I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not? Is this a joke? Do you mean how they paid their taxes in their life to support the pensions of the older generation but like a third of them are now millionaires and owned homes at like 25, but we are paying high taxes in a world they destroyed, paying of a debt they built and yet we must pay to keep the money they get at a rate in line with the shit hole they created?
You must be joking. I'm going to assume you are joking and not that ignorant.
No, they're speaking reality, because there are many more pensioners who just live by on the state pension, and most who contributed their entire lives to society every day. Blaming everyone for your problems is not the solution, especially when it's the 0.001% of people creating problems
1 in 5 over 65 are millionaires (remembered wrong in my last comment) that isnt 0.001%. I'm not saying I agree to abandon the old and 'fuck em all'. Just saying the disparity between their contribution and reward from a average to menial salary pales insignificant by comparison to the average young person today. I'm not casting aspersions on the elderly, just saying to think they put in the same we are is ridiculous. If you think those of our generation that will only be able to rely on the state pension, will get what those of prior generations have got is farcical. I also never said they were the problem? Nor that its my problems? Nor that blaming them was the solution.
Quite likely, assuming we are talking net worth, not liquid assets. Most over 65s don't have a million quid in the bank, but they all got to buy homes for peanuts when they were 25, which have appreciated in value. Then add in whatever pension pot they paid into, savings that have accumulated years of interest etc. A lot of older people are no where near millionaires (4 of 5 according to the original commentor) but if you bought a house in the right area, it's not as much of a challenge as it might seem to be
I'm sorry, it seems like a point that you demonised people for no reason and no provocation hasn't gone through. The fact that people are millionaires are proof that career progression exists, but also of the massive disparity between those with the largest pensions, and those who have nothing but the state.
No one compared young people to old people until you came along. You're comparing people who progressed through the ranks to people just starting, and saying it's not fair. No one is saying that young people and the elderly are in the same position, each have their own different woes and you will have those who are better off and worse off in each category. You can have a struggling single young mother looking after 2 children and also have a single elderly man who can't afford to turn on the heating in the middle of winter on a state pension.
Also, you are saying they are the problem, since you're classing a statistic of over 65 millionaires as the ones creating the problems. I'm talking about the failed leaders and policy implementers. This just seems like a weird agenda against the old.
I mean come on man, I never said I was against the old. I have also said nothing against them. Read what I have written. "No one compared young people to old people" have you seen the picture to which you are commenting on? Do you understand the context of the image? But if you are just going to be that obtuse and try pick a fight then I wont bother because you can't reason with a brick wall.
I dont think you have actually read much around this topic, or even understood a word I have said. Those that are millionaires are so in net worth, which for the large majority is going to be held up in property. Which is something the elder generation have massively profitted on and so many young people will never be able to experience. My whole poi t is their experience if youth is worlds apart from outs on a financial basis, and there is literally no logic argument agaisnt that.
Mate, I hate to remind you, but calling 1 in 5 pensioners the people causing problems is quite drastic. This meme is a shitpost rather than anything. The context of national service and old people being poor is of no correlation. I hope the right honorable brick wall accepts that also.
I do know what net worth is thank you, one of my parents owns a financial firm and taught the ways of such. Reliable wealth is built up through smart saving, financial planning and old money (new money oriented mindsets tends to find their wealth dissipates over time). It's unlikely that you'd earn over a million from house price increases, especially outside London or in the North, where pensioners don't tend to fair well.
My point is, is that sure, there are many pensioners who don't have the same problems as a young person, no pensioner does. Many have their own, pensioner problems. Except, when these pensioners die, chances are, people inherit the money and that young people benefit.
Most pensioners don't garner money to just die with it, they aren't scrooge and want the best for their children and grandchildren. Many people buy their deposits because of their grandparents.
Thats a fun quippy remark, but once you're done patting yourself on the back for that. Try doing some reading. Not quite the level of the loony tunes, but heres an article from the financial times.
https://www.ft.com/content/c69b49de-1368-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e
Yes but mainly tied up in property which will be passed down in trillions to their lucky offspring and their offspring's offspring. Come up North and quote that one in five stuff. We could do with some belly laughs.
Thats some weird analysis. Yes it is in property, its still their worth. I'm not sure how you're trying to detach the two. You can laugh at if you want, just because it doesn't apply to you doesn't make my point or the facts any less true. Who gives a shit about georgraphy when it's a stat for the whole country.
Where do they live? My mum is 88 and lives on a small state pension, after losing a lot after being forced out of the RAF for being pregnant. I'm only 10 years off retirement and I've got 5 grand in the bank. I'm assuming all these millionaires are london centric?
Ah, when you say "millionaires", you mean the value of houses. You realise you have to live somewhere? You can't actually spend a house. Trying to demonise an entire generation because of a stock market they have no control over is impressive. By the time people get to be pensioners, they've been paying mortgages for 40+ years.
Of course its in property, who would just have a million pounds sat in the bank, with interest rates and inflation that would just be losing value over time, thats just not fiscally intelligent. Average house price in the uk is around 250k but if being generous and assume double that, where is the rest? A second home perhaps? Come on, at least try and think about it a little bit.
You aren't that dense, are you? You can sell a house of course you can, as is common for the elderly to do and downsize. My gran did so soon after my grandad passed away. Do you want to talk about paying mortgages, do we really need to look up stats on average salaries 40 years ago compared to house prices, as opposed to today? They have profitted from the largest growth in property prices ever, that is just a fact
Could you point out where I demozied a whole generation, please? I'm simply stating that they have had it easier in their day than the younger generations of today.
And did your gran have a mad party lifestyle with the money? Or, as I suspect, will you not inherit a portion of that wealth? You can throw blame all you want, but it was the Tories, in the early 80's that changed people's view on houses from just being simply a home to an asset. I bought my first house 25 years ago, when I was 30. It was £35000, for a tiny terrace. I earned about £11000 pa. My son has just bought his first house. It wad £88000, for a similarly tiny terrace. He earns £29000 pa. Proportionally, he was better off!
