Baby Boomers: are they bleeding the welfare state and the co

[Dark Knight]

Caught an interesting article on the News about how "Baby Boomer" pensions account for over half of the welfare budget in the UK at £110 Billion a year
the argument being that the BB's have cashed on the rise in benefits (pensions) and the staggering rise in house prices and salaries over the last 50 years?
interestingly the most vocal defenders of that generation are the ones who are in it and coining it in.
and the best defence is about 10% of pensioners are struggling? so 90% of them are comfortably off and doing well, thanks very much
A second point made was that the current generation cannot afford to get on the property ladder due to the exorbitant cost of houses and that the BB's are in danger of being left with an unsellable asset, which for many is the backbone of thier wealth?


Discuss

ps before anyone goes off on one, the description of a state pension as a benefit, is what the media and the institute for fiscal studies described it as, so don't go getting stroppy about it not being a benefit, coz it is

[david63]

This, in my opinion, is yet another case of a "media grabbing headline".

Everyone knows about the post war baby boom and impact that it was going to have on pensions (and possibly other benefits) but as is normally the case all governments for the last 60 years or so have buried their heads in the sand in the hope that it would go away (which was never an option) or leave it for someone else to sort out (which was always going to have to happen)

I am not sure that the cost of property can be solely laid at the door of the baby boomers as there are many other factors involved - not least natural market forces aided and abetted by irresponsible mortgage lending over the years, arguably to the post baby boomer generation.

[Silver_Shiney]

House prices are ridiculously expensive and long-overdue a sharp correction downwards. If the government had had the courage to impose real austerity measures, it would, I understand, mean that a great many people would be made redundant and thus unable to afford their mortgages, leading to a mass sell-off. This would then drive prices down. That would be good for the people desparate to get on the property ladder but, obviously, terrible for the people losing their jobs and their homes. It has to be said, though, a good many people bought inadvisedly under the self-certification scheme so if they are lumbered with a mortgage they could not have afforded in the first place had they given verified income figures, I'm afraid I have little sympathy.

As for the pension benefit crisis, I do not think it is all a matter of a humungous number of BBs - don't forget that nice Mr Brown disposed of a small fortune in the pension pot. SERPS/SSP, whatever it is called these days, is going to be phased out, which is why everyone is being encouraged to make their own pension provision, either through personal pension plans (arranged either privately (PPP) or through their employer (GPPP)). I do not know if this is still the case but just before I left the industry, you could take out a personal pension plan even if you were unemployed and your contribution(s) would still attract tax relief - also anyone else could make contributions on your behalf.

There are several ways in which public finances could have the strain reduced on them (IMHO), for example: withdraw winter fuel grants from those who spend the winter out of the country (should be easy to monitor using the existing system used at points of entry/exit to warn staff of "wanted" individuals), withdraw TVs and other "luxuries" from prisons and make them harsher places (which, hopefully, would deter people from doing anything that might risk them going there (in my dreams, yeah!)), withdraw sprog-production as a career option for the feckless, sell confiscated legitimate goods instead of destroying them.

[Quizzical Bob]

Oh not again, DK.

George Brown stole any private pension I might have received so I'm not in a good mood about this. Once again, it's not a benefit if it's something you've paid for. Read the article in today's Daily Mail for another view.

[Dark Knight]

QB

Daily Mail? The mouthpiece of the middle England Baby Boomers? the article you mention is written by a BB, so hardly unbiased reporting is it?
Please you get more sense out of the Daily Sport or the lads mags
Anyway, the initial statement was made by the Bishop of London, so don't shoot the messanger and read the last line of me original post and stop trying to make out your benefit it is a right, coz everyone agrees it is a benefit apart from you

[sumdumbloke]

Good spot, DK

In fact it was the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, who made a speech earlier in the week making the moral case against those who've drained the pot. This augments the economic case which is unarguable.

[Quizzical Bob]

Good spot, DK

In fact it was the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, who made a speech earlier in the week making the moral case against those who've drained the pot. This augments the economic case which is unarguable.

There is no moral case against. These pensions were paid for. The British Government is not Robert Maxwell.

[oldbluefox]

I'm a baby boomer and am now on a pension. I worked for it, I earned it and now I accept it. I have a lovely house bought with an at one time 15% mortgage and can assure you, contrary to what you believe, as a baby boomer life has not been easy. For those who are whingeing now, get over it. Plan your own lives and plan for your own retirement because what you have now is far better than what we had at your age.
I can't be bothered to explain (again) what life for baby boomers has been like as it's a waste of time and the moaners only believe what they want to believe so the debate is pointless, and has already been covered before, ad infinitum.
The fact that successive governments have persistently raided the pension pot for their own initiatives is not the fault of those who paid into it.

[Not so ancient mariner]

George Brown stole any private pension I might have received so I'm not in a good mood about this. Once again, it's not a benefit if it's something you've paid for. Read the article in today's Daily Mail for another view.

That must have been a long time ago. He was in Harold Wilson's government in the 1960s

[ChesterfieldJohn]

Good spot, DK

In fact it was the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, who made a speech earlier in the week making the moral case against those who've drained the pot. This augments the economic case which is unarguable.

