promised a pension. Now that it's getting near the time that pension is due to be paid, there are people moaning that it's unfair.... well whoopity shit .

I see your point, and from where you are standing I agree it seems perfectly reasonable.

What you need to remember though is if they had given everyone in your generation the money you were supposedly saving for your pension so you could put it into a private pension scheme, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO INCREASE TAXES which would have eaten up all the increase in wages meaning you WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID THE SAME.

It's not until the boomers understand and accept this concept that we will be able to deal with the problem.

Many of the older generation genuinely think the government was locking their money away in a vault somewhere or investing in shares etc. About a year ago some spokesperson for the aged went on national TV and openly said that ti was unfair that pensioner were being denied a good pension as the government had all their NI contribution locked away in a vault and should pay up.

They have an image in their head of some Scrooge-McDuck style money silo full of all their money.

The idea that they had all the money they paid in "national insurance" and "pension contributions" back as a tax cut in the wage packet totally defeats them. Even when you explain it they can't accept it as the concept is too horrific... the idea that they never saved a penny towards retirement.

This post has been edited by RufflesTheGuineaPig: 09 September 2010 - 05:26 PM

[Authoritarian]

I don't think anyone begrudges the boomers a comfetable retirement out of spite, but it's become increasingly apparent that they're expecting their children to live in squalor and work 50+ hours a week to pay for services that they think they're entitled to. It's a zero sum game, the more affluent they become the poorer everyone else gets, but a group they seem unable to grasp this concept and so don't understand why generation Yers have become so resentful.

If the wealthy boomers reduced the main sources of their income; houses prices and pensions then the associated living costs that the rest of society has to endure would be considerably lowered. One way or another this is going to happen, but I'd prefer to work with the boomers than against them.

This post has been edited by Chef: 09 September 2010 - 05:29 PM

[Mrs Bear]

singlemalt, on 09 September 2010 - 09:05 AM, said:

My only issue with Boomers is with those who have piled into BTL thus fuelling the rise in house prices and ultimately stripping the younger generation of their 'wealth' (I use that term very loosely).
Some things are damaging to society, FACT. BTL and booming house prices should've been stopped. Clearly morality wasn't going to do it (it rarely does when money is involved) so legalisation should have (I know! this has already been said a million times on here).

For any defenders who would argue that they're just providing a service, market forces, blah, blah, etc the same argument could be applied to drug dealers but the effect is the same. Destruction of young lives.

And what about the non-boomers who've piled into BTL? There are plenty of them.

They're OK, are they?

[Bruce Banner]

RufflesTheGuineaPig, on 09 September 2010 - 05:25 PM, said:

I see your point, and from where you are standing I agree it seems perfectly reasonable.

What you need to remember though is if they had given everyone in your generation the money you were supposedly saving for your pension so you could put it into a private pension scheme, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO INCREASE TAXES which would have eaten up all the increase in wages meaning you WOULD HAVE BEEN PAID THE SAME.

It's not until the boomers understand and accept this concept that we will be able to deal with the problem.

Many of the older generation genuinely think the government was locking their money away in a vault somewhere or investing in shares etc. About a year ago some spokesperson for the aged went on national TV and openly said that ti was unfair that pensioner were being denied a good pension as the government had all their NI contribution locked away in a vault and should pay up.

They have an image in their head of some Scrooge-McDuck style money silo full of all their money.

The idea that they had all the money they paid in "national insurance" and "pension contributions" back as a tax cut in the wage packet totally defeats them. Even when you explain it they can't accept it as the concept is too horrific... the idea that they never saved a penny towards retirement.

I fully understand that the government just spent the money, but what can I do about that? They took it from me and spent it on benefits for people who couldn't be bothered to get out of bed in the morning.

I paid a huge amount of national insurance. When you own a business, you not only pay employees contribution on your own salary, but also the employers contribution on your own and every employees salary also.

The state pension that I should eventually get is a pittance, it may pay for a few reasonable bottles of wine a month, but it's nowhere near commensurate with what I paid into the system.

Am I bitter? No, that's the was it is. But I do get pissed off when people on here accuse me of taking out more than I paid in.

[OMG]

singlemalt, on 09 September 2010 - 09:05 AM, said:

For any defenders who would argue that they're just providing a service, market forces, blah, blah, etc the same argument could be applied to drug dealers but the effect is the same. Destruction of young lives.

This can also be applied to buying cheap tat from developing countries. £4.99 toasters, £1 shirts, etc.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

Bruce Banner, on 09 September 2010 - 02:17 PM, said:

Sorry, but I really don't see how I can be held responsible for what others of my generation have done. I have never voted Labour (New or otherwise) and actively campaigned against them, have never claimed benefits, always paid tax and NI. I am now retired on a modest annuity funded by my private pension payments and my savings. I won't qualify to draw my state pension for another.... well, I'm not sure how many years as it looks like that's going to change.