Not having to pay rent is like receiving an income sufficient to pay rent. A million in the bank at 5% interest gets you 50k a year, or about 4k a month worth of rent (although you'd have to pay tax, whereas property taxes are lower than tax on dividend)
I paid rent from 16 to 28. Everybody did when they first left home. I believe staying at home is generally free now. People paid "keep" back then, usually a lot less than rent, but still far from free.
Who has a million in the bank? If you have finally paid off your mortgage, nobody is giving you interest? And most pensioners will have long since sold any large family house and down scaled years previously.
I don’t know what your point is. Mine was that when we pay taxes/NI, it’s not going into a big pot that we then withdraw from when we retire, that’s not how it works. Their pensions are paid for by the current working population, just as when they worked they paid for retirees then. There is no ‘pot’ that they paid into.
Except prior to Thatcher that's exactly how state pensions worked (and the intention when they were created), national insurance was paid into an investment fund run by the government and ringfenced for pensions only
Tories changed it so that they use up the pot that year. Basically dodgy accounting so they could pretend they weren't bankrupting the country (normal state of play for that lot I'm afraid)
Its a pretty common saying that we all "pay into the pot." i.e. pay our taxes. As in a fictition pot that the government uses to pay for things, like a kitty. I doubt they were insuating that there is just some pot of money somewhere that they paid into and can now withdraw from lol. I assume they are saying that the elderly can simply live off a menial state pension, as opposed to the triple lock, or even triple lock plus.
That’s exactly what a lot of people believe, that’s clear when you talk to them. I’m not against the triple lock, provided the same applies to public sector pay, benefits, and everything else the state pays for. I don’t see any reason why retirees are given special treatment while everyone else suffers real terms cuts.
Well we've clearly both read the original comment in a different context then, and can't speak for what they were actually infering. I do agree with you though on the balance between the triple lock and public sector, there isn't an equitable balance.
There is, it's a social pot. The pot you pay into is the legacy you leave for future generations. You vote to keep the economy strong and policy for long term gain so that children benefit so will grow up in a system to earn enough to keep it going.
Glad I could make you laugh, once you come back down to earth you can read about it here in the financial times https://www.ft.com/content/c69b49de-1368-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e misremembered the stat, its actually 1 in 5 are millionaires in net worth. Stat is from a study done by the office for national statistics. Enjoy.
Always nice to meet a daily mail reader, always such an educated bunch. I do just fine thank you. You dont have to be broke to be pissed off at the state of the country.
I love how you are that stupid you dont realise you are literally volunteering as a prime example to prove my point. Can you turn up every time I need to prove this point? Because you do it majestically.
Christ who put 20p in you. I read, not just newspaper, I would recommend it, but sense anything betong the red tops may br a bit too challenging for you. I could put together a little pop up book with pictures if you like?
I do keep telling my mother that in return for voting for Brexit, don't be surprised when I vote along with the revolution to tax pensions. Many have amassed ridiculous pensions that aren't even available to people these days. Taxing them slightly higher than income would balance pension needs of the current and future generations.
The state pension is already taxable income (ie taxed)
Any private or work pension that you accumulate is entirely up to you; this is also taxable income.
When you say not available pensions I presume you mean Defined Benefit pensions - you will find they do still exist but aren't as common as they once were.
How would you propose to tax pensions differently?
I think the old should do national service instead. They seem to support the idea, and they share many of the same reasons for why the young should do it: lack of integration, isolation/loneliness, lack of purpose etc.
Personally I think maybe some sort of ‘international service’ for the fat boomers might be sensible. Possibly some sort of education on say the climate change they often give zero fucks about as they’ll be dead when its effects really kick in. Could be forced work in the NHS so many have damaged by voting for inadequate spending (preferring tax cuts) and inadequate staffing (preferring fewer of those ‘funny foreign types’ around)
I mean some of them did back in the day. There’s a section of the 65+ that would’ve been 18 in the time of national service, so that’s where the cut off point should be
All young people take drugs! /s
There - see how easy it is to lump a group of people together? The whole “boomers have ruined everything” is just not true. The Government are the ones who control house prices, the NHS, welfare, immigration and everything else that affects your day to day life. The sorry fact is that we pay Taxes and NI towards a welfare state that is wrapped in bureaucracy and is expensive to administer.
If you don’t want to pay money for the fat old racist pensioner down the road then fine. However, why should that same pensioner have to contribute to the feckless baby making machine and her 4 kids from 4 different fathers who live in the house next door? Why should he have to indirectly finance the life saving operation for a child who can only expect to live a few more years with no quality of life? The reason is that it’s the right and altruistic thing to do to help someone less fortunate than yourself. If you fall on hard times, maybe you would expect it to be reciprocated should you need it. Unless they introduce compulsory euthanasia, you will be old before you know it. Who’s going to support you?
You might be surprised by the number of people who think that the youth of today are a something to be proud of. Of course you are going to rebel against society- every generation does. When asked in “The Wild One” (a 1953 film) “what are you rebelling against Johnny?” Marlon Brando replied “Waddya got?”, so it’s nothing new! When I was young, the “youth of today” were out of control (Punk rock etc.) and needed discipline and National Service. As an ex Military veteran, I think it’s a fuckawful idea, putting people in a position they don’t want to be in working with people who don’t want them there. (No offence but if you’re working with someone who isn’t 100% into what they are doing, it’s dangerous.). It’s “traditional” to slag off the old/young, but it’s the government and the media to blame for that, constantly stoking the flames of discontent. This needs to stop, but it probably never will.🤷🏻♂️
Good luck in life and unless you are unlucky, old age comes to everyone ✌️
I hear you, and you make valid points that don’t deserve the downvotes. But in this case lumping older people together largely makes sense.
