Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth
[
Rubbish. How as any of that helped people born in the 40s/50s?
|
They would have been in a prime age to buy and around 1970-1980. It was an ideal time to buy. Since then home-building has declined futher driving up the cost of the assets:
Government policy has been to continue to protect those prices.
Quote:
|
Exactly my point. Poor government policy has allowed this. Raiding the 40s/50s birth groups, which is what Javid and other postulated, would be pure theft. Hyperbole or not.
|
It's intentional policy to protect housing as an investment.
Quote:
|
You have a mild point there in so far as the Tories wanted to lock in the pensioners' vote. But the 40s/50s birth group paid their taxes (including up to 95% or summat for highest earners), paid their NI and it seems to me to be right that the government should protect their pensions because most of them have no other income. Before you go into criticising the triple lock, I understand and accept the rational for reducing it to a double lock in present fiscal circumstances.
|
There are all sorts of issues around pensions that we can't really get into here but simply put I do not really support reducing pensions. I think there is a grossly unfair age inequality in where the burden of austeity fell and how the current economy further penalises young people but it's not fair to cause pensoners to fall into.
But I also don't believe that whilst the people born in the 40/50s are a significant voting block that we'll see change to address these other problems.