Daily Mail: Pensioners Could Be Spared Having To Sell Homes

[Bruce Banner]

That clearly shows that the older generations are Tory voters and compared to the 05 swing (on the right when Labour won the net vote in every age group below 55 and even in 05 above 55s were net tory

With age comes common sense .

[The Eagle]

It is more than possible to have a debt based monetary system, without there being a national debt.

No it's not (obviously you don't understand the way a debt based monetary system works), but if you think it's possible then name me one country where that's the case!

Edited May 19, 2011 by wise_eagle

[Si1]

Results 2010

Im sorry if it doesnt agree with your view but its simply not correct

That clearly shows that the older generations are Tory voters and compared to the 05 swing (on the right Hand side) when Labour won the net vote in every age group below 55 and even in 05 above 55s were net tory

You may not like it but the younger below 50s from that are the Labour core

I extracted the tory-over-labour lead and got the following:

18-24 -2

25-34 4

35-44 4

45-54 6

55-64 10

65+ 13

on balance, my apologies, you are largely correct (that hurt!) .

However you also said that the under 40s are net labour voters, which, currently, they categorically are not, if to a lesser degree than older generations

I wonder is similare data available for 2005 and 2001 GEs to see how equivalent generations voted then?

Edited May 19, 2011 by Si1

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

I extracted the tory-over-labour lead and got the following:

18-24 -2

25-34 4

35-44 4

45-54 6

55-64 10

65+ 13

on balance, my apologies, you are largely correct (that hurt!) .

However you also said that the under 40s are net labour voters, which, currently, they categorically are not, if to a lesser degree than older generations

I wonder is similare data available for 2005 and 2001 GEs to see how equivalent generations voted then?

2005 Same Again

Tory above 55 and in 01

Under that age all Labour with Net voting well above 10% in 01 in the lower age groups

[Si1]

That clearly shows that the older generations are Tory voters and compared to the 05 swing (on the right Hand side) when Labour won the net vote in every age group below 55 and even in 05 above 55s were net tory

but the age group below 55 in 2005 is now the age group below 60 - the current 40s to 60s are the baby boomers, (excepting the earliest ones who are a different breed) who have more demographic numbers and therefore democratic weight than the generations after them - they voted lock stock to reward Labour for supporting their interests. The older generations I agree have been less benefited, they are not the labour generation at all.

this was my point, although I did not realise how much the younger generations colluded in 2005

notable is the enormous net swing (9%) of the 25-35 year old age group - the ones most utterly diesnfranchised b y labour. Remember, I think this is a compariosn between different sets of people - between how current 25-35 year olds voted in 2010n against how current 30 to 40 year olds voted in 2005.

Edited May 19, 2011 by Si1

[porca misèria]

Defence spending is a surprisingly small part of public spending, even with wandering off to a new patch of desert every few years.

Well, they've taken most of it off balance sheet. Outsourced services, calling some of it "aid", and now this so-called military covenant shifting it to all the domestic budgets (NHS, education, housing).

All these wars since the end of the cold war have served as trade shows for our world-beating armaments industries. Doubly important now that other world-beating industry has collapsed.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

but the age group below 55 in 2005 is now the age group below 60 - the current 40s to 60s are the baby boomers, (excepting the earliest ones who are a different breed) who have more demographic numbers and therefore democratic weight than the generations after them - they voted lock stock to reward Labour for supporting their interests. The older generations I agree have been less benefited, they are not the labour generation at all.

this was my point, although I did not realise how much the younger generations colluded in 2005

notable is the enormous net swing (9%) of the 25-25 year old age group - the ones most utterly diesnfranchised b y labour. Remember, I think this is a compariosn between different sets of people - between how current 25-35 year olds voted in 2010n against how current 30 to 40 year olds voted in 2005.

thats a nice bit of straw clutching.