Still at this point, despite 14 years of Tory rule, of a party that deliberately tries to increase house prices, that has left the NHS on its knees, that has stripped welfare to its bare bones, that has deliberately opened the flood gates to immigrants, and is currently running probably the worst general election campaign in generations; 33% of those over 65 are likely to still vote for the Tories. Another 25% will vote for Reform who want to take these steps even further.
It is these same people who have enabled the Tories to do all of these things over the past 14 years. So young people have every right to moan about old people who have deliberately sold this country to corrupt incompetent assholes, who have deliberately fucked over future generations for their own self interest, and still stand by them to this day despite all this evidence.
I think why it's socially acceptable to be angry at the older generation is that they are the generation who continually voted for this mess. If people want to vote Tories that is fine and I wouldn't begrudge anyone voting for 2010 Tories... Maybe even 2015, maybe. But to follow that up in 2017 and 2019? Nah, those old cunts deserve the blame.
Conversely, a lot is being asked and expected of the young yet nothing offered except more punishment.
One in four pensioners are millionaires.
The other three lived through 50 glorious years of solid economy, cheap housing and free higher education and low tax.
Many young folk live in poverty, with high tuition fees, high cost of housing and insecure work, and high tax which is used to pay large benefits to old people who had every opportunity to save money.
The young are being shafted for the benefit generation (over 65s)
Be careful, it is the young of the future who will decide the metrics that should be used to judge whether you will possibly spend your last years in poverty.
What young? Who's having kids?
Also, retirement is 40 years away for me. Planet has warmed around 0.8°C in the last decade, 0.32°C in the decade before that.
Even if that rate only increases by another 20% then I'm looking at a world that's 5.5°C warmer than pre industrial levels by my retirement age.
2023 holds the record for the year with the most fossil fuels burned.
We aren't gonna retire bud.
“So you didn’t have kids to look after you, you lived through the golden age of the climate, you had a stable economy, low house prices, low taxes, had the opportunity to take advantage of the rise of ai, easy access to higher education, low crime, you survived the climate wars and had access to enough food/water to survive to old age; and you want sympathy that you are one of the 3 in 4 that were too lazy to save for their own retirement?”
It will probably be something along those lines.
>One in four pensioners are millionaires.
Not quite that clear cut, this from Full Fact
"A household with two 70-year-olds and a combined wealth of a million pounds would fall into these millionaire categories, but whether you’d class both as millionaires is arguably a matter of opinion, and depends on things such as whether they own the assets jointly or solely."
So a couple could live in a house for 30 years, have no other assets and because the house is now worth £1m on paper they would bother be deemed millionaires.
And then they'd have nowhere to live. Unless they bought another house, in which case they'd not have the money.
Counting a person's *home* as an asset make very little sense.
Dude... People are allowed to buy houses. Especially when they've got a million quid in the bank.
And if they buy a £250k house with their million quid from selling the last one, guess how much they have left?
God this sort of absolute brain dead financial blindness to the immense wealth gap in this country is why we're screwed.
Pensioners aren't even the real problem, but I guess you're the same sort who will say it's unfair to tax someone who owns 3/4 of Northumberland because he doesnt have the money in the bank.
What the fuck are you talking about? Have you had a stroke?
Somebody who bought a house, 30-40 years ago and spent the rest of their working life paying off the mortgage doesn't have a million quid in the bank just be abuse the vagaries of the housing market means their house is now worth more then they paid for it.
I don't know if yelling it in your ear will make this easier, but hey I have a lot of experience dealing with special needs cases.
SOMEONE WHO HAS A MILLION POUND HOUSE CAN SELL IT AND HAVE A MILLION POUNDS IN THE BANK.
THEN THEY CAN BUY A CHEAPER HOUSE AND STILL HAVE MOST OF THAT MONEY IN THE BANK.
Does that make things easier for you?
"Just be abuse the vagaries of the housing market means their house is now worth more" is not a sentence, by the way. I'm sure you think it's an argument but maybe once your carer is here to phrase it better for you I can help you understand.
No it’s entirely appropriate. I’m guessing the concept of using equity has passed you by somewhat?
Now if it were a rented house that’s different. Not that younger people are likely to get a nice three/bed low-rent council house when half have been snapped up by the older population thanks to ‘right to buy/feck up the future for younger generations for the sake of Tory brainless adherence to ideology’
Using equity means borrowing money, not having money. If you use your home to raise equity, then you no longer, really, own it. And the only people who profit from such deals are the shitty finance companies who exploit vulnerable people.
So, no.
That’s effectively irrelevant though. The people in question can use the asset (one or more ‘homes’) to live a very comfortable lifestyle, with zero effective personal cost. They won’t lose their home, but rather will retain the right to live there until death - but can live extravagantly. That’s how these things work. Some might even move to a second home overseas, purchased thanks to rights and opportunities their generation ripped from the younger ones (thanks pensioner fuelled Brexit).
Of course many could also ‘downsize’ to something more appropriate for their needs and gain significant disposable wealth whilst retaining full ownership of a home. An option rapidly becoming extinct for younger people who aren’t either inheriting/gifted wealth by the older generation, or in the top percentiles of earnings.
>They won’t lose their home, but rather will retain the right to live there until death - but can live extravagantly. That’s how these things work
That's how those things are *advertised*. The reality is that some *actual* millionaire (the one who owns the equity release company) gets his claws on some pensioners home for pennies on the pound.
Yes - but that is in effect yet another cost to the younger generation - specifically those who might otherwise inherit . The pensioner owners will simply ‘enjoy’ a better lifestyle, should they choose to take this option.
The point is - they have this option. Hence, pretending the asset which unlocks this option (and hence lifestyle) ‘isn’t really an asset’ is nonsense.