Well I didn't vote for the people who promised you the pensions and pissed the money up the wall either, so by the same argument why should I have to pay for them ?

[Authoritarian]

Bruce Banner, on 09 September 2010 - 05:37 PM, said:

The state pension that I should eventually get is a pittance, it may pay for a few reasonable bottles of wine a month, but it's nowhere near commensurate with what I paid into the system.

Am I bitter? No, that's the was it is. But I do get pissed off when people on here accuse me of taking out more than I paid in.

You need to factor in house price rises too which I don't think you're taking into account.

If you pay £100k into the system but HPI means you house goes up by £200k then you're a net receiever of government benefits. Most boomers have out far taken more than they paid in, and the difference has to be made up by somebody else.

[Bruce Banner]

SteveAustin, on 09 September 2010 - 05:54 PM, said:

Well I didn't vote for the people who promised you the pensions and pissed the money up the wall either, so by the same argument why should I have to pay for them ?

Because that's the way the system works. If they don't pay us, you will soon be refusing to pay any national insurance because you'll know it's a con.

NI was the NuLabour tax of choice because they promised not to increase taxes and just went for it with NI. Thieving bastards.

[Bruce Banner]

Chef, on 09 September 2010 - 06:05 PM, said:

You need to factor in house price rises too which I don't think you're taking into account.

If you pay £100k into the system but HPI means you house goes up by £200k then you're a net receiever of government benefits. Most boomers have out far taken more than they paid in, and the difference has to be made up by somebody else.

And if I made a few mil by selling my business, should I pay that back too? Hell, let's all throw all of our money into a big pot and share it out equally.

[Authoritarian]

singlemalt, on 09 September 2010 - 09:05 AM, said:

For any defenders who would argue that they're just providing a service, market forces, blah, blah, etc the same argument could be applied to drug dealers but the effect is the same. Destruction of young lives.

What a disgusting comparison, how can you sit there and compare BTL to drug dealing?

Drug dealers are taking a real risk to provide a product that people want, BTL slumlords on the other hand just bleed their tenants dry for a disservice; a significant portion of the house price would actually be free if it wasn't for their presence.

This post has been edited by Chef: 09 September 2010 - 06:22 PM

[Authoritarian]

Bruce Banner, on 09 September 2010 - 06:12 PM, said:

And if I made a few mil by selling my business, should I pay that back too? Hell, let's all throw all of our money into a big pot and share it out equally.

We're not disscusing the proceeds of work though, your point was specifically about government benefits; a category that house prices falls neatly into.

The government uses a tax policy that is designed to enrich homeowners, so when you claim you're a net contributor into the system you need to take HPI into account too, otherwise the calculation is meaningless.

This post has been edited by Chef: 09 September 2010 - 06:20 PM

[Bruce Banner]

Chef, on 09 September 2010 - 06:20 PM, said:

We're not disscusing the proceeds of work though, your point was specifically about government benefits; a category that house prices falls neatly into.

The government uses a tax policy that is designed to enrich homeowners, so when you claim you're a net contributor into the system you need to take HPI into account too, otherwise the calculation is meaningless.

Well that's a relief.

Although I don't agree with you that HPI is a government benefit, off the top of my head, over the years I paid out far more in combined employers and employees NI than I made out of HPI.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

Bruce Banner, on 09 September 2010 - 05:37 PM, said:

Am I bitter? No, that's the was it is. But I do get pissed off when people on here accuse me of taking out more than I paid in.

You really don't understand.

YOU HAVEN'T PAID ANYTHING IN.

Every penny you paid in you were given back as tax cuts.

You have saved precisely.... zero. Merely receiving NHS treatment during you retirement means you are taking out more than you put in.

You can't disconnect the paying in from the taking out. It's like saying in the last 20 years I've paid £3/4m into my bank therefor they owe me £3/4m... ignoring the fact that you've taken that £3/4m back out again during that time too.

[georgia o'keeffe]

RufflesTheGuineaPig, on 09 September 2010 - 06:33 PM, said:

You really don't understand.

YOU HAVEN'T PAID ANYTHING IN.

Every penny you paid in you were given back as tax cuts.

You have saved precisely.... zero. Merely receiving NHS treatment during you retirement means you are taking out more than you put in.

You can't disconnect the paying in from the taking out. It's like saying in the last 20 years I've paid £3/4m into my bank therefor they owe me £3/4m... ignoring the fact that you've taken that £3/4m back out again during that time too.

are you on smack, you cant deduce hes received more than hes paid individually by using the collective national debt, otherwise you are implying you yourself have done the same and taken more out , along with everyone else in the uk because the uk national debt increased last year. How much was your net withdrawal last year?

You have no idea of his personal historical contribution/withdrawal

This post has been edited by Tamara De Lempicka: 09 September 2010 - 06:47 PM