Jump to content

General Election


Don Dan

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 5.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Space Mackerel

It appears I was wrong and issued prior to GE knock you socks off boys.

Even sweeter when you agree with yourself on a thread a few posts up eh?

 

Never mind...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even sweeter when you agree with yourself on a thread a few posts up eh?

 

Never mind...

Yip it's called consistent!

 

Haha your crack me up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Space Mackerel

Yip it's called consistent!

 

Haha your crack me up.

You're in that much of a flap on the forum you started quoting yourself.

 

Ok then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lord BJ you are too messed up to debate with - have a nice life

Seriously we can have a debate if you want.

 

If you want to debate the changes that need to happen to state pension. Happy to oblige

 

If you want to bash the torries fair enough not really a debate the is it.

 

However, best wishes to you to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given we're living longer it makes sense it should go up at points.

 

Surely the key is therefore adequate arrangements for transitioning the age rise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given we're living longer it makes sense it should go up at points.

 

Surely the key is therefore adequate arrangements for transitioning the age rise.

This is a important discussion that people seem unwilling to want to have.

 

When the welfare system/state pension was set up the world was a very different place. The demographics of the country were very different, life expectancy was much shorter. We had much youngest people funding fewer older people in simple terms.

 

I'm sure jambox2 will correct me but I think ni (current system was set up shortly after war) when for a variety we experienced a bit of a boom period. It was easy to fund it.

 

Nowadays people are living massively longer. I think I read somewhere recenently that they believe the first person to reach 200 has been born now, due to the expendintial advances in sciences etc.

 

What the pension system was envisaged to apply to has changed massively. The system needs to change as what it's required to provide for.

 

I believe the tax take is at the highest level ever but due to changes in the demand on the system has never been under more pressure. Whilst your average joe is finding life harder than ever due to be squeezed from increasing taxes and stagnant wages.

 

It's easy to expect to receive what others received. However, that's unrealistic we can't stuff up future generation by passing our problems down to them. Though granted people are selfish so that what most will want to do.

 

We need to actually have grown up conversation around this as opposed to using it as a political pawn. We can't continue as we are at the moment.

 

I think it's an outdated concept to expect the state to look after you. I think individuals should take more personal responsibility. No doubt it's difficult with increased costs etc but we can't expect future generations to fund us. That imo is wrong.

 

I think we will see the continuation of the state pension entitlement to increase. After that I expect it will become means tested. Then eventually we will see its removal an the obligation to fall upon employers and employees. We've already seen moves to that over the last few years with obligation to provide pensions by all employers.

 

As a nation we can't afford it it's current form. People might not like that but that's where we are at the moment. This is a issue for us all to address irrespective of political allegiances. Unfortunately too many people use it for petty political party point scoring.

 

This was a independent finding not Tory policy as much as that pisses people off.

 

Seems to me a lot of people don't want to deal with the situation and stick their head in the sand. Similar to nhs at some point these things need addressed. We would be better working together and I think independent body, takeing into account cross opinion is the way forward as opposed to biased political ideology is the way forward.

 

Part policies are designed around short termisn of winning election not what needs to be done. People need to look at the issue not through the bias of party politics.

 

Unfortunately, too many are incapable doing that and prefer to throw toys out pram.

 

As a nation we will need to accept that we probably won't get what previous generations had. Is that fair, probably not but that does not change the situation we face.

 

Far too many people create a narrative about what's right or wrong as opposed to dealing with issues in hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a important discussion that people seem unwilling to want to have.

When the welfare system/state pension was set up the world was a very different place. The demographics of the country were very different, life expectancy was much shorter. We had much youngest people funding fewer older people in simple terms.

I'm sure jambox2 will correct me but I think ni (current system was set up shortly after war) when for a variety we experienced a bit of a boom period. It was easy to fund it.

Nowadays people are living massively longer. I think I read somewhere recenently that they believe the first person to reach 200 has been born now, due to the expendintial advances in sciences etc.

