Pensioners - getting it their own way.

[kzb]

49 minutes ago, Si1 said:

Dude, there was nothing there for you to take umbrage over, I was just pointing out the definition is confused 

Most people on here, in fact I can't recall an exception, takes boomers as born 1946-1965, or sometimes even a bit earlier than 1965.  The hump in population actually occurs between birth dates 1955-1976.

Integrating the population between (and including) those years gives 17,089,970 persons.

Of which, 51.5% were born in or after 1966.  (The single greatest number occurs for 1965 birth year.)

So the pig in the python is a actually small majority Gen X over Boomers.  Language does matter, because it leads to "othering".  This definitely matters in all other areas, so why not this one?

 

 

 

[Si1]

13 minutes ago, kzb said:

Most people on here, in fact I can't recall an exception, takes boomers as born 1946-1965, or sometimes even a bit earlier than 1965.  The hump in population actually occurs between birth dates 1955-1976.

Integrating the population between (and including) those years gives 17,089,970 persons.

Of which, 51.5% were born in or after 1966.  (The single greatest number occurs for 1965 birth year.)

So the pig in the python is a actually small majority Gen X over Boomers.  Language does matter, because it leads to "othering".  This definitely matters in all other areas, so why not this one?

 

 

 

..

 

ok there's a fair accusation there so you're right we should try not to be discriminatory

and I'm sorry for having done that

I was just trying to discuss it objectively and I apologise, I wanted to base my points on actual numbers not just popular terms. People say it's 1946 to 1964 in the UK because they google it, get the american definition, and then they are lazy.

from the useful and flawed wikipedia:

"The generation is often defined as people born from 1946 to 1964, [that's just based on the US graphs as they dominate the discussion, as expanded later in the wiki article] during the Mid-20th century baby boom.[1] The dates ... may vary by country"

 

The pig in the python in the UK finished in about 1970. or perhaps a bit before. 1976 is not a hump in the population it is a bust. That's actually a bizarre thing to think going off the graph. I cannot understand how you concluded this.

[Bruce Banner]

3 hours ago, kzb said:

The HPC think tank has come up with the following solutions so far:

• There should be a flat rate for income tax, with no threshold.
• Tax the poor more
• Cut pensions to existing pensioners to £90 a week whilst instituting a pension investment fund for the future.

I trust the HPC party won't be standing for election any time soon.

https://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?/topic/246866-pensioners-getting-it-their-own-way/&do=findComment&comment=1103985583

 

[Bob8]

4 hours ago, Si1 said:

..

ok there's a fair accusation there so you're right we should try not to be discriminatory

and I'm sorry for having done that

I was just trying to discuss it objectively and I apologise, I wanted to base my points on actual numbers not just popular terms. People say it's 1946 to 1964 in the UK because they google it, get the american definition, and then they are lazy.

from the useful and flawed wikipedia:

"The generation is often defined as people born from 1946 to 1964, [that's just based on the US graphs as they dominate the discussion, as expanded later in the wiki article] during the Mid-20th century baby boom.[1] The dates ... may vary by country"

 

The pig in the python in the UK finished in about 1970. or perhaps a bit before. 1976 is not a hump in the population it is a bust. That's actually a bizarre thing to think going off the graph. I cannot understand how you concluded this.

TBF, I think "boomer" is just the term of the generatio for most people, not meaning much ore than X.

[Si1]

27 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

TBF, I think "boomer" is just the term of the generatio for most people, not meaning much ore than X.

So you don't think people have firm dates in their head, rather a kind of generational caricature?

[kzb]

21 hours ago, Si1 said:

ok there's a fair accusation there so you're right we should try not to be discriminatory

and I'm sorry for having done that

I was just trying to discuss it objectively and I apologise, I wanted to base my points on actual numbers not just popular terms. People say it's 1946 to 1964 in the UK because they google it, get the american definition, and then they are lazy.

Thanks for saying that.  If we can get beyond this name calling and the blame game, we might make some progress.