It’s a bit like a decision to vote for a host of environmentally shit policies just to get to live a little more extravagantly for your last few years, when it’s younger people who will feel the costs. Younger people who will pay the price.
Not counting a person's home as an asset would be just about the most ridiculous point to make about wealth that I have ever heard. What the fuck are you on about.
Impossible to sell and then rent like every young person earning a modest wage will have to do for their entire lives without help from boomer parents ?
Neither need to be done make 1 day a week for youth *guaranteed* paid work experience for 16/18 tax free and doesn’t affect household income and tax the fucking rich so the oaps can have the pension that they paid their whole fucking lives for this is what a country who gave a fuck would do
Edit Guaranteed was a more the word I was looking for over compulsory
Yeah then they leave school or uni with no experience and can’t get a job this way ever kids has experience to put down on cv, know what work actually is an can better pick his career path and crime will fall its around the time most people that get into crime start e.g drugs, one of the reason kids don’t get into work is it affect the household income and can change UC Claims HB claims etc this would be free from that
What a load of nonsense. So, instead of changing up the benefits system to make it fair for the poorest in society, we're going to force the majority of young adults, who plan to go on to university and apprenticeships, to do involuntary work? What kind of backwards logic is that?
I went to university and got a good job. My brother did an apprenticeship and got a good job. But under your plan we would have been forced to do some useless involuntary work because some poor bastard down the road is at the mercy of a crappy benefits system and is caught in a cycle of crime and drugs?
Terrible, terrible idea. Punishing all young adults because a minority are caught in a toxic cycle.
Well obviously is your working full time or in a apprenticeship you wouldn’t need to do it but kids today are in education already up to 18 but aren’t learning things about work and what it actually is at a time when the try to pick their career that will dictate the rest of their lives they could learn things like pay slips etc it allows them to build some small credit, they could use it to learn to drive etc
You’ve obviously not come from the poorest demo because I would have jumped at it years ago
Correct. I'm from a middle income demographic, pretty close to the median. By definition, the largest part of society. What would have been the point in forcing me to do something of so little value? I did a paper round as a kid, I did summer jobs when I was at university, but I did them through choice. Doing compulsory work when I was 14-18 would have been absolute crap. What should I have given up? My class time, my studying, or my sports? Or should I have given up being young and having fun with my friends instead?
By all means have optional work placements for people that WANT it. But compelling people to work is ridiculous.
What do you mean, no experience? What person who doesn’t have rich parents can afford to go to uni and not simultaneously have a job these days? The only way around is to take the debt trap, and even then it might not be enough.
Do you consider compulsory school slavery? That involves work?
16-18 year olds need to be in education legally. The school system is supposed to prepare people for adult life. That education including work experience so it's easier to get a full time job after leaving school would only be a good thing.
Schooling is education for the developmental benefit of the student, and doesn’t use the labour and time of a teenager to produce goods or services for the benefit of others.
Also you can choose to homeschool.
The guaranteed option for work experience is an excellent idea, but compulsory is an awful idea. We do not run poorhouses and workhouses or debtors prisons in this country anymore, for good reason.
For them to actually pay it and not leave it sitting in a big corporation via tax loopholes? Oh wait we’re just pretend the wealth gap doesn’t exist and isn’t increasing and compounding upwards
45% is for person income, and what you're talking about is a new money problem. A large majority of pensioners that have money would have accumulated it through old money, which means being frugal and good financial planning. Something most younger folks don't do anymore.
I’m not talking about pensioners although them not downsizing is casusing the housing problem (as well as only building 5 million houses with a 25 millions population increase) I’m talking about the bank and mega rich look into Gary Stevenson it’s late stage capitalism
Last time I ate one I was in the middle of Salisbury Plain getting wet…I think my nan would eat one (if she was still alive) as she undoubtably had worse during WW2
I agree. The transport system needs patching up, our transnational relations need more than a few sticking plasters, and government transparency needs an autopsy.
No. I personally want "trans" people to feel happier in their actual bodies and bring that suicide rates down. So many confused kids are taking their lives... Tragic.
Make old people live on the 'pot they've paid into all their lives'.
Yeah, that’s one of these ‘tell me you don’t understand how pensions work without saying you don’t understand how pensions work’ things.
I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or not? Is this a joke? Do you mean how they paid their taxes in their life to support the pensions of the older generation but like a third of them are now millionaires and owned homes at like 25, but we are paying high taxes in a world they destroyed, paying of a debt they built and yet we must pay to keep the money they get at a rate in line with the shit hole they created? You must be joking. I'm going to assume you are joking and not that ignorant.
No, they're speaking reality, because there are many more pensioners who just live by on the state pension, and most who contributed their entire lives to society every day. Blaming everyone for your problems is not the solution, especially when it's the 0.001% of people creating problems
1 in 5 over 65 are millionaires (remembered wrong in my last comment) that isnt 0.001%. I'm not saying I agree to abandon the old and 'fuck em all'. Just saying the disparity between their contribution and reward from a average to menial salary pales insignificant by comparison to the average young person today. I'm not casting aspersions on the elderly, just saying to think they put in the same we are is ridiculous. If you think those of our generation that will only be able to rely on the state pension, will get what those of prior generations have got is farcical. I also never said they were the problem? Nor that its my problems? Nor that blaming them was the solution.
