Join the Labour Party and save your country!

rjsterry

Tangled Metal wrote:

Not while working. And after retirement (and the ten years of working after retirement age) the state pension was so small compared to what they arranged for themselves that it just went into a bank account and probably ended up inheritance.

Of course they did claim it but put bluntly of they didn't have to pay into through their working life they'd probably have put it into more productive investments. However isn't state pension not affected by your work history as in how long you pay into it? So in a way it's less a benefit than a state investment for the future?

It's a benefit. As is a free TV license and a free bus pass. Which is fine. I have absolutely no problem with anyone claiming any and all benefits to which they are entitled. Likewise taking advantage of any tax breaks.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Not while working. And after retirement (and the ten years of working after retirement age) the state pension was so small compared to what they arranged for themselves that it just went into a bank account and probably ended up inheritance.

Of course they did claim it but put bluntly of they didn't have to pay into through their working life they'd probably have put it into more productive investments. However isn't state pension not affected by your work history as in how long you pay into it? So in a way it's less a benefit than a state investment for the future?

It's a benefit. As is a free TV license and a free bus pass. Which is fine. I have absolutely no problem with anyone claiming any and all benefits to which they are entitled. Likewise taking advantage of any tax breaks.

The grey army’s commas team has very effectively positioned benefits for the elderly as entitlements.

I have never seen a Daily Mail article moaning about a pensioner living in a million pound house whilst scrounging a free TV licence, buss pass and winter fuel allowance

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Not while working. And after retirement (and the ten years of working after retirement age) the state pension was so small compared to what they arranged for themselves that it just went into a bank account and probably ended up inheritance.

Of course they did claim it but put bluntly of they didn't have to pay into through their working life they'd probably have put it into more productive investments. However isn't state pension not affected by your work history as in how long you pay into it? So in a way it's less a benefit than a state investment for the future?

It's a benefit. As is a free TV license and a free bus pass. Which is fine. I have absolutely no problem with anyone claiming any and all benefits to which they are entitled. Likewise taking advantage of any tax breaks.

The grey army’s commas team has very effectively positioned benefits for the elderly as entitlements.

I have never seen a Daily Mail article moaning about a pensioner living in a million pound house whilst scrounging a free TV licence, buss pass and winter fuel allowance

Possibly because it is a rare combination.

surrey_commuter

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

Not while working. And after retirement (and the ten years of working after retirement age) the state pension was so small compared to what they arranged for themselves that it just went into a bank account and probably ended up inheritance.

Of course they did claim it but put bluntly of they didn't have to pay into through their working life they'd probably have put it into more productive investments. However isn't state pension not affected by your work history as in how long you pay into it? So in a way it's less a benefit than a state investment for the future?

It's a benefit. As is a free TV license and a free bus pass. Which is fine. I have absolutely no problem with anyone claiming any and all benefits to which they are entitled. Likewise taking advantage of any tax breaks.

The grey army’s commas team has very effectively positioned benefits for the elderly as entitlements.

I have never seen a Daily Mail article moaning about a pensioner living in a million pound house whilst scrounging a free TV licence, buss pass and winter fuel allowance

Possibly because it is a rare combination.

rarer than households scrounging benefits greater than £26k per annum?

rjsterry

While my line of work probably gives a skewed view, I don't think it is as rare as all that. Million pound house might be an exaggeration outside London, but that demographic is more likely to own their own home (mortgage free by that point) than any other.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/n ... hart3.html

rick_chasey

Retired generation have more money coming in per day than generation of working age.

Mental.

rjsterry

I can't imagine it is the first time this has happened.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

I can't imagine it is the first time this has happened.

When before?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I can't imagine it is the first time this has happened.

When before?

I'd have to do some research, but I might start looking around the beginning of the 19th century.

rick_chasey

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I can't imagine it is the first time this has happened.

When before?

I'd have to do some research, but I might start looking around the beginning of the 19th century.

It'd be a different dynamic, as it'd be people who retired because they were wealthy.

After all, most people would work till they dropped dead.

If you care for generational changes, millennial are the firs generation not to experience an increase in income compared to the previous one since the war.

rick_chasey

Tangentially related is this thread from the Bloomberg opinion column.

https://twitter.com/Noahpinion/status/1 ... 3201861632

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

I can't imagine it is the first time this has happened.

