Britain outside the EU

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

That'll be the old people paying in while we ran a deficit at the same time as plundering state assets in privatisation?

Nobody is entitled to anything on the basis of money that wasn't paid in. It's a complete lie on the part of the older generations to pretend otherwise.

2.5 trillion pounds of debt. Someone wasn't paying.

People who retired aged 65+ had paid in for 40+ years.
Some have pensions sufficiently high for tax to continue being paid.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

People who retired aged 65+ had paid in for 40+ years.
Some have pensions sufficiently high for tax to continue being paid.

They paid in, yes, and the Government (broadly) consistently spent more than it took in year on year. There's no side pot to pay for their pensions or social care. It's a fallacy.

The average person retiring at 66, and living to 81 (UK life expectancy), will take £166,000 back out in state pension. Or about 5 times the average salary.

The average earner pays £2,000 a year in national insurance. Or through their working life to "pay in" £90,000-100k even if we pretended that such a side pot did exist.

The whole thing is a ponzi scheme - only without more people to pay in (by having kids, or migration) it's inevitably going to collapse. The only question is which generations that burden falls to. And we haven't even touched social care.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by jfman

They paid in, yes, and the Government (broadly) consistently spent more than it took in year on year. There's no side pot to pay for their pensions or social care. It's a fallacy.

The average person retiring at 66, and living to 81 (UK life expectancy), will take £166,000 back out in state pension. Or about 5 times the average salary.

The average earner pays £2,000 a year in national insurance. Or through their working life to "pay in" £90,000-100k even if we pretended that such a side pot did exist.

The whole thing is a ponzi scheme - only without more people to pay in (by having kids, or migration) it's inevitably going to collapse. The only question is which generations that burden falls to. And we haven't even touched social care.

No doubt you are right.

But it was away from the point of addressing Ian's spitefulness towards older people. They should not be slagged off like that.

Originally Posted by jfman

They paid in, yes, and the Government (broadly) consistently spent more than it took in year on year. There's no side pot to pay for their pensions or social care. It's a fallacy.

The average person retiring at 66, and living to 81 (UK life expectancy), will take £166,000 back out in state pension. Or about 5 times the average salary.

The average earner pays £2,000 a year in national insurance. Or through their working life to "pay in" £90,000-100k even if we pretended that such a side pot did exist.

The whole thing is a ponzi scheme - only without more people to pay in (by having kids, or migration) it's inevitably going to collapse. The only question is which generations that burden falls to. And we haven't even touched social care.

Why compare something paid out over 15 years against something earned in one year?

[jfman]

The intention wasn't to make that the comparison, I was just using the "average" throughout and it seemed a reasonable way to provide context for the average salary (£33k).

Although I can see why the presentation did.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

No doubt you are right.

But it was away from the point of addressing Ian's spitefulness towards older people. They should not be slagged off like that.

I can understand Ian's frustration given how his poor opera singer son has had career opportunities denied him because of Brexit. I feel incredibly sorry for jonbxx's daughter too. Both likely too young to have been able to vote in the ill-advised referendum and both more explicitly impacted than many who did.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I can understand Ian's frustration given how his poor opera singer son has had career opportunities denied him because of Brexit. I feel incredibly sorry for jonbxx's daughter too. Both likely too young to have been able to vote in the ill-advised referendum and both more explicitly impacted than many who did.

Was that the right way for Ian to express jis 'frustration'?
And don't older people have the same rights as everyone else - a fact implicitly deprecated by Ian.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Was that the right way for Ian to express jis 'frustration'?
And don't older people have the same rights as everyone else - a fact implicitly deprecated by Ian.

Chill out snowflake, what Ian said wasn't that bad, might even be accurate to varying degrees

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Chill out snowflake, what Ian said wasn't that bad, might even be accurate to varying degrees

It is plain wrong to attack the older generation purely because they might have voted for Brexit. He also implied that they are now freeloading on what others are paying in. Disgraceful and perhaps you should agree with me on this one.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Was that the right way for Ian to express jis 'frustration'?
And don't older people have the same rights as everyone else - a fact implicitly deprecated by Ian.

The right way is to state the facts as they stand. You, and certain others, may not like to hear the truth but I am not going to pander to your delicate sensibilities here, the reality remains.

Here's a good analysis of the position I am outlining:

How baby boomers became the most selfish generation

The baby boomers who have controlled this country since the 1980s are a selfish, entitled generation. It is not your imagination, and it didn't come out of nowhere.

From the 1920s to the 1960s, corporations were expected to take care of their workers and their communities. And citizens were encouraged to do the best for their country. Taxes were high, workers were well paid, the middle class was built, and America prospered.

But there were stumbles, and Friedman and his ilk took advantage of a major one in the 1970s: When the US abandoned the gold standard and the price of oil exploded, neoclassical economists blamed regulation for the country's economic malaise.

Protections for workers were undone. Unions were busted. And serious politicians started to argue that cutting taxes for the rich would benefit everyone, as those cuts would encourage the wealthy to spend more money that would "trickle down" to the rest of the populace.

