BREXIT - Is This Really Still Rumbling On? 😴
Comments
-
Thanks for clearing up that I have no understanding of modern politics.
0 -
*shrugs* your comment about your parents working hard and begrudging them a comfortable retirement is really irrelevant to my point, so if you wanna go at the argument that way, then go for it.skyblueamateur said:Thanks for clearing up that I have no understanding of modern politics.
0 -
I did - if that change hadn't been brought in then P&O's actions would have been illegal.john80 said:
Read the things you quote and decide whether this is the smoking gun you think it is.Pross said:
As it was widely reported last week I'm surprised you hadn't heard. I've used this particular link as I thought it would be less open to claims of political bias. Amendments to the Statutory Instrument rather than a Statute.john80 said:
Feel free to quote the statutes that the government put in place to allow this practice across the seafaring community. I think it is maybe more of an international problem than you would care to admit.Pross said:
Have I missed something? The Government created rules that allowed P&O to sack a well paid work force, register ships in other countries and employ new workers at less than minimum wage. How is this a good thing for the issues you've raised?john80 said:Is it not a good thing that we are looking to close some of the international seafarer rules that have resulted in a race to the bottom? Is it not better for the UK worker that a ferry that spends its entire time in French or UK coastal waters is not allowed to ship in foreign labour on a 3 months on and some time off with a flight back to their home nations so that P&O and all the other companies are doing? Is it not sensible that if you wish to benefit from the market that is the UK you have to show some level of responsibility and pay staff a wage they can afford to live of in the country you are selling a service to?
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/obiter/who-let-pando-off-the-legal-hook-one-name-springs-to-mind/5111959.article0 -
I thought they were anyway, because they didn't consult with the unions.Pross said:
I did - if that change hadn't been brought in then P&O's actions would have been illegal.john80 said:
Read the things you quote and decide whether this is the smoking gun you think it is.Pross said:
As it was widely reported last week I'm surprised you hadn't heard. I've used this particular link as I thought it would be less open to claims of political bias. Amendments to the Statutory Instrument rather than a Statute.john80 said:
Feel free to quote the statutes that the government put in place to allow this practice across the seafaring community. I think it is maybe more of an international problem than you would care to admit.Pross said:
Have I missed something? The Government created rules that allowed P&O to sack a well paid work force, register ships in other countries and employ new workers at less than minimum wage. How is this a good thing for the issues you've raised?john80 said:Is it not a good thing that we are looking to close some of the international seafarer rules that have resulted in a race to the bottom? Is it not better for the UK worker that a ferry that spends its entire time in French or UK coastal waters is not allowed to ship in foreign labour on a 3 months on and some time off with a flight back to their home nations so that P&O and all the other companies are doing? Is it not sensible that if you wish to benefit from the market that is the UK you have to show some level of responsibility and pay staff a wage they can afford to live of in the country you are selling a service to?
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/obiter/who-let-pando-off-the-legal-hook-one-name-springs-to-mind/5111959.article
The actual end result probably wouldn't be illegal in either case. It may well be the case that the UK can bring in legislation that addresses it, but I'm not sure what the effect on the UK's competitiveness that would be, if all vessels coming to the UK suddenly have to comply with UK employment laws.0 -
How do you propose redistributing this wealth out of interest?rick_chasey said:
*shrugs* your comment about your parents working hard and begrudging them a comfortable retirement is really irrelevant to my point, so if you wanna go at the argument that way, then go for it.skyblueamateur said:Thanks for clearing up that I have no understanding of modern politics.
Surely as 'Boomers' die their wealth is redistributed back down the generations? Is the problem not that there is too much money in too few hands and age is slightly irrelevant?1 -
Just the ferries. Doubt it will even cover cruise ships.kingstongraham said:
I thought they were anyway, because they didn't consult with the unions.Pross said:
I did - if that change hadn't been brought in then P&O's actions would have been illegal.john80 said:
Read the things you quote and decide whether this is the smoking gun you think it is.Pross said:
As it was widely reported last week I'm surprised you hadn't heard. I've used this particular link as I thought it would be less open to claims of political bias. Amendments to the Statutory Instrument rather than a Statute.john80 said:
Feel free to quote the statutes that the government put in place to allow this practice across the seafaring community. I think it is maybe more of an international problem than you would care to admit.Pross said:
Have I missed something? The Government created rules that allowed P&O to sack a well paid work force, register ships in other countries and employ new workers at less than minimum wage. How is this a good thing for the issues you've raised?john80 said:Is it not a good thing that we are looking to close some of the international seafarer rules that have resulted in a race to the bottom? Is it not better for the UK worker that a ferry that spends its entire time in French or UK coastal waters is not allowed to ship in foreign labour on a 3 months on and some time off with a flight back to their home nations so that P&O and all the other companies are doing? Is it not sensible that if you wish to benefit from the market that is the UK you have to show some level of responsibility and pay staff a wage they can afford to live of in the country you are selling a service to?