When before?

I'd have to do some research, but I might start looking around the beginning of the 19th century.

It'd be a different dynamic, as it'd be people who retired because they were wealthy.

After all, most people would work till they dropped dead.

If you care for generational changes, millennial are the firs generation not to experience an increase in income compared to the previous one since the war.

Sure, it was a different world. I just meant that things haven't always got better. I picked that period because it featured a big property crash. Some of the speculative developments started in the last years of the 18th century (those lovely Georgian terraces) were left as unfinished shells for twenty years before the market picked up enough for them to be finished and sold. "Since the war" is not that long in the scheme of things.

rick_chasey

No but since your example you did have the birth of the socialist revolution and it saw the birth and death of the socialist communist experiment, so it’s hardly small beer either.

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

No but since your example you did have the birth of the socialist revolution and it saw the birth and death of the socialist communist experiment, so it’s hardly small beer either.

And just before my example was the French Revolution. And before that...

I was watching something about Ancient Egypt the other day that was looking at evidence of what looked a lot like a revolution. Names of previous pharaohs erased. Royal burials ransacked.

Anyway, probably best to not head further down this rabbit hole.

rick_chasey

It is however critical in understanding why Corbyn is popular with young people.

His myth marries the old fashioned disappointment with lack of opportunity to be as wealthy as those around you (your parents and your baby boomer bosses) with an understanding of liberal identity politics.

Honestly, if the young felt they had more opportunities and more job security, Tories would be slamming home monster majorities.

shirley_basso

If only they worked harder and knuckled down and didn't spend all their money on holidays and iPhones....

Young people these days. Where are my rose tinted spectacles when I need them

robert88

Rick Chasey wrote:

Retired generation have more money coming in per day than generation of working age.

Mental.

It's not really mental.

The UK is simply settling into its real place in the world. Much of our position in the economic table is owed to factors well beyond the reach of most of us. Same in the USA.

surrey_commuter

I really don’t get the level of entitlement that leads an entire generation to expect to be better off than their parents.

Whatever happened to knuckling down (or not) and making your own way in life?

What if your mum was CEO of a FTSE company and you become a teacher, should you be paid based on her salary?

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I really don’t get the level of entitlement that leads an entire generation to expect to be better off than their parents.

Whatever happened to knuckling down (or not) and making your own way in life?

What if your mum was CEO of a FTSE company and you become a teacher, should you be paid based on her salary?

Is it unreasonable for a teacher today to expect to be equally as well off as a teacher in the past?

You post sometimes like you live in a bubble.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I really don’t get the level of entitlement that leads an entire generation to expect to be better off than their parents.

Whatever happened to knuckling down (or not) and making your own way in life?

What if your mum was CEO of a FTSE company and you become a teacher, should you be paid based on her salary?

It’s not about knuckling down is it? That’s totally irrelevant.

And anyway, all research suggests this generation works harder than previous did at the same age.

You expect growth in the economy year on year, so why ought the younger generation not expect to earn more than their parents?

rjsterry

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I really don’t get the level of entitlement that leads an entire generation to expect to be better off than their parents.

Whatever happened to knuckling down (or not) and making your own way in life?

What if your mum was CEO of a FTSE company and you become a teacher, should you be paid based on her salary?

It’s not about knuckling down is it? That’s totally irrelevant.

And anyway, all research suggests this generation works harder than previous did at the same age.

You expect growth in the economy year on year, so why ought the younger generation not expect to earn more than their parents?

Or even just the same as their parents.

Stevo_666

I never expected to earn more than my parents: I made it happen. Same applies here.

shirley_basso

On a like for like basis when compared with cost of living, notably housing.

Stevo_666

Shirley Basso wrote:

On a like for like basis when compared with cost of living, notably housing.

Yep.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I really don’t get the level of entitlement that leads an entire generation to expect to be better off than their parents.

Whatever happened to knuckling down (or not) and making your own way in life?

What if your mum was CEO of a FTSE company and you become a teacher, should you be paid based on her salary?

Is it unreasonable for a teacher today to expect to be equally as well off as a teacher in the past?

You post sometimes like you live in a bubble.

Now you are introducing “well off” whereas the others aren’t allowing for inflation.

As a general rule I don’t get it as an argument. It just sounds very 1970s follow your dad into the same profession a nd let inflation do the rest.