There is no moral case against. These pensions were paid for. The British Government is not Robert Maxwell.

No Robert Maxwell was more honest than parliamentarians.



John

[Jan Rosser]

Well said Foxy - I'm in the same position as you - life hasn't been a bed of roses contrary to what many people believe - 15% mortgages - imagine if they came back again

Call it what you want "benefit" "old age pension" whatever I'm accepting it along with my works pension for which I paid superannuation for many years. I remember contributing to the pension scheme was compulsory unlike today where youngsters have the option and many prefer to have the money to spend now after all 65 is a long way off I remember thinking that once but it creeps up all too quickly

I do feel sorry for the youngsters today as the pension age is being pushed further and further away but my generation is not equal in terms of pensions/homes/lifestyle - I'm in the position I am today because my husband did not go "down the mines" - he was the first in the family who went to university and gained a 1st class hons degree through sheer hard work. Unfortunately he is not here now to share my life but provided for me through paying into his civil service pension scheme so I may be "cash rich" but how many would swap with me I wonder

The Bishop has certainly opened a can of worms hasn't he - I look forward to reading some of the responses on the forum - one thing is for certain - we are not going to agree

[Quizzical Bob]

George Brown stole any private pension I might have received so I'm not in a good mood about this. Once again, it's not a benefit if it's something you've paid for. Read the article in today's Daily Mail for another view.

That must have been a long time ago. He was in Harold Wilson's government in the 1960s

I blame predictive text, and anyone else.

[Admiral of the Humber]

Good spot, DK

In fact it was the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, who made a speech earlier in the week making the moral case against those who've drained the pot. This augments the economic case which is unarguable.

There is no moral case against. These pensions were paid for. The British Government is not Robert Maxwell.

No Robert Maxwell was more honest than parliamentarians.



John

What an inane and derogatory post.

Regards

Rob aka AOTH

[towny44]

I'm not sure if I am a BB, possibly not as I was born in 1944, but as the beneficiary of a very good final salary pension I am quite probably in the category that the B of L referred to.
Could I survive without the state pension, probably, do I think I am fortunate, yes very, would I be willing to give up the state benefit, not until the politicians start to listen to what the electorate want, and not until local govt., central govt. and EU govt. start to exercise financial restraint themselves and we reduce state administrative spending to a level that no politician would be prepared to tolerate.
Is that a clear enough no?

[ChesterfieldJohn]

Good spot, DK

In fact it was the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, who made a speech earlier in the week making the moral case against those who've drained the pot. This augments the economic case which is unarguable.

There is no moral case against. These pensions were paid for. The British Government is not Robert Maxwell.

No Robert Maxwell was more honest than parliamentarians.



John

What an inane and derogatory post.


Regards

Rob aka AOTH

So the Mp's who have fiddled their expenses, taken money to ask questions and paid their family for doing nothing are honest are they?

Not to mention the continual lies that they tell.

The difference between Maxwell and MP's is that Maxwell only robbed his employees, the MP's rob us all the time.

John

[Dark Knight]

I find it very amusing that the most vocal defenders of this are the most well off , who it seems are very much the I'm alright Jack brigade and sod the rest
I also find it very telling that the 60's and the 70's are always thrown out as examples of hardship, but the 80's and 90's which were boom time for the BB's are very easily ignored, seems there IS some guilt after all
from a personal perspective, any state pension I receive will be a minor part of my retirement income, assuming all things are equal, and I view my taxes and NI as paying for my day to day living not as government savings account for me to take back when it suits me.
Interestingly it has been stated by the various bods that "only 10% of pensioners are struggling"", so that means 90% of them did okay from the last few decades, whereas youth unemployment is rising, young people cannot afford houses and the pension age for my generation is getting put further and further back

seems that BB's have done well and the following generations are paying for this and will continue to do so for many many years to come

[gfwgfw]

. . . . and Mr Maxwell did the honorable "falling on his sword" when caught out

Unlike the "right honourables" of today

[Admiral of the Humber]

Dear Graham,

Good evening.

There was nothing honourable about Robert Maxwell's actions, he was simply a corrupt coward.


Dear John,

I stand by my comment that your original post was inane and derogatory. Your reply to my post is a ridiculous generalisation and a libellous sleight against the very many honourable back bench MP's who have the best interests of their constituents at heart.

Regards
Rob aka AOTH

[ChesterfieldJohn]

Dear Graham,

Good evening.

There was nothing honourable about Robert Maxwell's actions, he was simply a corrupt coward.


Dear John,

I stand by my comment that your original post was inane and derogatory. Your reply to my post is a ridiculous generalisation and a libellous sleight against the very many honourable back bench MP's who have the best interests of their constituents at heart.

Regards
Rob aka AOTH

I am not surprised at all that you stand by your comment.

Are you saying that no back benchers were involve in the expenses scandal then?

I believe that nearly 400 MP's were involved in the expenses scandal, surely this must include back benchers.

How many of these did the honorable thing then and resigned from their seats?

