dipstick

I absolutely agree with you Laurejon. The problem with the UK is that it has a believable (at least by the people living here) veneer or equality, fairness and caring. What is actually happening is completely the opposite. To be honest I think the government (whichever one) would spend whatever it takes to keep feeding the population 'victims.' It is indeed, Divide and Rule.

It's not a case of cracking down, it's a case of cracking down on the right people. What the current system does is try and prove all the claimants (I'm talking disability here) are malingerers. Which it shouldn't be. If you think about it, most people who have got to the stage of claiming such benefits have already been assessed by many, many, medical professionals prior to getting to the stage where the system is considering cutting off benefits. It's already cost a fortune just to get to the end game. Earlier this year there were a couple of cases in Scotland, I think within a month, whereby benefits had been stopped and both people died of their illnesses before they could be finalised. That is third world stuff. It's disgusting and abhorrent. Sick people shouldn't have to fight this stuff. I know somebody else who had benefits stopped for well over 6 months. His wife, who's got a brain tumour, had to fight on his behalf. Yes. He did win and get his benefits back dated - but Jeez, there has to be something seriously wrong with the system when people have to suffer in this way ... As I stated earlier, I couldn't claim anything, nothing, simply because my GP refused to acknowledge I was ill. Even now, when I actually have the evidence to prove I was ill, the NHS refuse to acknowledge it. What we forget here is that these systems are put in place to protect the vulnerable. And we can all become vulnerable. In its effort to prove the guilt of the people who try and fiddle the system, and there will always be those (which the Government are aware of) the priorities have been changed from protection to attack.

I can understand why you say that Winkie but can somebody explain this: Why, if they have raised the pension age have they reduced the number of years you need to pay into the system to get a full state pension? It may be a completely daft question and I can sit here with egg on my face (I do it often) but they reduced the number of years you needed to pay in to 30 from 44 for a man and 39 years for a woman. There's got to be a catch here and I'm missing it. How?

Do you know, on Planet Lala, that might actually work! On the face of it it seems reasonable enough. Here on Earth though, what would actually happen is that the consultants wouldn't work till 9pm at night on the wages the NHS pay them. And, even if they did, the NHS GPs won't work the extra to do the initial exams and referrals. Plus they would have to have support staff (admin and nurses) that would also be willing to work the extra hours on NHS pay. Then there are the managers. Now, they can't manage what they've got now under the NHS - overloaded. So, how would we go about keeping them happy and fulfilled? You want to see the world return to a fully functioning NHS. It needs reforming. From the GPs upwards.

You've hit on the one thing I would like explaining about the Irish property market (talking Eire) House prices went through the roof - rental prices were low House prices fall - rental prices still low (and getting harder to rent out from the folk I talked to) So, at which point was it actually good to have buy to let in Ireland? I'm certain that in places like Dublin it is/was easier to rent out, but nobody else seemed to be having it cushy. How come?

A while back wasn't it 52% of the working population were in the public sector? I'd actually argue it's a lot higher, because a lot of them are employed indirectly. For instance a lot of the advisory Charidees are actually government schemes - the money to initiate them comes from the government. I used to work for a training company with the long term unemployed - but the funding that paid the company that paid me, came from the Government. I wasn't considered public sector - but I damn well was.

It says on Wiki that it's 65. Germans retire at 67 and ain't happy that the Greeks retire earlier!

I'm a woman and I've already been told my retirement age will be 66 - I don't know why I'm higher than most folk already!!! Plus - whoever mentioned the death in service payment. When you took that out, you would have directed who you wanted it to go to. If that person is now deceased and you don't change it, if you snuff it will go to whoever asks nicely and sod what's in your will. Seriously.

Laurejon - That's what most people don't realise. This small minority of non-workers, are actually expected and acceptable in the Government's eyes. But the public jump on the blame culture band-wagon and start beating via broad brush stroke anyone who every vaguely comes into contact with this end of the system. What they don't realise is the costs of running that particular end of the system probably far outweigh anything the whole lot combined would get in benefits. It's all a big propaganda stunt really. Same as the way the unemployment figures are calculated. I think in one year back in the early 90s it was changed 17 times in a year. Or at least that's what a lecturer told us. I know when I did it the Government were always changing round the way people were calculated as being 'officially' unemployed - depending on what they wanted to tell the public and how they wanted to pay out funding for 'successes.' Lies, lies and damned statistics. I actually don't know anything about Universal Credit - I'm one of those that ain't sick and can't simply claim to be jobless...