All im saying is that the initial premise that Boomers are Labours core is ass about face which those clearly show, as people get older they are more inclined to vote tory which is borne out by those results which generally show From tory to ever greater Labour margins the younger the age group in any of the given elections

and whatever happens ill bet Labour absolutely spank the tories in the lower ages again next election by similar levels to 97 and that Torys win the above 60s

Edited May 19, 2011 by georgia o'keeffe

[Si1]

thats a nice bit of straw clutching.

All im saying is that the initial premise that Boomers are Labours core is ass about face which those clearly show, as people get older they are more inclined to vote tory which is borne out by those results which show From tory to ever greater Labour margins the younger the age group

...and Labour were elected between 1996 and 2005 - the average Boomer age (born average 1960 for a cohort from 1946 to 1970-ish) was between 36 and 45, so an age likely to vote labour, being under 55 as you identify, and additionally a population spike in this demographic

your point is interesting as it suggests an age-old tendency for under 55s to vote left-wing rather than a self-serving bias like I suggested, and the nubers do support you

[Si1]

and whatever happens ill bet Labour absolutely spank the tories in the lower ages again next election by similar levels to 97 and that Torys win the above 60s

it depends who you defined as lower-ages

[leicestersq]

No it's not (obviously you don't understand the way a debt based monetary system works), but if you think it's possible then name me one country where that's the case!

There are no countries of any size that I can see that dont have a national debt.

Interestingly, the US national debt was paid of around 1835 by the US president Andrew Jackson.

I have no doubt at all that there were still private banks operating at this time, issuing credit, just not to the government.

Ironically the 'debt based' monetary system is a bit of a misnomer. The base of the monetary system has to be something other than debt. In most countries it is notes and coins issued by the government that is the actual base money supply. Debt is based on this, and as you know, most of our money supply is made up of bank debt.

Notwithstanding, there is no reason at all why Government debt is necessary to make a monetary system that is made up mostly of bank debt.

[Riedquat]

Well, they've taken most of it off balance sheet. Outsourced services, calling some of it "aid", and now this so-called military covenant shifting it to all the domestic budgets (NHS, education, housing).

All these wars since the end of the cold war have served as trade shows for our world-beating armaments industries. Doubly important now that other world-beating industry has collapsed.

Whatever you think on how its spent doesn't get around the fact that it's a drop in the ocean compared to other things - spend nothing on defence and everything else won't magically get better thanks to all the money saved because there won't be all that much added to them. People whinging about it are just airing a (usually naive) political view rather than looking at any practical implications. Take a fraction off health and you've got more money to play with than scrapping the entire armed forces, and weaselling around won't change that.

[R K]

the problem is - the state has not taken a tremendous amount of money at all, taxes were low during most baby boomers' lives, that is those that worked from early 80s onwards, and said taxes were insufficient to prepare the ground for that generations retirement (I say this with some deference to the early stage boomers, born late 1940s, as they seem cut from a different cloth)

they want to hold onto their gains from a low taxation era and make impoverished younger generations cough up instead.

the welfare state was founded to help the poor and needy, it was a system founded on the basis 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs'

It is a an element of justified socialism - having a backstop, a safety net to stop us falling thru the cracks; but the welfare state was not founded as a savings scheme you can withdraw from when it suits you if you're rich

if Bevan, Atlee et al had forseen a welfare state where the young homeless and poor have to pay for the needs of old property-hoarding beneficiairies, they would roll in their graves, I am sure

So you're argument here appears to be that Thatcher cut taxes too far in relation to the promises govt. made?

Never thought I'd see you criticise Thatcher for keeping taxes too low.

UK consistently says it wants publically funded welfare and health service. The question was asked very specifically in 2005, and the answer again was 'yes'. It seems UK public thus also are prepared to pay for that - but it's the politicians who consistently lie about how much that cost will be and who will pay for it.

Thatcher should have been honest and admitted she couldn't afford to cut taxes, and invested north sea revenues rather than gave them to the rich/banksters.

Taxes (on the unproductive rich especially) need to rise, probably quite significantly to achieve this rebalancing.