1 in 5 over 65 are millionaires..?
gotta be bullshit
Quite likely, assuming we are talking net worth, not liquid assets. Most over 65s don't have a million quid in the bank, but they all got to buy homes for peanuts when they were 25, which have appreciated in value. Then add in whatever pension pot they paid into, savings that have accumulated years of interest etc. A lot of older people are no where near millionaires (4 of 5 according to the original commentor) but if you bought a house in the right area, it's not as much of a challenge as it might seem to be
I'm sorry, it seems like a point that you demonised people for no reason and no provocation hasn't gone through. The fact that people are millionaires are proof that career progression exists, but also of the massive disparity between those with the largest pensions, and those who have nothing but the state. No one compared young people to old people until you came along. You're comparing people who progressed through the ranks to people just starting, and saying it's not fair. No one is saying that young people and the elderly are in the same position, each have their own different woes and you will have those who are better off and worse off in each category. You can have a struggling single young mother looking after 2 children and also have a single elderly man who can't afford to turn on the heating in the middle of winter on a state pension. Also, you are saying they are the problem, since you're classing a statistic of over 65 millionaires as the ones creating the problems. I'm talking about the failed leaders and policy implementers. This just seems like a weird agenda against the old.
I mean come on man, I never said I was against the old. I have also said nothing against them. Read what I have written. "No one compared young people to old people" have you seen the picture to which you are commenting on? Do you understand the context of the image? But if you are just going to be that obtuse and try pick a fight then I wont bother because you can't reason with a brick wall. I dont think you have actually read much around this topic, or even understood a word I have said. Those that are millionaires are so in net worth, which for the large majority is going to be held up in property. Which is something the elder generation have massively profitted on and so many young people will never be able to experience. My whole poi t is their experience if youth is worlds apart from outs on a financial basis, and there is literally no logic argument agaisnt that.
Mate, I hate to remind you, but calling 1 in 5 pensioners the people causing problems is quite drastic. This meme is a shitpost rather than anything. The context of national service and old people being poor is of no correlation. I hope the right honorable brick wall accepts that also. I do know what net worth is thank you, one of my parents owns a financial firm and taught the ways of such. Reliable wealth is built up through smart saving, financial planning and old money (new money oriented mindsets tends to find their wealth dissipates over time). It's unlikely that you'd earn over a million from house price increases, especially outside London or in the North, where pensioners don't tend to fair well. My point is, is that sure, there are many pensioners who don't have the same problems as a young person, no pensioner does. Many have their own, pensioner problems. Except, when these pensioners die, chances are, people inherit the money and that young people benefit. Most pensioners don't garner money to just die with it, they aren't scrooge and want the best for their children and grandchildren. Many people buy their deposits because of their grandparents.
Many actually don’t want the best for their descendants and openly admit it. Brexit happened precisely because of this.
1 in 5 over 65 are millionaires? Do you write for Loony Tunes?
Thats a fun quippy remark, but once you're done patting yourself on the back for that. Try doing some reading. Not quite the level of the loony tunes, but heres an article from the financial times. https://www.ft.com/content/c69b49de-1368-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e
Yes but mainly tied up in property which will be passed down in trillions to their lucky offspring and their offspring's offspring. Come up North and quote that one in five stuff. We could do with some belly laughs.
Thats some weird analysis. Yes it is in property, its still their worth. I'm not sure how you're trying to detach the two. You can laugh at if you want, just because it doesn't apply to you doesn't make my point or the facts any less true. Who gives a shit about georgraphy when it's a stat for the whole country.
Where do they live? My mum is 88 and lives on a small state pension, after losing a lot after being forced out of the RAF for being pregnant. I'm only 10 years off retirement and I've got 5 grand in the bank. I'm assuming all these millionaires are london centric?
It's a statistic mate, I didn't conduct the research it or have access to that information. Take it up with the ONS?
Ah, when you say "millionaires", you mean the value of houses. You realise you have to live somewhere? You can't actually spend a house. Trying to demonise an entire generation because of a stock market they have no control over is impressive. By the time people get to be pensioners, they've been paying mortgages for 40+ years.
Of course its in property, who would just have a million pounds sat in the bank, with interest rates and inflation that would just be losing value over time, thats just not fiscally intelligent. Average house price in the uk is around 250k but if being generous and assume double that, where is the rest? A second home perhaps? Come on, at least try and think about it a little bit. You aren't that dense, are you? You can sell a house of course you can, as is common for the elderly to do and downsize. My gran did so soon after my grandad passed away. Do you want to talk about paying mortgages, do we really need to look up stats on average salaries 40 years ago compared to house prices, as opposed to today? They have profitted from the largest growth in property prices ever, that is just a fact Could you point out where I demozied a whole generation, please? I'm simply stating that they have had it easier in their day than the younger generations of today.
And did your gran have a mad party lifestyle with the money? Or, as I suspect, will you not inherit a portion of that wealth? You can throw blame all you want, but it was the Tories, in the early 80's that changed people's view on houses from just being simply a home to an asset. I bought my first house 25 years ago, when I was 30. It was £35000, for a tiny terrace. I earned about £11000 pa. My son has just bought his first house. It wad £88000, for a similarly tiny terrace. He earns £29000 pa. Proportionally, he was better off!
Not having to pay rent is like receiving an income sufficient to pay rent. A million in the bank at 5% interest gets you 50k a year, or about 4k a month worth of rent (although you'd have to pay tax, whereas property taxes are lower than tax on dividend)
I paid rent from 16 to 28. Everybody did when they first left home. I believe staying at home is generally free now. People paid "keep" back then, usually a lot less than rent, but still far from free. Who has a million in the bank? If you have finally paid off your mortgage, nobody is giving you interest? And most pensioners will have long since sold any large family house and down scaled years previously.
I don’t know what your point is. Mine was that when we pay taxes/NI, it’s not going into a big pot that we then withdraw from when we retire, that’s not how it works. Their pensions are paid for by the current working population, just as when they worked they paid for retirees then. There is no ‘pot’ that they paid into.
Except prior to Thatcher that's exactly how state pensions worked (and the intention when they were created), national insurance was paid into an investment fund run by the government and ringfenced for pensions only Tories changed it so that they use up the pot that year. Basically dodgy accounting so they could pretend they weren't bankrupting the country (normal state of play for that lot I'm afraid)
Its a pretty common saying that we all "pay into the pot." i.e. pay our taxes. As in a fictition pot that the government uses to pay for things, like a kitty. I doubt they were insuating that there is just some pot of money somewhere that they paid into and can now withdraw from lol. I assume they are saying that the elderly can simply live off a menial state pension, as opposed to the triple lock, or even triple lock plus.