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/obiter/who-let-pando-off-the-legal-hook-one-name-springs-to-mind/5111959.article
The actual end result probably wouldn't be illegal in either case. It may well be the case that the UK can bring in legislation that addresses it, but I'm not sure what the effect on the UK's competitiveness that would be, if all vessels coming to the UK suddenly have to comply with UK employment laws.0 -
What is the 'EU loophole' the Telegraph was blaming for allowing the workers to be sacked?kingstongraham said:
I thought they were anyway, because they didn't consult with the unions.Pross said:
I did - if that change hadn't been brought in then P&O's actions would have been illegal.john80 said:
Read the things you quote and decide whether this is the smoking gun you think it is.Pross said:
As it was widely reported last week I'm surprised you hadn't heard. I've used this particular link as I thought it would be less open to claims of political bias. Amendments to the Statutory Instrument rather than a Statute.john80 said:
Feel free to quote the statutes that the government put in place to allow this practice across the seafaring community. I think it is maybe more of an international problem than you would care to admit.Pross said:
Have I missed something? The Government created rules that allowed P&O to sack a well paid work force, register ships in other countries and employ new workers at less than minimum wage. How is this a good thing for the issues you've raised?john80 said:Is it not a good thing that we are looking to close some of the international seafarer rules that have resulted in a race to the bottom? Is it not better for the UK worker that a ferry that spends its entire time in French or UK coastal waters is not allowed to ship in foreign labour on a 3 months on and some time off with a flight back to their home nations so that P&O and all the other companies are doing? Is it not sensible that if you wish to benefit from the market that is the UK you have to show some level of responsibility and pay staff a wage they can afford to live of in the country you are selling a service to?
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/obiter/who-let-pando-off-the-legal-hook-one-name-springs-to-mind/5111959.article
The actual end result probably wouldn't be illegal in either case. It may well be the case that the UK can bring in legislation that addresses it, but I'm not sure what the effect on the UK's competitiveness that would be, if all vessels coming to the UK suddenly have to comply with UK employment laws.0 -
Pross said:
What is the 'EU loophole' the Telegraph was blaming for allowing the workers to be sacked?kingstongraham said:
I thought they were anyway, because they didn't consult with the unions.Pross said:
I did - if that change hadn't been brought in then P&O's actions would have been illegal.john80 said:
Read the things you quote and decide whether this is the smoking gun you think it is.Pross said:
As it was widely reported last week I'm surprised you hadn't heard. I've used this particular link as I thought it would be less open to claims of political bias. Amendments to the Statutory Instrument rather than a Statute.john80 said:
Feel free to quote the statutes that the government put in place to allow this practice across the seafaring community. I think it is maybe more of an international problem than you would care to admit.Pross said:
Have I missed something? The Government created rules that allowed P&O to sack a well paid work force, register ships in other countries and employ new workers at less than minimum wage. How is this a good thing for the issues you've raised?john80 said:Is it not a good thing that we are looking to close some of the international seafarer rules that have resulted in a race to the bottom? Is it not better for the UK worker that a ferry that spends its entire time in French or UK coastal waters is not allowed to ship in foreign labour on a 3 months on and some time off with a flight back to their home nations so that P&O and all the other companies are doing? Is it not sensible that if you wish to benefit from the market that is the UK you have to show some level of responsibility and pay staff a wage they can afford to live of in the country you are selling a service to?
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/obiter/who-let-pando-off-the-legal-hook-one-name-springs-to-mind/5111959.article
The actual end result probably wouldn't be illegal in either case. It may well be the case that the UK can bring in legislation that addresses it, but I'm not sure what the effect on the UK's competitiveness that would be, if all vessels coming to the UK suddenly have to comply with UK employment laws.Mr Grayling was obliged to enforce rule following an EU directive that meant ferry operators only had to inform the “flag state” of their vessels of redundancies.