I used to work with the long term unemployed, and although it may not appear to be the case on the surface, I can categorically state that the majority do want to work. I think, years ago, the figures used to be that even with full employment, there are only about 2% of the working age population that will actively avoid work. I don't know how things have changed, especially with regard to the real amount of benefits people receive, but I have no reason to presume that once barriers to employment are overcome, this figure has changed. The key word here of course is AVOID. Yet the majority of the people attempting to get sick benefits that I meet are not looking to AVOID work, they are looking to get diagnosis and treatment that will allow them to work without increasing pain and suffering. The problem, in my experience, starts with GPs. How, even if you are a well trained, experienced, GP, can you assess somebody in 10 minutes? That's the average consultation time. This is to get update information, read past history, interpret blood results and possibly examine a patient. Then they have to update records. I would say it can't be done effectively. Yet in recent years we have cut GPs hours. In place we have organised NHS direct, links to 24 hour call-outs, centralised systems. What happens, particularly if the records have not been updated fully and accurately, is that the problem gets larger, not smaller. Hence, we have more pressure put on the NHS because the patient keeps having to return over and over again. And, this is what happens if you have a well trained, experienced GP. In my experience, most of them aren't. In fact in my experience most of them are pretty much useless. Quite possibly down to poor training, or maybe due to the pressure of the 10 minute consultation time, or maybe targets. Much easier to try and convince a patient that they are not ill, rather than look at the symptoms. Ultimately you end up in a situation where the people that are ill, with anything more than blatantly diagnosable illnesses, get caught up in a whirlwind of claims, inappropriate testing, even more pressure on the NHS, loss of earnings and a downward spiral for all concerned. It's a shambles. And then you get these silly programs trying to lay the blame on the poor economy on, quite possibly, the 2% I mentioned at first, who you will never get into work no matter what you do. It doesn't matter how uncomfortable you feel about the situation. One thing I learned when working with the long-term unemployed was to forget about that 2%. It would drive you crazy. Focus on the people that do want to work. Help them!!!! Because, ultimately they are the folk that keep the economy going.

Sorry, but I'm starting to think that the biggest cheats are those employed by the government to try and prove others are defrauding the system - and I'm including here the doctors who, by some miracle, managed to negotiate office hours whilst doubling their wages and simultaneously decreasing in their ability to do their job. They seem to be putting an awful lot of effort in trying to prove people are not ill. The way the vulnerable are being targeted and demonised now is starting to turn my stomach. My situation was that I was ill. I went to the doctors continuously over a period of 10 months. I was self employed. I couldn't earn money. I couldn't function. I begged to be diagnosed as sick. They wouldn't, it was 'all in my head.' Except at the end of the 10 months I asked to see my notes. Ooops. They had missed a blood result that showed a serious deficiency that causes neurological problems. Best give her something for that then. And now, still, when I have remaining symptoms, I'm still told, 'it's all in your head.' Who exactly are the scroungers here and being detrimental to the economy? If I'd had my blood tests read, then I would still be a productive member of society and putting in to the economy. As it is, I'm left to struggle along, live on fresh air if necessary and sit in a corner quietly. Going on my situation alone, the NHS has cost the taxpayer a fortune, in GPs time/earnings, tests and my loss of input. Makes benefit scroungers look like lightweights.

Oh, you really should stop using words you don't have full understanding of. Make your mind up, Injin. You don't think governments should borrow but being on benefits is fine... If you were truly earning a fortune by working 2 hours a week you couldn't keep quiet about it. In fact, forget that. I'll drop Alan Sugar a line and tell him you could beat him into a cocked hat. I think he'll be able to find you here easy enough.

No. I think you have to contribute to the economy instead of draining it. That's not as mad. Personally I don't want to pay for you sitting on this forum making 38,000 postings, but I've got this nasty feeling that I am.

Okay. I don't know when they bought it and what age group we are talking about - but what are they going to buy? And, more to the point, who the hell is going to buy it at 200+? We are back to the illusion of wealth. That house isn't worth it. It's worth, lets say, 150k - We can agree on that? So. Where is this first time buyer than can afford a detached house, on a single wage at 150k? Or, are you thinking that this couple we are talking about, are going to sell their house at 150k and then hope the couple with a semi on at 120k are going to take a loss on theirs? Maybe they've had theirs 10 years. Ten years ago, what would that have cost them? About 110K. Of course they've got to have got somewhere to go to so maybe, just maybe they can afford the house at 150k - only they probably can't. It's a daft argument. Because when I was part of a couple starting off on the property ladder, I couldn't even tell you what a detached house was worth. It was irrelevant. It was unattainable. Like it or not, there is a natural progression and you can't, in most cases, avoid that natural progression.