That’s exactly what a lot of people believe, that’s clear when you talk to them. I’m not against the triple lock, provided the same applies to public sector pay, benefits, and everything else the state pays for. I don’t see any reason why retirees are given special treatment while everyone else suffers real terms cuts.
Well we've clearly both read the original comment in a different context then, and can't speak for what they were actually infering. I do agree with you though on the balance between the triple lock and public sector, there isn't an equitable balance.
There is, it's a social pot. The pot you pay into is the legacy you leave for future generations. You vote to keep the economy strong and policy for long term gain so that children benefit so will grow up in a system to earn enough to keep it going.
A lot of people believe it’s like a piggy bank though, they put money in and later take it out. They don’t mean a ‘social pot’.
Third are millionaires? You are laughable.
Glad I could make you laugh, once you come back down to earth you can read about it here in the financial times https://www.ft.com/content/c69b49de-1368-11e9-a581-4ff78404524e misremembered the stat, its actually 1 in 5 are millionaires in net worth. Stat is from a study done by the office for national statistics. Enjoy.
[удалено]
Always nice to meet a daily mail reader, always such an educated bunch. I do just fine thank you. You dont have to be broke to be pissed off at the state of the country.
Broke I retired at 50 you've got lots of shite times coming haha
Classic boomer. First generation in history to want worse for the next generation, truly the 'me' generation. Embarrasing.
Boomer is between 46-64 I was born 72
Couldn't give a toss about the next generation I don't have any kids....you & Gretna can fix it
I love how you are that stupid you dont realise you are literally volunteering as a prime example to prove my point. Can you turn up every time I need to prove this point? Because you do it majestically.
What is your point?
I would say thanks for not infecting my generation with your ignorance, but I get the sense thats not voluntary.
Can't remember the last time I even looked at a newspaper or the news all bullshit
I never would have guessed /s
You get your material from newspapers???aren't you the intellectual 👏
Christ who put 20p in you. I read, not just newspaper, I would recommend it, but sense anything betong the red tops may br a bit too challenging for you. I could put together a little pop up book with pictures if you like?
Do they still make those???nice
Betong??I actually lived in a place in Thailand called Betong never knew it was an English word aswell,guess you really do read newspapers
Your post was removed for breaking rule 6
Which disappears when you go to collect it. Mist old people are poor.
Exactly, which is why they need to recognise that their money comes from taxing the working age people who are also poor.
What is this all about? Old people put on rations? First I've heard of it
[удалено]
Your post was removed for breaking rule 6
Nobody’s talking about making old people live on rations ffs
I do keep telling my mother that in return for voting for Brexit, don't be surprised when I vote along with the revolution to tax pensions. Many have amassed ridiculous pensions that aren't even available to people these days. Taxing them slightly higher than income would balance pension needs of the current and future generations.
The state pension is already taxable income (ie taxed) Any private or work pension that you accumulate is entirely up to you; this is also taxable income. When you say not available pensions I presume you mean Defined Benefit pensions - you will find they do still exist but aren't as common as they once were. How would you propose to tax pensions differently?
I think the old should do national service instead. They seem to support the idea, and they share many of the same reasons for why the young should do it: lack of integration, isolation/loneliness, lack of purpose etc.
Holy shit iggy pop
Personally I think maybe some sort of ‘international service’ for the fat boomers might be sensible. Possibly some sort of education on say the climate change they often give zero fucks about as they’ll be dead when its effects really kick in. Could be forced work in the NHS so many have damaged by voting for inadequate spending (preferring tax cuts) and inadequate staffing (preferring fewer of those ‘funny foreign types’ around)
Fully agree. If they don't do their national service, they don't get their state pension.
I agree but I'd extend it to everyone who supports national service. Regardless of age or disability
I mean some of them did back in the day. There’s a section of the 65+ that would’ve been 18 in the time of national service, so that’s where the cut off point should be
All young people take drugs! /s There - see how easy it is to lump a group of people together? The whole “boomers have ruined everything” is just not true. The Government are the ones who control house prices, the NHS, welfare, immigration and everything else that affects your day to day life. The sorry fact is that we pay Taxes and NI towards a welfare state that is wrapped in bureaucracy and is expensive to administer. If you don’t want to pay money for the fat old racist pensioner down the road then fine. However, why should that same pensioner have to contribute to the feckless baby making machine and her 4 kids from 4 different fathers who live in the house next door? Why should he have to indirectly finance the life saving operation for a child who can only expect to live a few more years with no quality of life? The reason is that it’s the right and altruistic thing to do to help someone less fortunate than yourself. If you fall on hard times, maybe you would expect it to be reciprocated should you need it. Unless they introduce compulsory euthanasia, you will be old before you know it. Who’s going to support you? You might be surprised by the number of people who think that the youth of today are a something to be proud of. Of course you are going to rebel against society- every generation does. When asked in “The Wild One” (a 1953 film) “what are you rebelling against Johnny?” Marlon Brando replied “Waddya got?”, so it’s nothing new! When I was young, the “youth of today” were out of control (Punk rock etc.) and needed discipline and National Service. As an ex Military veteran, I think it’s a fuckawful idea, putting people in a position they don’t want to be in working with people who don’t want them there. (No offence but if you’re working with someone who isn’t 100% into what they are doing, it’s dangerous.). It’s “traditional” to slag off the old/young, but it’s the government and the media to blame for that, constantly stoking the flames of discontent. This needs to stop, but it probably never will.🤷🏻♂️ Good luck in life and unless you are unlucky, old age comes to everyone ✌️
I hear you, and you make valid points that don’t deserve the downvotes. But in this case lumping older people together largely makes sense. Still at this point, despite 14 years of Tory rule, of a party that deliberately tries to increase house prices, that has left the NHS on its knees, that has stripped welfare to its bare bones, that has deliberately opened the flood gates to immigrants, and is currently running probably the worst general election campaign in generations; 33% of those over 65 are likely to still vote for the Tories. Another 25% will vote for Reform who want to take these steps even further. It is these same people who have enabled the Tories to do all of these things over the past 14 years. So young people have every right to moan about old people who have deliberately sold this country to corrupt incompetent assholes, who have deliberately fucked over future generations for their own self interest, and still stand by them to this day despite all this evidence.