P&O argues that this meant it was not obliged to inform the Secretary of State before announcing the sackings earlier this month. The Government is investigating whether the rules were applied correctly.
0 -
Shifting back to topic - any Brexiters given some thought to why Zelensky is so hot on joining the EU?0
-
did pensioners vote for Brexit because they thought the 80% was too high or too low?rick_chasey said:
If you don't understand there is a real problem with intergenerational inequality you don't understand modern politics.skyblueamateur said:
Exactly. RC continually thinking all the worlds ills are the fault of 'Boomers' is tiresome.Dorset_Boy said:Seeing as older people have worked for longer and progressed up the seniority ladder in the workplace, it would be utterly crazy if they didn't hold most of the wealth. They've been saving towards their retirement for 45-50 years.
The Under 35s have been saving for no more than a third of that time.
My parents worked their fingers to the bone bringing us up and providing for us while they went without. I'm not going to begrudge them having a 'comfortable' retirement. I'm sure that's the case for most.
Unfortunately some of the elderly of that generation around here don't have a pot to p1ss in and it is a real, real struggle.
It's not about attributing blame. It's understanding what is driving people to think certain ways and the problems that creates.
It's the same forces that drove Brexit, to get it back on topic.1 -
I think there will be major resentment over concil tax bills because of thisTheBigBean said:
The tricky thing is that even if you max out your pension pot, it doesn't really compare to a public sector pension.Dorset_Boy said:
I really don't think you should be that pessimistic if you are in a reasonable job.Jezyboy said:
I think the sticking point is its now very hard for my generation to see a path to a retirement where they have anything better than barely being able to manage the essentials.Pross said:
My dad had to work until he was 70, my mum was about 67. They had to sell their house to my sister who now rents it back to them. The view you have may well be founded on nationwide statistics (my in-laws who worked in the steel industry and local government have a comfortable retirement and finished early) there are a huge amount of that generation that are barely able to manage the essentials.rick_chasey said:
Bit hard for younger generations to be retiring later than the state pension age, tbf.Dorset_Boy said:I think this is the place for this one:
It isn't all the sunset uplands that certain posters believe for the 'boomers'.
https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2022/03/28/over-a-third-of-baby-boomers-set-to-retire-later-than-spa/?xnpe_tifc=h.1d4dULhFnXxIE_xIol4ypsafeWaeiWhFW5tupWEyQ3hoBLak46hfJ8huscbf8.Rfe3tu4vt9UgrFP_bI4NxFxDbI_D4d4LOkYT&utm_source=exponea&utm_campaign=FTAdviser afternoon bulletin 28 March 2022&utm_medium=email
since the introduction of auto-enrolment the pension situation for your generation has improved (assuming you're not stupid enough to have opted out) as you get a compulsory employer contribution, something that wasn't there in the previous 20+ years.
The 'new' state pension is significantly better than the old one, and even though it may kick in a bit later, you are still likely to have more years post SPA than those currently retired.
Sure, outside the public sector there are no salary related pension schemes anymore, but many employers realise the importance of a proper remuneration package and make more than the statutory minimum contributions.
The key has always been to start saving young, and a good rule of thumb is to save half of every pay rise. I wish in hindsight I'd done that better, rather than going to the pub so often and buying frivilous things, whilst coping with a mortgage rate of 16%.
Having said all that, and before I get jumped on, note my caveat about a reasonable job. I also recognise, as I think we all do, that there are a significant number of people who struggle just to keep food on the table, a roof over their heads and some heat in their homes, and for them any form of saving, is impossible (though they should still join their employer's pension scheme).0 -
Are you ducking giving an answer to my question about what you consider a fair percentage of the wealth to be held by the over 60s?rick_chasey said:Shifting back to topic - any Brexiters given some thought to why Zelensky is so hot on joining the EU?