[Lepista]

Reading this thread restores my faith that there is going to be an almighty crash in the cost of housing, a historic rise in the price of gold commodities, and massive inflation in the GBP.

people will just not accept any other solution but rampant inflation, and that is precicely what the government will give them (they won't realise that is what they are wishing for, but by the time they realise, it will be too late)

In other words, my tinfoilhat is being unpacked and dusted off.

Armageddon here we come. Sit back, and enjoy the ride. There's nothing us cattle can do to change things, so don't stress about it.

[Si1]

So you're argument here appears to be that Thatcher cut taxes too far in relation to the promises govt. made?

Never thought I'd see you criticise Thatcher for keeping taxes too low.

at times, yes, such as the Lawson boom, plainly

UK consistently says it wants publically funded welfare and health service. The question was asked very specifically in 2005, and the answer again was 'yes'. It seems UK public thus also are prepared to pay for that - but it's the politicians who consistently lie about how much that cost will be and who will pay for it.

well clearly the public are not prepared to pay for it if they actually knew the cost

Thatcher should have been honest and admitted she couldn't afford to cut taxes, and invested north sea revenues rather than gave them to the rich/banksters.

Taxes (on the unproductive rich especially) need to rise, probably quite significantly to achieve this rebalancing.

I think this is an inesca[pable conclusion about the UK economy and its over-reliance on finance; however, things became much worse under Labour I am afraid, not to say the tories were innocent

Edited May 19, 2011 by Si1

[Si1]

Results 2010

Im sorry if it doesnt agree with your view but its simply not correct

That clearly shows that the older generations are Tory voters and compared to the 05 swing (on the right Hand side) when Labour won the net vote in every age group below 55 and even in 05 above 55s were net tory

You may not like it but the younger below 50s from that are the Labour core

here's an interesting graph - comparing ACTUAL demographics, ie in 2010 ages, adjusted so someone age 30 in 2005 is identified as 35 in 2010, comparing General election demographic voting patterns; it shows a large earlyish middle aged labour contingent centred on 40 years old, more labour-biased than even younger age groups (2005 purple points), who in the 2010 election still break the trend and have a slight comparative bias towards labour, tho not as much as I thought earlier (click attachment --->)

Edited May 19, 2011 by Si1

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

This is complete nonsense. Given that our taxes and NI pay for collossal wastes like military missions all over the world to protect corporate interests, lots of public non-jobs, ridiculous salaries to public employees that behave like lords rather than public servants, I would say we are not paying just a portion but actually many times over the basic services that we are expecting.

This is complete nonsense.

What the government YOU ELECTED spent the money on is YOUR PROBLEM.

You elected a government that "promised" you a pension in exchange for, basically, NOTHING. NO money was put aside. It's not all in a big scrooge-mc-duck style money-silo somewhere - something the groups representing pensioners have actually suggested on national TV - the government gave back all the NI contributions as tax cuts elsewhere.

If the government YOU elected lied to you, that is YOUR problem. Take it up with THEM and the taxpayers of THAT era, NOT the current government and taxpayers of THIS era. Demanding your children and grandchildren compensate you for your own mistake is greedy, retarded and offensive.

You should have looked into it when you elected them and made sure that what they were offering was financially possible. If you just accepted it as read, that's YOUR fault. Either you didn't bother or you intended for someone else to have to pay.

Put simply if one group of tax payers enjoys the low-tax benefits of getting lied to by a government they chose, they can't expect the tax payers of another government to compensate them for their failure to check the facts. You might as well demand that France pay for your retirement.