21 hours ago, Si1 said:

The pig in the python in the UK finished in about 1970. or perhaps a bit before. 1976 is not a hump in the population it is a bust. That's actually a bizarre thing to think going off the graph. I cannot understand how you concluded this.

The bounds of the peak are birth years 1955 to 1976.  By age in 2018 (which is what we are given on the graphic), that is age range 42 to 63.

1976 is the first year of increase after the minimum which precedes it.  It is not the peak of the hump, which occurs at age 53 (2018 age).

Understand now?

[adarmo]

Reading through this thread it seems that it's boomers (1945-1965) who are all now of retirement age being hated on. I'm early 1980s so I guess I sit in the middle. 

My observations are simply that it seems like we're charging the young £10K a year to go to uni (while engineering a labour market which demands a degree for almost everything) while giving £10K a year to boomers regardless of what they paid in or how wealthy they are. 

But, there is a simple solution to this and I don't blame boomers for this at all. I blame everyone under the age of 67..... for not voting. 

Government takes everyone's money and redistributes it, to refugees, the healthcare system, boomers etc. The reason boomer is on the receiving end of so much generosity is simply because they vote and younger people tend to be less inclined to vote. 

You get moronic and entitled boomers just like you get moronic and entitled every other demographic. They aren't responsible for their windfall, younger people who do not vote are.

Such is voting apathy among the young now that government doesn't fear screwing them over at all. But the government is very afraid of rocking the boomer boat since that simple and singular demographic makes up such a huge voting block any party's power rides on securing it. 

Society gets the government it deserves. 

If you don't vote you don't count. Until everyone votes expect this to continue. 

[Si1]

4 hours ago, kzb said:

Thanks for saying that.  If we can get beyond this name calling and the blame game, we might make some progress.

The bounds of the peak are birth years 1955 to 1976.

 

This is just basically mathematically untrue. 1976 is a minimum well below the average. It is absolutely kindergarten level.

 

 

4 hours ago, kzb said:

By age in 2018 (which is what we are given on the graphic), that is age range 42 to 63.

1976 is the first year of increase after the minimum which precedes it.  It is not the peak of the hump, which occurs at age 53 (2018 age).

Understand now?

 

[kzb]

31 minutes ago, Si1 said:

This is just basically mathematically untrue. 1976 is a minimum well below the average. It is absolutely kindergarten level.

1976 is not the peak nor the average.  It is one step up from the minimum, which occurs at age (in 2018) 41, birth year 1977.

2018 Age    Birth year    Number

42                1976           793602

43                1975          808123

44                1974          822380

etc

 

[Bob8]

3 hours ago, adarmo said:

Reading through this thread it seems that it's boomers (1945-1965) who are all now of retirement age being hated on. I'm early 1980s so I guess I sit in the middle. 

My observations are simply that it seems like we're charging the young £10K a year to go to uni (while engineering a labour market which demands a degree for almost everything) while giving £10K a year to boomers regardless of what they paid in or how wealthy they are. 

But, there is a simple solution to this and I don't blame boomers for this at all. I blame everyone under the age of 67..... for not voting. 

Government takes everyone's money and redistributes it, to refugees, the healthcare system, boomers etc. The reason boomer is on the receiving end of so much generosity is simply because they vote and younger people tend to be less inclined to vote. 

You get moronic and entitled boomers just like you get moronic and entitled every other demographic. They aren't responsible for their windfall, younger people who do not vote are.

Such is voting apathy among the young now that government doesn't fear screwing them over at all. But the government is very afraid of rocking the boomer boat since that simple and singular demographic makes up such a huge voting block any party's power rides on securing it. 

Society gets the government it deserves. 

If you don't vote you don't count. Until everyone votes expect this to continue. 

Voting is ineffective but more effective than not voting.

I suggest that what we have seen is a move from working being a good way of accruing wealth to asset holding and wealth being a better way of accruing wealth.