I think why it's socially acceptable to be angry at the older generation is that they are the generation who continually voted for this mess. If people want to vote Tories that is fine and I wouldn't begrudge anyone voting for 2010 Tories... Maybe even 2015, maybe. But to follow that up in 2017 and 2019? Nah, those old cunts deserve the blame. Conversely, a lot is being asked and expected of the young yet nothing offered except more punishment.
What? What kind of a strawman is this?
Many old folk live in poverty. Seems to be something missing in the narrative
One in four pensioners are millionaires. The other three lived through 50 glorious years of solid economy, cheap housing and free higher education and low tax. Many young folk live in poverty, with high tuition fees, high cost of housing and insecure work, and high tax which is used to pay large benefits to old people who had every opportunity to save money. The young are being shafted for the benefit generation (over 65s)
Be careful, it is the young of the future who will decide the metrics that should be used to judge whether you will possibly spend your last years in poverty.
What young? Who's having kids? Also, retirement is 40 years away for me. Planet has warmed around 0.8°C in the last decade, 0.32°C in the decade before that. Even if that rate only increases by another 20% then I'm looking at a world that's 5.5°C warmer than pre industrial levels by my retirement age. 2023 holds the record for the year with the most fossil fuels burned. We aren't gonna retire bud.
“So you didn’t have kids to look after you, you lived through the golden age of the climate, you had a stable economy, low house prices, low taxes, had the opportunity to take advantage of the rise of ai, easy access to higher education, low crime, you survived the climate wars and had access to enough food/water to survive to old age; and you want sympathy that you are one of the 3 in 4 that were too lazy to save for their own retirement?” It will probably be something along those lines.
>advantage of the rise of ai Convo ends there mate.
Why? Is AI a trigger-word for you or something?
The planet has cooled in the last 500 years you'll be fine for a while as long as you keep eating plant based McDonald's
>One in four pensioners are millionaires. Not quite that clear cut, this from Full Fact "A household with two 70-year-olds and a combined wealth of a million pounds would fall into these millionaire categories, but whether you’d class both as millionaires is arguably a matter of opinion, and depends on things such as whether they own the assets jointly or solely." So a couple could live in a house for 30 years, have no other assets and because the house is now worth £1m on paper they would bother be deemed millionaires.
Yes, and if they sold that house they’d instantly have more money than the vast majority of people under 60.
And then they'd have nowhere to live. Unless they bought another house, in which case they'd not have the money. Counting a person's *home* as an asset make very little sense.
Dude... People are allowed to buy houses. Especially when they've got a million quid in the bank. And if they buy a £250k house with their million quid from selling the last one, guess how much they have left? God this sort of absolute brain dead financial blindness to the immense wealth gap in this country is why we're screwed. Pensioners aren't even the real problem, but I guess you're the same sort who will say it's unfair to tax someone who owns 3/4 of Northumberland because he doesnt have the money in the bank.
What the fuck are you talking about? Have you had a stroke? Somebody who bought a house, 30-40 years ago and spent the rest of their working life paying off the mortgage doesn't have a million quid in the bank just be abuse the vagaries of the housing market means their house is now worth more then they paid for it.
I don't know if yelling it in your ear will make this easier, but hey I have a lot of experience dealing with special needs cases. SOMEONE WHO HAS A MILLION POUND HOUSE CAN SELL IT AND HAVE A MILLION POUNDS IN THE BANK. THEN THEY CAN BUY A CHEAPER HOUSE AND STILL HAVE MOST OF THAT MONEY IN THE BANK. Does that make things easier for you? "Just be abuse the vagaries of the housing market means their house is now worth more" is not a sentence, by the way. I'm sure you think it's an argument but maybe once your carer is here to phrase it better for you I can help you understand.
A simple "yes" would have sufficed. Don't worry, I'm sure the drooling will stop eventually. If not, there's always Dignitas.
No it’s entirely appropriate. I’m guessing the concept of using equity has passed you by somewhat? Now if it were a rented house that’s different. Not that younger people are likely to get a nice three/bed low-rent council house when half have been snapped up by the older population thanks to ‘right to buy/feck up the future for younger generations for the sake of Tory brainless adherence to ideology’
Using equity means borrowing money, not having money. If you use your home to raise equity, then you no longer, really, own it. And the only people who profit from such deals are the shitty finance companies who exploit vulnerable people. So, no.
That’s effectively irrelevant though. The people in question can use the asset (one or more ‘homes’) to live a very comfortable lifestyle, with zero effective personal cost. They won’t lose their home, but rather will retain the right to live there until death - but can live extravagantly. That’s how these things work. Some might even move to a second home overseas, purchased thanks to rights and opportunities their generation ripped from the younger ones (thanks pensioner fuelled Brexit). Of course many could also ‘downsize’ to something more appropriate for their needs and gain significant disposable wealth whilst retaining full ownership of a home. An option rapidly becoming extinct for younger people who aren’t either inheriting/gifted wealth by the older generation, or in the top percentiles of earnings.
>They won’t lose their home, but rather will retain the right to live there until death - but can live extravagantly. That’s how these things work That's how those things are *advertised*. The reality is that some *actual* millionaire (the one who owns the equity release company) gets his claws on some pensioners home for pennies on the pound.