What the pension system was envisaged to apply to has changed massively. The system needs to change as what it's required to provide for.

I believe the tax take is at the highest level ever but due to changes in the demand on the system has never been under more pressure. Whilst your average joe is finding life harder than ever due to be squeezed from increasing taxes and stagnant wages.

It's easy to expect to receive what others received. However, that's unrealistic we can't stuff up future generation by passing our problems down to them. Though granted people are selfish so that what most will want to do.

We need to actually have grown up conversation around this as opposed to using it as a political pawn. We can't continue as we are at the moment.

I think it's an outdated concept to expect the state to look after you. I think individuals should take more personal responsibility. No doubt it's difficult with increased costs etc but we can't expect future generations to fund us. That imo is wrong.

I think we will see the continuation of the state pension entitlement to increase. After that I expect it will become means tested. Then eventually we will see its removal an the obligation to fall upon employers and employees. We've already seen moves to that over the last few years with obligation to provide pensions by all employers.

As a nation we can't afford it it's current form. People might not like that but that's where we are at the moment. This is a issue for us all to address irrespective of political allegiances. Unfortunately too many people use it for petty political party point scoring.

This was a independent finding not Tory policy as much as that pisses people off.

Seems to me a lot of people don't want to deal with the situation and stick their head in the sand. Similar to nhs at some point these things need addressed. We would be better working together and I think independent body, takeing into account cross opinion is the way forward as opposed to biased political ideology is the way forward.

Part policies are designed around short termisn of winning election not what needs to be done. People need to look at the issue not through the bias of party politics.

Unfortunately, too many are incapable doing that and prefer to throw toys out pram.

As a nation we will need to accept that we probably won't get what previous generations had. Is that fair, probably not but that does not change the situation we face.

Far too many people create a narrative about what's right or wrong as opposed to dealing with issues in hand.

National Insurance was set up by the Liberals in 1911, i think. Lloyd George had something to do with it, Chancellor maybe?

 

I think current average life expectancy is just over 80 years old, so compared to 1960 ?hen it was 70 years old, that's a rise of ten years plus in 50 years.

 

I agree that a grown up conversation is needed, but it is hard not to be political. You yourself say that you think it is an outdated concept for the state to look after you. That in itself is a political point of view. I agree people need to take personal responsibility of their welfare and make arrangements for pensions where practical. Unfortunately not everyone can do this though. I wouldn't wonder that eventually the state pension will be means tested, if it exists at all.

 

I suppose it's all about priotities and what the government should spend its money on.

 

I wonder if there is a corelation between the seeming breakdown in public services and state support in the UK and the implementation of neoliberal economic policy by government since 1979?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stuart Lyon

I always think about the impact the changes to the retirement age will have on manual workers. Will they be able to continue to work a in a physically demanding job at 67 or will they have a career change to a more sedentary role e.g. in retail or a call centre?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

National Insurance was set up by the Liberals in 1911, i think. Lloyd George had something to do with it, Chancellor maybe?

 

I think current average life expectancy is just over 80 years old, so compared to 1960 ?hen it was 70 years old, that's a rise of ten years plus in 50 years.

 

I agree that a grown up conversation is needed, but it is hard not to be political. You yourself say that you think it is an outdated concept for the state to look after you. That in itself is a political point of view. I agree people need to take personal responsibility of their welfare and make arrangements for pensions where practical. Unfortunately not everyone can do this though. I wouldn't wonder that eventually the state pension will be means tested, if it exists at all.

 

I suppose it's all about priotities and what the government should spend its money on.

 

I wonder if there is a corelation between the seeming breakdown in public services and state support in the UK and the implementation of neoliberal economic policy by government since 1979?

Your right it was the expansion of it I was getting confused with. Should have googled at time.

 

I agree with pretty much everything you say. I fully accept it's difficult for people and that why I think we need to have independent groups (cross party) looking at these things. We can't just push this down the line as we will truly screw future generations.