The generation aspect comes in because the older generation are often oblivious to this shift, as obliviousness assures then that they were great for earing so much and the younger generation will be fine once they grow up a bit. Meanwhile, the young typically do not mix with those who are hugely wealthy, and the only asset holders they typically know are the older generation.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

On 29/11/2022 at 14:38, Si1 said:

 

The pig in the python in the UK finished in about 1970. or perhaps a bit before. 1976 is not a hump in the population it is a bust. That's actually a bizarre thing to think going off the graph. I cannot understand how you concluded this.

Correct, they were in fact reducing school places as I went through. The big advantage was smaller class sizes.

If there is any increase in GenX, really its down to immigration, many who may retire back home. I have quite a few international colleagues in the UK, and if you can retire to the Caribbean or the South of France, why wouldn't you.

[Mikhail Liebenstein]

7 hours ago, kzb said:

1976 is the first year of increase after the minimum which precedes it.  It is not the peak of the hump, which occurs at age 53 (2018 age).

Understand now?

Yes, 53 in 2018 is now 57-58 (most 58).

I make that a boomer.

[kzb]

3 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Correct, they were in fact reducing school places as I went through. The big advantage was smaller class sizes.

If there is any increase in GenX, really its down to immigration, many who may retire back home. I have quite a few international colleagues in the UK, and if you can retire to the Caribbean or the South of France, why wouldn't you.

I'd guess they are past usual immigration age.  We are talking about people who are aged 46 to 63, with the peak number at age 57.

Those aged 46 to 55 inclusive are Gen X and slightly outnumber boomers in the population hump.

 

[kzb]

35 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Yes, 53 in 2018 is now 57-58 (most 58).

I make that a boomer.

Birth year 1965, so yes.

Despite that being the most populous birth year within that bulge, when you count up the people above and below, Gen X makes up 56.9% of the bulge.

[kzb]

5 hours ago, adarmo said:

Reading through this thread it seems that it's boomers (1945-1965) who are all now of retirement age being hated on. I'm early 1980s so I guess I sit in the middle. 

My observations are simply that it seems like we're charging the young £10K a year to go to uni (while engineering a labour market which demands a degree for almost everything) while giving £10K a year to boomers regardless of what they paid in or how wealthy they are. 

But, there is a simple solution to this and I don't blame boomers for this at all. I blame everyone under the age of 67..... for not voting. 

Government takes everyone's money and redistributes it, to refugees, the healthcare system, boomers etc. The reason boomer is on the receiving end of so much generosity is simply because they vote and younger people tend to be less inclined to vote. 

You get moronic and entitled boomers just like you get moronic and entitled every other demographic. They aren't responsible for their windfall, younger people who do not vote are.

Such is voting apathy among the young now that government doesn't fear screwing them over at all. But the government is very afraid of rocking the boomer boat since that simple and singular demographic makes up such a huge voting block any party's power rides on securing it. 

Society gets the government it deserves. 

If you don't vote you don't count. Until everyone votes expect this to continue. 

But which party is going to stand on a platform of reducing the state pension?  Or means testing it?

The most likely party to do that would be the Tories.  Labour will not be promising this anytime soon.  So you'll all have to vote Tory?

The other week on TV they had a panel of the public, about 20 of them, one of the questions they were asked was, "would you get rid of the pension triple lock?"  Not a single one said yes get rid of it.  100% of them were keen to retain the triple lock.

Quite sensible, because if you remove it, you are reducing your own future pension.  All of them on the TV programme had the sense to know this.

The other thing that most people will know is, this shouldn't be a about the share out between boomers and the people younger than them.  It should be about the share-out between pensions and other state spending.

People on here would rather screw over their elders than sort out spending on immigration, Net Zero and the like.  They don't seem to have the sense to realise they are also screwing over themselves.

 

 

 

[adarmo]

3 hours ago, kzb said:

But which party is going to stand on a platform of reducing the state pension?  Or means testing it?

The most likely party to do that would be the Tories.  Labour will not be promising this anytime soon.  So you'll all have to vote Tory?