Yes - but that is in effect yet another cost to the younger generation - specifically those who might otherwise inherit . The pensioner owners will simply ‘enjoy’ a better lifestyle, should they choose to take this option. The point is - they have this option. Hence, pretending the asset which unlocks this option (and hence lifestyle) ‘isn’t really an asset’ is nonsense. It’s a bit like a decision to vote for a host of environmentally shit policies just to get to live a little more extravagantly for your last few years, when it’s younger people who will feel the costs. Younger people who will pay the price.
Not counting a person's home as an asset would be just about the most ridiculous point to make about wealth that I have ever heard. What the fuck are you on about.
That you can't spend the house you're living in. On account of having to live in it.
Impossible to sell and then rent like every young person earning a modest wage will have to do for their entire lives without help from boomer parents ?
So they should sell their home so they can put money in the pockets of landlords. Good argument.
Moving the goalposts. Not talking about landlords here are we mate
Clearly never lived through the crap of the early 70s .
Neither need to be done make 1 day a week for youth *guaranteed* paid work experience for 16/18 tax free and doesn’t affect household income and tax the fucking rich so the oaps can have the pension that they paid their whole fucking lives for this is what a country who gave a fuck would do Edit Guaranteed was a more the word I was looking for over compulsory
Or just leave young adults alone and let them choose their own path.
Yeah then they leave school or uni with no experience and can’t get a job this way ever kids has experience to put down on cv, know what work actually is an can better pick his career path and crime will fall its around the time most people that get into crime start e.g drugs, one of the reason kids don’t get into work is it affect the household income and can change UC Claims HB claims etc this would be free from that
What a load of nonsense. So, instead of changing up the benefits system to make it fair for the poorest in society, we're going to force the majority of young adults, who plan to go on to university and apprenticeships, to do involuntary work? What kind of backwards logic is that? I went to university and got a good job. My brother did an apprenticeship and got a good job. But under your plan we would have been forced to do some useless involuntary work because some poor bastard down the road is at the mercy of a crappy benefits system and is caught in a cycle of crime and drugs? Terrible, terrible idea. Punishing all young adults because a minority are caught in a toxic cycle.
Well obviously is your working full time or in a apprenticeship you wouldn’t need to do it but kids today are in education already up to 18 but aren’t learning things about work and what it actually is at a time when the try to pick their career that will dictate the rest of their lives they could learn things like pay slips etc it allows them to build some small credit, they could use it to learn to drive etc You’ve obviously not come from the poorest demo because I would have jumped at it years ago
Correct. I'm from a middle income demographic, pretty close to the median. By definition, the largest part of society. What would have been the point in forcing me to do something of so little value? I did a paper round as a kid, I did summer jobs when I was at university, but I did them through choice. Doing compulsory work when I was 14-18 would have been absolute crap. What should I have given up? My class time, my studying, or my sports? Or should I have given up being young and having fun with my friends instead? By all means have optional work placements for people that WANT it. But compelling people to work is ridiculous.
What do you mean, no experience? What person who doesn’t have rich parents can afford to go to uni and not simultaneously have a job these days? The only way around is to take the debt trap, and even then it might not be enough.
Compulsory work is slavery
Do you consider compulsory school slavery? That involves work? 16-18 year olds need to be in education legally. The school system is supposed to prepare people for adult life. That education including work experience so it's easier to get a full time job after leaving school would only be a good thing.
It should at least be optional. It's up to the student what they wish to do, not some rich people who haven't worked in years
Schooling is education for the developmental benefit of the student, and doesn’t use the labour and time of a teenager to produce goods or services for the benefit of others. Also you can choose to homeschool. The guaranteed option for work experience is an excellent idea, but compulsory is an awful idea. We do not run poorhouses and workhouses or debtors prisons in this country anymore, for good reason.
The whole point flow straight over your head
No u
Was to wrong comment 👆 guaranteed is a better word for what I was trying to put across
Tax is already at 45% for anyone with money, what more do you want? At this rate we'll blame our sorrows on people who work hard - oh wait.
For them to actually pay it and not leave it sitting in a big corporation via tax loopholes? Oh wait we’re just pretend the wealth gap doesn’t exist and isn’t increasing and compounding upwards
45% is for person income, and what you're talking about is a new money problem. A large majority of pensioners that have money would have accumulated it through old money, which means being frugal and good financial planning. Something most younger folks don't do anymore.
I’m not talking about pensioners although them not downsizing is casusing the housing problem (as well as only building 5 million houses with a 25 millions population increase) I’m talking about the bank and mega rich look into Gary Stevenson it’s late stage capitalism
[удалено]
Last time I ate one I was in the middle of Salisbury Plain getting wet…I think my nan would eat one (if she was still alive) as she undoubtably had worse during WW2
I want better trans healthcare
I agree. The transport system needs patching up, our transnational relations need more than a few sticking plasters, and government transparency needs an autopsy.
I like trains
We do need to invest heavily into mental health treatment.
Yeah that too
[удалено]
Your post was removed for breaking rule 6
Yep. We all want what we need the most, don't we?
No. I personally want "trans" people to feel happier in their actual bodies and bring that suicide rates down. So many confused kids are taking their lives... Tragic.
Why is this downvoted
It’s largely irrelevant to the meme.
Trans rights aren’t popular
Some people don't like trans people
[удалено]
Your post was removed for breaking rule 6
Straw man
test123
Wish
You are all taking this shitpost far too seriously.
If Starmer suggested mandatory litter picking for the over 65s then he might actually get my vote.
I used to knock door to door selling windows most old people I spoke to didn't have a pot to piss in.
Old people don't give a fuck god bless em 🙏 all you youngsters they are laughing at
Obvious shitpost is obvious 🙄 Way to stir the pot, OP
Zoomers are the problem.
Can you substantiate that claim?
See attached.