Edited May 19, 2011 by RufflesTheGuineaPig

[tim123]

Interesting because:

a. The motivation behind this is purely one of protecting accrued housing wealth, and using taxpayers money for that purpose.

b. Another proposal to use public money to manipulate housing availability, therefore price.

c. If you don't need your house anymore, and have large bills to pay for alternative accommodation, and if selling the house allows you to pay those bills, then I believe that selling is a reasonable thing to do. Why should the State intervene?

d. In the long term the costs are going to be massive.

e. The terms are very generous when compared to the new student finance bill, which saddles young people with £60k of debt when they have no assets at all, whilst allowing an old person with £500k of assets to only part with £50k (for a bill which may bee £400k in todays values) with the taxpayer funding the rest.

It's another measure to be introduced by the wealthy with the sole aim of retaining their wealth by making everyone else pay for it.

Daily Mail

The headline is misleading.

For most people, having to fund the first 50K of care for themselves will still result in them having to sell their house.

tim

Edited May 19, 2011 by tim123

[The Eagle]

What the government YOU ELECTED spent the money on is YOUR PROBLEM.

Elections are a con, whoever you vote for doesn't matter, government policies are decided by the wealthy elite, you should have realised that by now.

And by the way I'm not a pensioner, when I said 'our' and 'we' I mean us, the common people who pay taxes on our income (that likely includes you too).

Edited May 19, 2011 by wise_eagle

[SarahBell]

I can see there being a problem here - one of the most basic motivations in life is to give your kids a better chance than you, and leaving an inheritance is part of that

Why should it be the full value of your savings and assets UNLESS they are prepared to shoulder the burder of paying for it.

Let the kids take the gamble.

mum and dad need care - but we'll pay for it and have the house/money/shares etc.

OK so they might pick bad care homes so parents don't last too long.But that works too!

[Quicken]

it's not seizing, it's selling a service

please explain how rich property owners are somehow more vulnerable than the poor b*ggers who will have to pay for all this instead

+1

[opt_out]

This is complete nonsense.

What the government YOU ELECTED spent the money on is YOUR PROBLEM.

You elected a government that "promised" you a pension in exchange for, basically, NOTHING. NO money was put aside. It's not all in a big scrooge-mc-duck style money-silo somewhere - something the groups representing pensioners have actually suggested on national TV - the government gave back all the NI contributions as tax cuts elsewhere.

If the government YOU elected lied to you, that is YOUR problem. Take it up with THEM and the taxpayers of THAT era, NOT the current government and taxpayers of THIS era. Demanding your children and grandchildren compensate you for your own mistake is greedy, retarded and offensive.

You should have looked into it when you elected them and made sure that what they were offering was financially possible. If you just accepted it as read, that's YOUR fault. Either you didn't bother or you intended for someone else to have to pay.

Put simply if one group of tax payers enjoys the low-tax benefits of getting lied to by a government they chose, they can't expect the tax payers of another government to compensate them for their failure to check the facts. You might as well demand that France pay for your retirement.

Well put.

On this subject, a friend of mine recently secured himself the equivalent of 10 years salary, just by arguing with the council. He got them to pay for his fathers nursing costs, rather than it being taken from his inheritance (fathers house).

[The Eagle]

Commoners fighting each other for scraps while the banksters live it up... I give up argueing with you lot, the banksters deserve all their ill gained wealth with sheeple like you.

[opt_out]

Commoners fighting each other for scraps while the banksters live it up... I give up argueing with you lot, the banksters deserve all their ill gained wealth with sheeple like you.

What's your argument?

Who should pay the care costs of the rich?

Edited May 19, 2011 by opt_out

[SHERWICK]

Commoners fighting each other for scraps while the banksters live it up... I give up argueing with you lot, the banksters deserve all their ill gained wealth with sheeple like you.

There you go again - you seem to think that the banksters made/make the most out of this - they are way, way down the food chain (and that includes the Rothchilds).

[SHERWICK]

You elected a government that "promised" you a pension in exchange for, basically, NOTHING. NO money was put aside. It's not all in a big scrooge-mc-duck style money-silo somewhere - something the groups representing pensioners have actually suggested on national TV - the government gave back all the NI contributions as tax cuts elsewhere spent all the NI contributions.

Corrected.