The other week on TV they had a panel of the public, about 20 of them, one of the questions they were asked was, "would you get rid of the pension triple lock?"  Not a single one said yes get rid of it.  100% of them were keen to retain the triple lock.

Quite sensible, because if you remove it, you are reducing your own future pension.  All of them on the TV programme had the sense to know this.

The other thing that most people will know is, this shouldn't be a about the share out between boomers and the people younger than them.  It should be about the share-out between pensions and other state spending.

People on here would rather screw over their elders than sort out spending on immigration, Net Zero and the like.  They don't seem to have the sense to realise they are also screwing over themselves.

Imagine everyone at work telling you what to do, telling you to do things differently but only a handful of people have the power to make your life difficult or fire you. To whom do you listen?

Until everyone votes there's no argument. The easiest voting blocs to bribe win. 

There is no persuading people to vote - why would anyone decide they'd like more people to please? 

I do not for the life of me not understand how people cannot grasp this. I don't understand why people don't vote. To say 'there's nothing worth voting for' is a simple admission of ignorance of how the system works. 

5 hours ago, Bob8 said:

Voting is ineffective but more effective than not voting.

I suggest that what we have seen is a move from working being a good way of accruing wealth to asset holding and wealth being a better way of accruing wealth.

The generation aspect comes in because the older generation are often oblivious to this shift, as obliviousness assures then that they were great for earing so much and the younger generation will be fine once they grow up a bit. Meanwhile, the young typically do not mix with those who are hugely wealthy, and the only asset holders they typically know are the older generation.

This is contradictory. 

I think what you mean to say is that a single vote makes no difference and I agree. I'm not advocating simply one more person votes. I'm advocating everyone goes out to vote. 

The numbers are easily available but over 75% of the over 65s go out and vote. Guess what keeps that group happy? No tax on main house, free triple lock income, lower tax rates on income (no NI ffs!!), free healthcare, better benefits, better legal rights (stat min redundancy pay for instance) and lockdowns to stop them catching the Wu-Flu

What keeps young people happy? Cheap housing, free education, secure employment and tenure of home etc no lockdowns.

Guess which group the government is scared of?

[Bob8]

6 hours ago, adarmo said:

Imagine everyone at work telling you what to do, telling you to do things differently but only a handful of people have the power to make your life difficult or fire you. To whom do you listen?

Until everyone votes there's no argument. The easiest voting blocs to bribe win. 

There is no persuading people to vote - why would anyone decide they'd like more people to please? 

I do not for the life of me not understand how people cannot grasp this. I don't understand why people don't vote. To say 'there's nothing worth voting for' is a simple admission of ignorance of how the system works. 

This is contradictory. 

I think what you mean to say is that a single vote makes no difference and I agree. I'm not advocating simply one more person votes. I'm advocating everyone goes out to vote. 

The numbers are easily available but over 75% of the over 65s go out and vote. Guess what keeps that group happy? No tax on main house, free triple lock income, lower tax rates on income (no NI ffs!!), free healthcare, better benefits, better legal rights (stat min redundancy pay for instance) and lockdowns to stop them catching the Wu-Flu

What keeps young people happy? Cheap housing, free education, secure employment and tenure of home etc no lockdowns.

Guess which group the government is scared of?

On an individual basis, voting makes little sense. Even as an of political activism, it makes little sense. If I go back to my 21 year old self, I had a job with long hours, long train ride to work, stuff to sort out at home and a missus to keep happy. Taking time to vote (which I did) did not make individual sense in the way it does for a pensioner. 

Even as political activity, there are probably more effective things you can do with the thirty minutes out of your day. 

It makes sense to us mainly on the basis of community involvement and once these things are done en masse.

[Si1]

6 hours ago, adarmo said:

Imagine everyone at work telling you what to do, telling you to do things differently but only a handful of people have the power to make your life difficult or fire you. To whom do you listen?

Until everyone votes there's no argument. The easiest voting blocs to bribe win. 