 

I'm sure the uk now has the weird situation where the older/pension age generation are getting richer. Whilst the younger generation (taxpayers) are in comparison getting poorer. That doesn't seem correct to me and part of that is down to how triple lock works. That's why something like means testing probably makes sense in many ways, albeit it would be political suicide.

 

The torries proposed to break triple lock and had to do a u turn on it. Though granted May was doing that many u turns at the time she was just in a constant spin!

 

Also due to the nature of pensions they are very long term so decisions for 20 years kind of need to be made now. It's a incredibly challenging issue and one we need to be looking at. The sensitivity round it massive.

 

Your last paragraph is opinion, however, it doesn't really matter as we are where we are. You can't change the past only try and shape the future.

 

I think the point, another post made, about manual workers is a excellent one. Maybe there needs to be some tiered system to take into account these sort of issues in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Folk are living longer ergo lets make them work and pay taxes longer so they dont claim their state pension until they have one foot in the grave and even if they do manage to retire earlier on their savings or private pensions lets tax that to the hilt too. After-all, it is income!

 

OR

 

Collect the correct amount of taxes from the rich Corporations and the Billionaires and the off-shore tax havens. Then stop spending money on shite like Hinckley point and nuclear submarines and 'nothing to do with us' foreign wars etc etc etc

 

Fixed

 

Thank me later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your right it was the expansion of it I was getting confused with. Should have googled at time.

I agree with pretty much everything you say. I fully accept it's difficult for people and that why I think we need to have independent groups (cross party) looking at these things. We can't just push this down the line as we will truly screw future generations.

I'm sure the uk now has the weird situation where the older/pension age generation are getting richer. Whilst the younger generation (taxpayers) are in comparison getting poorer. That doesn't seem correct to me and part of that is down to how triple lock works. That's why something like means testing probably makes sense in many ways, albeit it would be political suicide.

The torries proposed to break triple lock and had to do a u turn on it. Though granted May was doing that many u turns at the time she was just in a constant spin!

Also due to the nature of pensions they are very long term so decisions for 20 years kind of need to be made now. It's a incredibly challenging issue and one we need to be looking at. The sensitivity round it massive.

Your last paragraph is opinion, however, it doesn't really matter as we are where we are. You can't change the past only try and shape the future.

I think the point, another post made, about manual workers is a excellent one. Maybe there needs to be some tiered system to take into account these sort of issues in the future.

Again, I don't really disagree with what you say, although I suspect that the issue of pensions is merely the tip of the iceberg. Employment, careers even, housing, education, health all have a major bearing. It perhaps needs an holistic view of things to be a success?

 

I too think the point about manual workers is a good one.

 

My last paragraph was more of a question than opinion, tbh. I'm not old enough to have experienced the 50's and 60's and wonder if there was the same pressure on public services in those days, e.g. NHS needs more funding, not enough nurses etc. Merely wondering if neoliberal marketisation actually benefited these services, or have they always been teetering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I don't really disagree with what you say, although I suspect that the issue of pensions is merely the tip of the iceberg. Employment, careers even, housing, education, health all have a major bearing. It perhaps needs an holistic view of things to be a success?

 

I too think the point about manual workers is a good one.

 

My last paragraph was more of a question than opinion, tbh. I'm not old enough to have experienced the 50's and 60's and wonder if there was the same pressure on public services in those days, e.g. NHS needs more funding, not enough nurses etc. Merely wondering if neoliberal marketisation actually benefited these services, or have they always been teetering.

Without going against the grain in thread. In complete agreement about the holistic view.

 

Sorry I phrased my last para very poorly. I understood it was question as you helpfully put a question mark at end. I just meant the answer was about opinion.

 

We're a very similar age from what I can pick up. I genuinely don't know the answer. i suspect that as things things like the NHS in relative terms we're pretty new. So their was probably a more grateful acceptance of these things as people remember the 'bad old days'. I also suspect weirdly that as we get technolocal advances these created more pressure on services as they had to provide more. That said we probably always had perception it was never good enough as well we always want more. Human nature I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...