0 -
It's nonsense then. They could have done it but they would have needed to tell the government, which they did anyway, didn't they?briantrumpet said:Pross said:
What is the 'EU loophole' the Telegraph was blaming for allowing the workers to be sacked?kingstongraham said:
I thought they were anyway, because they didn't consult with the unions.Pross said:
I did - if that change hadn't been brought in then P&O's actions would have been illegal.john80 said:
Read the things you quote and decide whether this is the smoking gun you think it is.Pross said:
As it was widely reported last week I'm surprised you hadn't heard. I've used this particular link as I thought it would be less open to claims of political bias. Amendments to the Statutory Instrument rather than a Statute.john80 said:
Feel free to quote the statutes that the government put in place to allow this practice across the seafaring community. I think it is maybe more of an international problem than you would care to admit.Pross said:
Have I missed something? The Government created rules that allowed P&O to sack a well paid work force, register ships in other countries and employ new workers at less than minimum wage. How is this a good thing for the issues you've raised?john80 said:Is it not a good thing that we are looking to close some of the international seafarer rules that have resulted in a race to the bottom? Is it not better for the UK worker that a ferry that spends its entire time in French or UK coastal waters is not allowed to ship in foreign labour on a 3 months on and some time off with a flight back to their home nations so that P&O and all the other companies are doing? Is it not sensible that if you wish to benefit from the market that is the UK you have to show some level of responsibility and pay staff a wage they can afford to live of in the country you are selling a service to?
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/obiter/who-let-pando-off-the-legal-hook-one-name-springs-to-mind/5111959.article
The actual end result probably wouldn't be illegal in either case. It may well be the case that the UK can bring in legislation that addresses it, but I'm not sure what the effect on the UK's competitiveness that would be, if all vessels coming to the UK suddenly have to comply with UK employment laws.Mr Grayling was obliged to enforce rule following an EU directive that meant ferry operators only had to inform the “flag state” of their vessels of redundancies.
P&O argues that this meant it was not obliged to inform the Secretary of State before announcing the sackings earlier this month. The Government is investigating whether the rules were applied correctly.
That aside, it's quite an interesting article, notable for the quote from Labour MP for Hull East:
“My advisers keep on telling me ‘stop praising Grant Shapps’,” Turner says. “[But] the truth is Grant Shapps has done a lot of heavy lifting behind the scenes. Because every time I've spoken with ministers and civil servants that said to me: ‘This is impossible to do.’
“I’m going to thank P&O, because their despicable act has caused the Government embarrassment and shame. And [ministers] have had to act.”0 -
No. I'm not really sure the issue is about fairness.Dorset_Boy said:
Are you ducking giving an answer to my question about what you consider a fair percentage of the wealth to be held by the over 60s?rick_chasey said:Shifting back to topic - any Brexiters given some thought to why Zelensky is so hot on joining the EU?
It's more, it reflects the political climate and policymaking which *always* benefits the old and retired over the young and not retired - this stores up lots of problems.
So for all the sob stories of pensioners who can't afford retirement, there are plenty more lower down the age range. Your specific story made me scoff, as I am almost certain by the time my generation is at retirement age, that age will be *a lot *older.
The government keeps making rules that relatively disadvantage working age over retired age. That includes Brexit (as your average retiree has earned their money trading freely with the EU).
Let me re-phrase it another way. If boomers are as rich as the stats say they are, how bad is it going to be when future generations get to retirement age, hmm?
0 -
So you are ducking the question then.
The older generations by definition will always hold more wealth.1 -
How about 50-60% for the retired? Like it was in the 1990.Dorset_Boy said:So you are ducking the question then.
The older generations by definition will always hold more wealth.0 -
Yes, it appears all the reporting on loopholes, law changes etc. is largely irrelevant as it is simply about whether the government are notified.kingstongraham said:
It's nonsense then. They could have done it but they would have needed to tell the government, which they did anyway, didn't they?briantrumpet said:Pross said:
What is the 'EU loophole' the Telegraph was blaming for allowing the workers to be sacked?kingstongraham said:
I thought they were anyway, because they didn't consult with the unions.Pross said:
I did - if that change hadn't been brought in then P&O's actions would have been illegal.john80 said:
Read the things you quote and decide whether this is the smoking gun you think it is.Pross said:
As it was widely reported last week I'm surprised you hadn't heard. I've used this particular link as I thought it would be less open to claims of political bias. Amendments to the Statutory Instrument rather than a Statute.john80 said:
Feel free to quote the statutes that the government put in place to allow this practice across the seafaring community. I think it is maybe more of an international problem than you would care to admit.Pross said:
Have I missed something? The Government created rules that allowed P&O to sack a well paid work force, register ships in other countries and employ new workers at less than minimum wage. How is this a good thing for the issues you've raised?john80 said:Is it not a good thing that we are looking to close some of the international seafarer rules that have resulted in a race to the bottom? Is it not better for the UK worker that a ferry that spends its entire time in French or UK coastal waters is not allowed to ship in foreign labour on a 3 months on and some time off with a flight back to their home nations so that P&O and all the other companies are doing? Is it not sensible that if you wish to benefit from the market that is the UK you have to show some level of responsibility and pay staff a wage they can afford to live of in the country you are selling a service to?