How is it libelous, its a factual comment.

John

[gfwgfw]

Kev

My generation was the last working class to have benefited with a good company pension

Why

Because we were very loyal to our employers, had a great pride for our company, and in most cases our jobs were for life

We were all offered a pension paid in part by our employer and part by ourselves

Life was easy, relaxed and most enjoyable and above all contented with the simple pleasures in life

With the exception of an added mortgage part employer - part the then Labour government - and part self financed

Luxuries had to wait for cash up front

The State Pension was funded by our salaries being taxed, which a proportion was earmarked for a pension at 65 or 70

Yes, some of your conjectures are correct the BB should be in a comfortable financial position, but I do believe generally life was much more simple than the demands of today's populace

I am extremely grateful for the foresight of my then superiors both employer, parents and governments of that era

I do find it a little irksome to read your regular prolonged sad simplistic views of our good luck

I wish you well - and if you ever come south I would be delighted to have you enjoy an excellent dinner with us at our village ' Spoon's

Lubooo

Graham

[Dark Knight]

gfw
why is my discussion any more tedious that the I am alright jack BB'sd who shout about how hard life was and that they deserve all they have and bollocks to the next generation or the ones after
sounds like smug arrogant greed to me
but hey as it is so tedious then I will leave it to the bishops to point out how morally bankrupt, selfish ,greedy and arrogant one generation has become to the detriment of anyone else
Sadly this forum is bereft any compassion ,as it is it middle England at it's smug complacent self centred worst and some of the replies on this thread are the epitome of that

so **** it.......you can wallow in your self centred smugness. safe in the knowledge your kids and grandkids have been right royally screwed by their grandparents
hope you sleep well

[gfwgfw]

Kev

I thank you for your extremely educated review of my well intentioned reply to your thread

Gratefully and respectively

Graham

[Admiral of the Humber]

Dear Graham,

Good evening.

There was nothing honourable about Robert Maxwell's actions, he was simply a corrupt coward.


Dear John,

I stand by my comment that your original post was inane and derogatory. Your reply to my post is a ridiculous generalisation and a libellous sleight against the very many honourable back bench MP's who have the best interests of their constituents at heart.

Regards
Rob aka AOTH

I am not surprised at all that you stand by your comment.

Are you saying that no back benchers were involve in the expenses scandal then?

I believe that nearly 400 MP's were involved in the expenses scandal, surely this must include back benchers.

How many of these did the honorable thing then and resigned from their seats?

How is it libelous, its a factual comment.

John

Dear John,

The Daily Telegraph "exposed" nearly 400 MP's for fraudulent expense claims. A relative handful of these very rightly lead to conviction by the authorities or de selection by their parties but the vast majority had no case to answer as they were operating within the rules. It was undoubtedly a sad and embarrassing time for British politics but as there are 650 Members of Parliament and 818 Members of the House of Lords to suggest that Robert Maxwell was more honest than them all is not a factual coment...it is an inane, derogatory generalisation.

Regards
Rob aka AOTH

[ChesterfieldJohn]

Dear Graham,

Good evening.

There was nothing honourable about Robert Maxwell's actions, he was simply a corrupt coward.


Dear John,

I stand by my comment that your original post was inane and derogatory. Your reply to my post is a ridiculous generalisation and a libellous sleight against the very many honourable back bench MP's who have the best interests of their constituents at heart.

Regards
Rob aka AOTH

I am not surprised at all that you stand by your comment.

Are you saying that no back benchers were involve in the expenses scandal then?

I believe that nearly 400 MP's were involved in the expenses scandal, surely this must include back benchers.

How many of these did the honorable thing then and resigned from their seats?

How is it libelous, its a factual comment.

John

Dear John,

The Daily Telegraph "exposed" nearly 400 MP's for fraudulent expense claims. A relative handful of these very rightly lead to conviction by the authorities or de selection by their parties but the vast majority had no case to answer as they were operating within the rules. It was undoubtedly a sad and embarrassing time for British politics but as there are 650 Members of Parliament and 818 Members of the House of Lords to suggest that Robert Maxwell was more honest than them all is not a factual coment...it is an inane, derogatory generalisation.

Regards
Rob aka AOTH

The conviction level is completely irrelevant.
Do you honestly think that everyone guilty was convicted?

How many of them had to pay money back? The paying back was because they had broken the rules.
How many of them never paid it back also.

Even Campbell had to pay some back do you honestly think that they would have paid it back if it had been within the rules?

They have robbed the general public and by recent reports are continuing to do so.

John

[Silver_Shiney]

So the Mp's who have fiddled their expenses, taken money to ask questions and paid their family for doing nothing are honest are they?

Not to mention the continual lies that they tell.

The difference between Maxwell and MP's is that Maxwell only robbed his employees, the MP's rob us all the time.

John

The inference you make is that EVERY MP is dishonest. I trust you have evidence to back these assertions up? Yes, many MPs were caught fiddling, many MPs have been exposed as liars, but that does NOT mean that every MP has no morals or scruples.

It does not matter a jot who is robbing who - theft is theft.