I absolutely agree with you. For some people, it was very nice. And because of that it's become a mind-set. Mass self denial. These things need to be taught and they aren't being. I think of the GNVQ footballers back in early 2000. They will most likely be parents now. They will see nothing unusual in bringing their kids up to expect to go on a training course, high house prices and to expect materialistic goods when they want them. They will not be teaching them of dangers. What the hell right have we got to be down on these kids when they have never been taught any different? There is no doubt in my mind that things, for some people, got cushy. Share sell-offs etc. But at the same time millions of others were losing their homes because of high interest rates. Then, after the last bust, we got free credit, stupid mortgages. It was crazy. But everybody had sat tight riding out the storm and then went bonkers. We ended up here.

No, Dear. You are the 'We.' You weren't posting anywhere in 2003 shouting about it. You are now contributing very little to our economic situation because, by your own admission, you only work a couple of hours a week. And most of us doubt you do that. Like it or not Injin, you are 'we.'

Bottom line is, people can't afford to slash the price. Not willingly. Going on what most people paid during the last (Christ, I can't believe I'm saying it) 15 years, half the folk would be in negative equity and have nowhere to live. The underground line, of course, is that these same people will soon be forced en masse to drop prices. And then the young end of the market still won't be able to buy because interest rates will rise. As bad scalded as burned.

Yep. They have. But nothing to do with boomers. We are all to blame in this. All of us. Even now, you talk to the British population and they haven't really got a clue what's going on, no matter what age. They read a headline and jump on it. From every conceivable angle 'easy money' appeared. It didn't matter if you wanted a credit card, or wanted to invest in shares, or wanted to buy a house - that money was available. But nobody, Boomer or otherwise, asked where that money was coming from. Nobody. There were people on here shouting about it and getting shouted down. And, let's face facts, nobody turns down easy money. Nobody ever asks where the free lunch is coming from. Now we are finding out that there never was a free lunch. We have to become productive. We have to get our work ethic back - and that doesn't mean chucking kids from school onto crappy courses just to sell the proles low unemployment figures. We have to de-regulate to increase productivity. We have to encourage initiative instead of just putting the word into job adverts and then discouraging it. It's a right bluddy mess.

Yeah. Only actually if people work, they are building the system not costing it. That means they aren't making a demand on some other part of the state. Er. Yep. I sort of got the impression the governments had overborrowed quite a few years back (I'm not exactly new to this forum) The boomers (whoever they now may be) didn't take free stuff. There was no bluddy free stuff. Maybe some of us actually expected to received a pension when we retired. Gee Whizz. We are in debt for multiple reasons. The one that annoys me the most, and rarely gets mentioned, is shareholders. I never agreed with floating every damn thing. Yep. We sold off our assets - and that applies to generations from the last two or three decades. It raised expectations. Many people expecting to earn divvies from their holdings. Easy money. Except it does tend to lead firms back into the numbers game. You have to make your company look good - it doesn't really matter whether it's actually that productive or not. We forgot that the essence of business is actually to be productive and we killed the productivity. Now we are expecting things to stay the same. It can't.

Still not answered my question Injin? Where, prior say, to 1995, was anything available on easy credit?

More facts. Higher education wasn't available to the masses. No tax cost involved. Today it is easier to get benefits than ever. Massive tax cost. Today more than half the working population are directly or indirectly employed by the Government - Massive tax cost. You getting the factual picture?

But the argument here on this particular thread is that you should never have had the accumulated wealth in the first place. You have no right to it. And I won't get into the political party argument because they are all as useless as one another. I will agree with you about the shtshtorm. But, I think very few are blameless when it comes to the cause of it. Unless you look at the true cause and stop this nonsensical blaming, then you will never position yourself to ride it, and keeps things good for your kids.

No. They didn't. At least the ones that made didn't lose anything like the proportion of the ones that lost. You're just looking at a bunch of figures. I'm not doubting we are in mess. Never have. been on this forum since 2005 wondering what the hell has happened. I'm not saying future generations aren't in the shite. But the arguments I see now, and in mainstream media where they really shouldn't be, are so uninformed and biased, I can't see it getting any better.

You wanna take the risk on being one of those that lose everything? Not arguing that it's easier to accumulate wealth during the downward slide, trouble is, not many get the opportunity.

Hang on. Lets just go over your previous post. You chuck out figures that show there was a baby boom 1946-1974 in the UK. Now, going on your logic (that a baby boom means the people that had them were baby boomers) you are telling me that people in the UK from 1946 - 1960, were privileged. They borrowed on credit, they had access to well paid jobs, free higher education, cheap homes??? Er. Now, sticking to facts. There was no credit, unless you count borrowing from the co-op. The jobs were mucky, manual and dangerous. Well paid - look back at the threads. Free higher education. None existent. Unless you got a scholarship. Cheap homes. Yeah, I don't think council houses were too expensive.