There is no persuading people to vote - why would anyone decide they'd like more people to please? 

I do not for the life of me not understand how people cannot grasp this. I don't understand why people don't vote. To say 'there's nothing worth voting for' is a simple admission of ignorance of how the system works. 

This is contradictory. 

I think what you mean to say is that a single vote makes no difference and I agree. I'm not advocating simply one more person votes. I'm advocating everyone goes out to vote. 

The numbers are easily available but over 75% of the over 65s go out and vote. Guess what keeps that group happy? No tax on main house, free triple lock income, lower tax rates on income (no NI ffs!!), free healthcare, better benefits, better legal rights (stat min redundancy pay for instance) and lockdowns to stop them catching the Wu-Flu

What keeps young people happy? Cheap housing, free education, secure employment and tenure of home etc no lockdowns.

Guess which group the government is scared of?

I'll tell you why this doesn't work, it's because the tail wags the dog. In the case of the UK baby boom cohort (1946-1970 birth dates approx) there's a clearly delineated massive commonish interest group the politicians can focus on as a quick political win. The later cohorts simply don't form the same scale of common interests, far mor diffuse and less numerous, no amount of voting will change this. The apathy in later generations votes has come about because politicians aren't interested in those voters anyway, and voting won't even change that.

[Unmoderated]

2 hours ago, Si1 said:

I'll tell you why this doesn't work, it's because the tail wags the dog. In the case of the UK baby boom cohort (1946-1970 birth dates approx) there's a clearly delineated massive commonish interest group the politicians can focus on as a quick political win. The later cohorts simply don't form the same scale of common interests, far mor diffuse and less numerous, no amount of voting will change this. The apathy in later generations votes has come about because politicians aren't interested in those voters anyway, and voting won't even change that.

They only focus on them because they vote. If 18 to 45 year old voted in the same numbers you'd have cheaper uni fees, lower house prices and better value childcare. But they don't. 

The over 65s vote like mad so they get the moon on a stick. 

The point isn't about boomers being selfish. Voter apathy is to blame. 

It's so simple lol. 

[Si1]

6 minutes ago, Unmoderated said:

They only focus on them because they vote. If 18 to 45 year old voted in the same numbers you'd have cheaper uni fees, lower house prices and better value childcare. But they don't. 

They can't because there's less of them. That's my point 

6 minutes ago, Unmoderated said:

The over 65s vote like mad so they get the moon on a stick. 

The point isn't about boomers being selfish. Voter apathy is to blame. 

It's so simple lol. 

 

[kzb]

17 minutes ago, Si1 said:

They can't because there's less of them. That's my point 

Hang on there are far more people of working age than pensioners in the population.

[Si1]

3 minutes ago, kzb said:

Hang on there are far more people of working age than pensioners in the population.

My bad. I meant there's less 18-45 than over 45

[kzb]

29 minutes ago, Unmoderated said:

They only focus on them because they vote. If 18 to 45 year old voted in the same numbers you'd have cheaper uni fees, lower house prices and better value childcare. But they don't. 

The over 65s vote like mad so they get the moon on a stick. 

The point isn't about boomers being selfish. Voter apathy is to blame. 

It's so simple lol. 

This lot on here have this crazy idea that "boomers" voted for high house prices and university fees.  They think there is some kind of boomer plot to keep them all impoverished.

Let's face it what you vote for and what you get are two very different things.

[kzb]

2 minutes ago, Si1 said:

My bad. I meant there's less 18-45 than over 45

And when you get to 45 you will start having that boring interest in pensions.

[Unmoderated]

21 minutes ago, Si1 said:

They can't because there's less of them. That's my point 

 

I see the point you're making but the stats disagree with you.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/281208/population-of-the-england-by-age-group/

They're listened to because they are disproportionately more likely to vote. 

5 minutes ago, kzb said:

Hang on there are far more people of working age than pensioners in the population.

Correct. Its about 19% of UK total population are retired.