Former New York Times executive editor Bill Keller put the results of this ideology in a perfect paragraph back in 2012:

"In 1962, we were laying down the foundations of prosperity. About 32 cents of every federal dollar, excluding interest payments, was spent on investments, only 14 percent on entitlements. In the mid-70s the lines crossed. Today we spend less than 15 cents on investment and 46 cents on entitlements. And it gets worse. By 2030, when the last of us boomers have surged onto the Social Security rolls, entitlements will consume 61 cents of every federal dollar, starving our already neglected investment and leaving us, in the words of the study, with 'a less-skilled work force, lower rates of job creation, and an infrastructure unfit for a 21st-century economy.'"

As the article says, there is hope:

There is hope, though.

Millennials, a generation even larger than their parents, have grown up watching this selfishness in action. They watched how the recklessness of the housing boom and bust wreaked havoc on our society and forced them to reach adulthood in a world in which opportunity is shrinking. They do not benefit from the selfishness of their parents.

And hopefully they will not emulate it either.

---------- Post added at 14:40 ---------- Previous post was at 14:36 ----------

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

Chill out snowflake, what Ian said wasn't that bad, might even be accurate to varying degrees

You have a point they are being snowflakes here, which is very, very ironic given their political stance

What I said was very accurate: the majority of 50/60/70/80+ voters wilfully denying the very obvious wishes of their children/grandchildren is not a good look.

---------- Post added at 14:45 ---------- Previous post was at 14:40 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

That'll be the old people paying in while we ran a deficit at the same time as plundering state assets in privatisation?

Nobody is entitled to anything on the basis of money that wasn't paid in. It's a complete lie on the part of the older generations to pretend otherwise.

2.5 trillion pounds of debt. Someone wasn't paying.

And guess who will be paying (through taxation) for the pension & care provision of these people? Yes, the very people who had their future denied to them

---------- Post added at 14:50 ---------- Previous post was at 14:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Was that the right way for Ian to express jis 'frustration'?
And don't older people have the same rights as everyone else - a fact implicitly deprecated by Ian.

I said nothing of the sort. Trying reading next time and not just projecting your twisted narrative

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by ianch99

You may think so but that is no surprise to anyone.

---------- Post added at 14:36 ---------- Previous post was at 14:28 ----------



The right way is to state the facts as they stand. You, and certain others, may not like to hear the truth but I am not going to pander to your delicate sensibilities here, the reality remains.

Here's a good analysis of the position I am outlining:

How baby boomers became the most selfish generation



As the article says, there is hope:



---------- Post added at 14:40 ---------- Previous post was at 14:36 ----------



You have a point they are being snowflakes here, which is very, very ironic given their political stance

What I said was very accurate: the majority of 50/60/70/80+ voters wilfully denying the very obvious wishes of their children/grandchildren is not a good look.

---------- Post added at 14:45 ---------- Previous post was at 14:40 ----------



And guess who will be paying (through taxation) for the pension & care provision of these people? Yes, the very people who had their future denied to them

---------- Post added at 14:50 ---------- Previous post was at 14:45 ----------



I said nothing of the sort. Trying reading next time and not just projecting your twisted narrative

The article you quoted was pertinent to the US scene and not to Brexit nor anything like it.

Your fundamental position seems to be that older people should have sacrificed their view to that of the young people. That is not what life (and democracy) is about. The younger people haven't given a thought to Brussels making our over-arching laws. And before you bleat about the older people not being wise enough to foresee the current situation, I point out that they certainly understand the long game.

And guess who will be paying (through taxation) for the pension & care provision of these people? Yes, the very people who had their future denied to them

... and guess who the money that the older people have paid in will pay for? What happened to that money? You are disgusting.

I said nothing of the sort. Trying reading next time and not just projecting your twisted narrative

As I said, it was implicit in your statement that the older people were doing something wrong by exercising their democratic right in the Referendum.

You are too bitter to see things in the right proportions.

You inferred it was implied - perhaps projection?

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Hugh

You inferred it was implied - perhaps projection?

Helpful as ever.

[mrmistoffelees]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Your remarks are spiteful, rather than the existence of the older folk whom you clearly despise. Also, please don't forget that the older folk have paid their way in taxes and NI and entitled to what's left of the care system.

Since when did paying taxes and NI entitle you to a pension ? A persons contributions don’t pay for their pension they pay for the pensions of those entitled to a pension at the time the contribution is made.

[jfman]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

[COLOR="Blue"]Your fundamental position seems to be that older people should have sacrificed their view to that of the young people.

Of course the opposite is true from those who insist on minimum periods, often a generation, between such votes being put to the people.

If democracy is this hotbed of cutthroat self interest, old people can’t complain if young people overturn their decision, and indeed vote against the interests of “older people” at the soonest opportunity (if they so wish).

To retain bad decisions and flawed economics out of “respect” would run counter to your overarching view.