Every person should expect to support themselves until they are 70 years old.
Now. Not 'phased in' over the entire youth of the next generation; I'd like to benefit too from the boost in my income, never mind my children's.
All the pensioner parasites who think they've made it into Shangri-La - 70.
Or pay for yourself to stop working with private arrangements; (it's our own business what we do with our own money, if we want to do nothing whose to mind?).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
More power to your elbow, HG!
After all, pensions are only a form of compulsory saving, a paternalistic measure which could be replaced by assistance to the sick and the destitute. No need, however, to subsidise this form of compulsory saving indulging the aged in a lifestyle that society cannot afford.
But the very ageing process that has raised the burden of pensions to an intolerable level has also given added political weight to the aged. There is a glaring conflict of interests between them and the rest of the population, which voting procedures enable them to resolve to their privileged and unfair advantage. Old age pensioners never go on strike - except once every five years, penalising any party that might advocate a mild increase in retiring age, let alone your revolutionary rise to 70 years.
Let me make a revolutionary proposal to accompany yours: voters should have their individual vote in elections weighted by their residual life expectancy. Only a move in this direction will deliver the policy you advocate.
Onwards and forwards, HG!
And, C, children's votes, weighted by their life expectancy, should be attributed to their parents. Three cheers for democracy.
Effectively we are giving the old a say over the lives of the young even after they are dead by allowing them to determine future pension regimes.
What a can of worms you open here! The State Pension is the least of it. Look at the whole system of concessions and allowances set up to make it possible for large numbers of elderly people to rattle about alone in houses that are unsuitable and far too large for them.
Yer can't be thinking of state pension as shangri la can you? You must have a very low salary as its only about £20 a week
I'll go along with that Hats!
My pension was raped by Brown years ago to pay for his disgrace of an economy, and the problem I faced a few years ago is the very reason why I ditched all conventional 'jobs', and decided to work for myself.
Everything is in hock, pensions shot to ribbons, and mortgage far too high, but the time me and my business partners have spent in the last few years, is expected to bring what we need for the age 70 and beyond.
If it doesn't, then I've got myself to blame, but we're damn well fighting. So far so good!
Our problem in my business is the huge payload of jobsworths in public services that we have to deal with all the time. They leech profits with their obduracy and timid but assiduaous attention to rules and regulations set up mainly by Gnulab.
Cameron has to make this big push to reasonable cutbacks stick like s*** to a blanket, beacuse, as reported on TPA, (which you've seen), I would like to expect that my endeavours realise value in my retirement, (with Mrs S of course, because she's invested anxiety and fear as well), instead of some sponger in public services, who is fully expecting a big payout, and will probably get it if the Stalinista keep pinching our money.
After the Brown tax Raid and the way the private sector have been treated as compared to the Public any spare cash I have goes into property before a pension and I expect to work until I die .. So does Mrs. N and we `ll never really have any money.
I had a post a while ago about generational exploitation which is far more to do with property than anything elseWe live in a cocuntry where parents are taking world cruises and retired on final salary pensions in their 50s when their children have no hope of affording anyhwhere to live and will work until they drop.
I `ll look out my original piece on it
There's a serious imbalance in the ability to earn one's way in life, and the ability to claim one's way through life; and quite a large proportion of the claimants, under various heads, are the elderly. Yet they have had the longest go, and the best chance to make themselves a decent berth. Instead younger people are buckling under the contribution they must make to all these claimants.
Mutley are you thinking of only some pensions in the public sector? The claimants from higher up in the pecking order are taking over £100,000 a year out, and they are numerous and long-lived in comparison with what was expected at the beginning of their working lives. Judges, senior medics, first division civil servants, senior policemen, high rank local government officers, politicians, government appointees to nomenklatura jobs on boards and commissions and agencies - the list goes on and on. And the cost goes up and up.
Thank you N, I read your piece on intergenerational transfer; you are very forgiving of the upwards generations, though much of their wealth was wholly unearned, the product of three sustained property booms, they would have had to be hopeless to not have made hundreds of thousands, often millions, when there was the opportunity to buy at the beginning of the seventies or earlier; 1992 was just a blip. I think it wholly reasonable that some of that windfall gain should be used to help grandchildren to make a start; perhaps it could be advanced by lifting intervivos gift tax but leaving death taxes.
The Labour regime is considering proposals to vary levels of 'benefits' (various) by area of the country in which they are drawn; presumably that should include state wages as well.
Cats, pigeons, unions.
Post a Comment