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/obiter/who-let-pando-off-the-legal-hook-one-name-springs-to-mind/5111959.article
The actual end result probably wouldn't be illegal in either case. It may well be the case that the UK can bring in legislation that addresses it, but I'm not sure what the effect on the UK's competitiveness that would be, if all vessels coming to the UK suddenly have to comply with UK employment laws.Mr Grayling was obliged to enforce rule following an EU directive that meant ferry operators only had to inform the “flag state” of their vessels of redundancies.
P&O argues that this meant it was not obliged to inform the Secretary of State before announcing the sackings earlier this month. The Government is investigating whether the rules were applied correctly.
That aside, it's quite an interesting article, notable for the quote from Labour MP for Hull East:
“My advisers keep on telling me ‘stop praising Grant Shapps’,” Turner says. “[But] the truth is Grant Shapps has done a lot of heavy lifting behind the scenes. Because every time I've spoken with ministers and civil servants that said to me: ‘This is impossible to do.’
“I’m going to thank P&O, because their despicable act has caused the Government embarrassment and shame. And [ministers] have had to act.”
0 -
I need to work out how to land a public sector job for a few years..surrey_commuter said:
I think there will be major resentment over concil tax bills because of thisTheBigBean said:
The tricky thing is that even if you max out your pension pot, it doesn't really compare to a public sector pension.Dorset_Boy said:
I really don't think you should be that pessimistic if you are in a reasonable job.Jezyboy said:
I think the sticking point is its now very hard for my generation to see a path to a retirement where they have anything better than barely being able to manage the essentials.Pross said:
My dad had to work until he was 70, my mum was about 67. They had to sell their house to my sister who now rents it back to them. The view you have may well be founded on nationwide statistics (my in-laws who worked in the steel industry and local government have a comfortable retirement and finished early) there are a huge amount of that generation that are barely able to manage the essentials.rick_chasey said:
Bit hard for younger generations to be retiring later than the state pension age, tbf.Dorset_Boy said:I think this is the place for this one:
It isn't all the sunset uplands that certain posters believe for the 'boomers'.
https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2022/03/28/over-a-third-of-baby-boomers-set-to-retire-later-than-spa/?xnpe_tifc=h.1d4dULhFnXxIE_xIol4ypsafeWaeiWhFW5tupWEyQ3hoBLak46hfJ8huscbf8.Rfe3tu4vt9UgrFP_bI4NxFxDbI_D4d4LOkYT&utm_source=exponea&utm_campaign=FTAdviser afternoon bulletin 28 March 2022&utm_medium=email
since the introduction of auto-enrolment the pension situation for your generation has improved (assuming you're not stupid enough to have opted out) as you get a compulsory employer contribution, something that wasn't there in the previous 20+ years.
The 'new' state pension is significantly better than the old one, and even though it may kick in a bit later, you are still likely to have more years post SPA than those currently retired.
Sure, outside the public sector there are no salary related pension schemes anymore, but many employers realise the importance of a proper remuneration package and make more than the statutory minimum contributions.
The key has always been to start saving young, and a good rule of thumb is to save half of every pay rise. I wish in hindsight I'd done that better, rather than going to the pub so often and buying frivilous things, whilst coping with a mortgage rate of 16%.
