Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Recommended Posts

For obvious demographic reasons, I think many here would agree that a system where each generation pays its own way would be preferable to the current pay-as-you-go system adopted in the UK and elsewhere.

I'm talking about state pensions, care, and perhaps aspects of the NHS.

The question is this:

Is there any way to transition to such a system without really screwing over at least one generation during the transition?

I think this is a defining question of our age, and the best I can come up with is LVT.

I would appreciate any other suggestions.

Cheers, Q

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't happen. The majority of humans in any western society do not generate enough wealth to keep them out of poverty post retirement.

The idea that you can work for 40 years and live decently for an extra 40years after that is just mental unless you are in the top 10% in ability (i.e. demand for your skills allows you to build up enough assets in the first 40 to pay for the second).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The idea that you can work for 40 years and live decently for an extra 40years after that is just mental

Quite. Do you live on a diet of olive oil, sessions in a deep freeze and preservatives?

No one in my family managed more than 15 years of retirement so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is one of the big issues being faced by the younger generation.

They are both having to support the boomer bulge and manage the transition from the bommers' final salary/unfunded schemes to their own funded poverty.

Well yes, and that is without putting the state pension onto a funded footing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is a defining question of our age, and the best I can come up with is LVT.

Myself, brothers, sister, other family and friends, will be dead before any softly-softly measures, smooth out protect the hpi, rebalances this nightmare. Let the market normalise.

I tolerated help to buy, and the triple lock on pensions, as politically expedient in order to continue a sensible conservative government in power, i was prepared to be poorer, all in it together, in order to make a fairer situation for later generations

But you give them an inch and they have taken a mile. This filibuster is without conscience, without morals, and without basic human awareness.

Nothing short of ruthless generational warfare is the final regrettable option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlikely. Redistribution is essentially from productive to non-productive. Retiree's are, by their nature, unproductive. Which means they either have the option of theft from the worker generation through taxes, inflation or Theft through rent-seeking behaviour...ie boomer landlordism.

They cant much keep their productivity (food, consumer durables etc) in a shed 50 years. It'll go moudly or become obsolete.

I guess they could invest their economic surplus in things we will likely still need in 50 years and price it at a level lower than the cost of future production, but that will only come on a personal level, as it offers no electoral payoff for, er, a generation, but a sacrifice now. Its also a complete stab in the dark. Maybe recycling things will be far cheaper in 50 years, maybe extracting raw materials will be.

Edited by Executive Sadman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that there are two parts to the question.

The first is in fairness for individuals. You need some value of assigning shares of things deemed communal national assets (e.g. habitable land, oil reserves). A land value tax might partially solve that.

The second is in the inheritance of one government to the next. For this, the idea of parliament being unable to bind its successors in legislative terms needs to be extended to encompass the financial binding by a government of its successor administration. In other words, for true inter-generational equity, no government would be able to issue national debt with a redemption date beyond the next election, or enter into commercial contracts on behalf of the country where the contract terms bound a future administration, for instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   215 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.