If you are interested in wealth and want to become a teacher then chose your subject accordingly and then work your nuts off to get promoted.

What does my bubble look like?

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I really don’t get the level of entitlement that leads an entire generation to expect to be better off than their parents.

Whatever happened to knuckling down (or not) and making your own way in life?

What if your mum was CEO of a FTSE company and you become a teacher, should you be paid based on her salary?

Is it unreasonable for a teacher today to expect to be equally as well off as a teacher in the past?

You post sometimes like you live in a bubble.

Now you are introducing “well off” whereas the others aren’t allowing for inflation.

As a general rule I don’t get it as an argument. It just sounds very 1970s follow your dad into the same profession a nd let inflation do the rest.

If you are interested in wealth and want to become a teacher then chose your subject accordingly and then work your nuts off to get promoted.

What does my bubble look like?

You picked a teacher - a profession whose value to society should not have diminished with time. Other professions may have lost their value with time particularly if they have been replaced with machinery.

You sometimes appear to live in a bubble that believes its privilege has been enitrely earnt. It's not a lonely place.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I really don’t get the level of entitlement that leads an entire generation to expect to be better off than their parents.

Whatever happened to knuckling down (or not) and making your own way in life?

What if your mum was CEO of a FTSE company and you become a teacher, should you be paid based on her salary?

Is it unreasonable for a teacher today to expect to be equally as well off as a teacher in the past?

You post sometimes like you live in a bubble.

Now you are introducing “well off” whereas the others aren’t allowing for inflation.

As a general rule I don’t get it as an argument. It just sounds very 1970s follow your dad into the same profession a nd let inflation do the rest.

If you are interested in wealth and want to become a teacher then chose your subject accordingly and then work your nuts off to get promoted.

What does my bubble look like?

You picked a teacher - a profession whose value to society should not have diminished with time. Other professions may have lost their value with time particularly if they have been replaced with machinery.

You sometimes appear to live in a bubble that believes its privilege has been enitrely earnt. It's not a lonely place.

I picked a teacher because it tends to be well comparison stat.

I have to go out but happy to get into the weeds of this and try and at least understand millennial entitlement. What do you mean by “well off” is it there comparative ability to afford a bottle of wine, car, Spanish holiday with previous years or against a Corporate lawyer?

I have no idea what your last para means - maybe spellcheck worked it’s magic

Stevo_666

TheBigBean wrote:

[
You picked a teacher - a profession whose value to society should not have diminished with time. Other professions may have lost their value with time particularly if they have been replaced with machinery.

My kid seems to pick up an increasing amount of her education from that. Also AI type learning applications are not far off. These would seem to fall into the technological end of being replaced with machinery.

Stevo_666

Rick Chasey wrote:

And anyway, all research suggests this generation works harder than previous did at the same age.

You expect growth in the economy year on year, so why ought the younger generation not expect to earn more than their parents?

Got any examples of this research?

Your second paragraph suggests that the younger generation should adjust their expectations when economic growth is not positive, but I haven't seen that happening much.

morstar

Part of the problem here is the mentality of, we had it hard so...

The fact is that supporting life and health as a whole is now much easier to do due to efficiencies, machinery, computers, global movement of goods and many other things.

And yet those benefits are felt by an ever diminishing group as those efficiencies replace the need for human workers. It is a choice to keep people poor when mechanisms exist to support everybody.

Those left without cry foul, those with say, we didn't get here by luck, stop whingeing.

The reality is somewhere in the middle. If you want to live comfortably, you should expect to put to some effort in. Conversely, with less and less work to be done by human hand, a fairer distribution of the benefits of progress should be made.

Personally, I find it absurd that such a wealthy nation had such terrible roads (just one example). Why not put people into fairly paid, long term jobs repairing roads. Because it is dependent on wealth distribution through the state.
The absurdity is that you can spend an obscene amount of money on a car paid for through your own endeavours and because it is a pleasure to drive. You justify the expense as you have earned the right to own nice goods. However, the experience of driving it is diminished by terrible roads and yet you argue vehemently that paying extra taxes will cause you to leave the country.
It is narrow minded greed. My money, not yours as though being able to earn well happened solely through your own endeavour and that you owe nothing to society.

I'm not for uncontrolled state spending or against being rewarded for hard work. But the balance is definitely off.