Having said all that, and before I get jumped on, note my caveat about a reasonable job. I also recognise, as I think we all do, that there are a significant number of people who struggle just to keep food on the table, a roof over their heads and some heat in their homes, and for them any form of saving, is impossible (though they should still join their employer's pension scheme).0 -
So it was talking about the same loophole despite John telling me I hadn't read the article I linked to? I assumed I'd missed some other dastardly EU law that had allowed it all to happen.briantrumpet said:Pross said:
What is the 'EU loophole' the Telegraph was blaming for allowing the workers to be sacked?kingstongraham said:
I thought they were anyway, because they didn't consult with the unions.Pross said:
I did - if that change hadn't been brought in then P&O's actions would have been illegal.john80 said:
Read the things you quote and decide whether this is the smoking gun you think it is.Pross said:
As it was widely reported last week I'm surprised you hadn't heard. I've used this particular link as I thought it would be less open to claims of political bias. Amendments to the Statutory Instrument rather than a Statute.john80 said:
Feel free to quote the statutes that the government put in place to allow this practice across the seafaring community. I think it is maybe more of an international problem than you would care to admit.Pross said:
Have I missed something? The Government created rules that allowed P&O to sack a well paid work force, register ships in other countries and employ new workers at less than minimum wage. How is this a good thing for the issues you've raised?john80 said:Is it not a good thing that we are looking to close some of the international seafarer rules that have resulted in a race to the bottom? Is it not better for the UK worker that a ferry that spends its entire time in French or UK coastal waters is not allowed to ship in foreign labour on a 3 months on and some time off with a flight back to their home nations so that P&O and all the other companies are doing? Is it not sensible that if you wish to benefit from the market that is the UK you have to show some level of responsibility and pay staff a wage they can afford to live of in the country you are selling a service to?
https://www.lawgazette.co.uk/obiter/who-let-pando-off-the-legal-hook-one-name-springs-to-mind/5111959.article
The actual end result probably wouldn't be illegal in either case. It may well be the case that the UK can bring in legislation that addresses it, but I'm not sure what the effect on the UK's competitiveness that would be, if all vessels coming to the UK suddenly have to comply with UK employment laws.Mr Grayling was obliged to enforce rule following an EU directive that meant ferry operators only had to inform the “flag state” of their vessels of redundancies.
P&O argues that this meant it was not obliged to inform the Secretary of State before announcing the sackings earlier this month. The Government is investigating whether the rules were applied correctly.0 -
EsierDorset_Boy said:
Are you ducking giving an answer to my question about what you consider a fair percentage of the wealth to be held by the over 60s?rick_chasey said:Shifting back to topic - any Brexiters given some thought to why Zelensky is so hot on joining the EU?
What was the average life expectancy in 1990 out of interest? People are living longer so the percentage of retired people is growing? Thus the amount of wealth held as a percentage would increase?rick_chasey said:
How about 50-60% for the retired? Like it was in the 1990.Dorset_Boy said:So you are ducking the question then.
The older generations by definition will always hold more wealth.
Stick another 10 years on the current retirement age and Bob's Yer Uncle I've sorted your wealth redistribution for you RC. Everyone's a winner. Well nearly.0 -
Yeah, but boomers!0
-
It's the use of the term that instantly gets my back up.Pross said:Yeah, but boomers!
2 -
Why shouldn’t the retirement age rise?
We live longer than when it was introduced.
FWIW, the problem isn’t the older generation being wealthy. As stated already, that is partly inevitable as you have simply had time to acquire wealth.
The problem is that the wealth inequality is greater than it should be and yet policies are being introduced that accelerate the divide rather than address it.1 -
To back up SkyBlueAmateur:
When the State Pension was set up just after the Second World War, male life expectancy was c.64, and the SPA was set at 65.
Male life expectancy is c83 at birth now, and a 65 year old male can expect to life to 88 on average and has a 1 in 4 chance of hitting 100.
Life expectancy has risen by roughly 3 months for each year that has passed since the State Pension was set up.0 -
Sorry what’s the point here?Dorset_Boy said:To back up SkyBlueAmateur:
When the State Pension was set up just after the Second World War, male life expectancy was c.64, and the SPA was set at 65.
Male life expectancy is c83 at birth now, and a 65 year old male can expect to life to 88 on average and has a 1 in 4 chance of hitting 100.
Life expectancy has risen by roughly 3 months for each year that has passed since the State Pension was set up.
That the massive shift of wealth from working age to retirement age is exclusively down to demographics?
0 -
It demonstrates that the population is aging, therefore one factor in the shift of wealth is clearly this demographic shift.
Life expectancy in 2022 is c7 years more than it was in 1990.
Did you not bother to read SBA's post?1 -
Would be pointless as I have no understanding of modern politics.Dorset_Boy said:It demonstrates that the population is aging, therefore one factor in the shift of wealth is clearly this demographic shift.
Life expectancy in 2022 is c7 years more than it was in 1990.
Did you not bother to read SBA's post?0 -
FWIW I agree with raising the retirement age and believe that all benefits should be means tested regardless of age.0
-
Boomer snowflake?skyblueamateur said:
It's the use of the term that instantly gets my back up.Pross said:Yeah, but boomers!
0
