Forum menu
sweepy you dont know Im actually a quite a nice bloke !
these threads are more to get people thinking...and are not trolls !
everyone seems to get very angry very quickly
Add in the 'I'm paying your wages
I always like that one, like I don't pay any taxes 😀
these threads are more to get people thinking...and are not trolls !everyone seems to get very angry very quickly
May I suggest you word them better and not make generalisations based on a small observation that someone buys certain goods.
If you're going to have twice the period in retirement than you could have expected even fifteen years ago, then that's got to be paid for.
It is paid for without the need of the change to the system that's what has been said many times in other threads and part of the reason for the action.
i didnt say all strikers had iphones im sure some dont have them...some may have andriods etc
I witnessed some of the pickets were happily texting away on their brand new iphones with a starbucks coffee in the other hand !
You witnessed with your own eyes, eh? I just don't know what to say. i bet some of the lazy barsteards were wearing shoes as well. can't be that poor if they've got shoes can they? lazy, theiving.. did any of them actually have the temerity to DRIVE to this place of idleness of which you talk. sure they did. I hope that you're busy writing a stronly worded letter to the ADily mail att his very moment. makes my blood boil. Parasites
It is paid for without the need of the change to the system that's what has been said many times in other threads and part of the reason for the action
yes, but stupid people need told more than once or twice.
i didnt say all strikers had iphones im sure some dont have them
This is kind of the point.
It's a bit lazy to point the finger at bankers, directors etc. Already there's a 52% tax rate for the highest earners, so they're paying a stack more in than they're ever going to draw.
True, but there are also large numbers of those people using offshore bank accounts for tax limitation. My point was aimed at the increasing separation between us and the top earners. We have the money, but it's all tied up with the those earners.
The real point here, and it's both good and bad, is that we're living much longer
I'm not sure that's the reason. Sure we might live a few years longer than the generation back in the 70's - but not significantly longer overall. And I suspect they'll be few who'll be around until 67 to actually collect theirs. I think it's there's more of us to support - more drain on the system overall from other sources.
these threads are more to get people thinking...and are not trolls !
Best Advice: When one finds oneself in a deep, dark and damp place with a tiny dot of light overhead, its probably time to stop digging.
dark hole where ?
dark hole where ?
if you really are so dense that you attract light, you probably don't realise how deep the hole is
i must be dense then
I'm not sure that's the reason. Sure we might live a few years longer than the generation back in the 70's - but not significantly longer overall. And I suspect they'll be few who'll be around until 67 to actually collect theirs. I think it's there's more of us to support - more drain on the system overall from other sources
Life expectancy in 1975 was 72.7, so people lived, on average, 10 years beyond pension age (I'm averaging the male:female retirement ages - mathematically rubbish but you get the point).
Life expectancy in 2009 was 80.1, so people lived an extra 7.4 years. That's predicted to keep on rising for a while yet.
The point is that even "a few years longer" makes a massive difference to the pension cost. Add to that the fact that part of the reason that people are living longer is because of ever more expensive medical procedures, and you can see that those additional 7 or so years of life are hugely expensive to the country.
I'm not bemoaning this - far from it - just pointing out some basic facts. Living longer costs more. As we all want to live a bit longer, we have to face up to how we fund it.
The good news is that the later you retire the shorter your life expectancy.
So increasing the retirement age to 68/69 will bring the life expectancies back down again too - a double saving 😐
The big difference is in the number of people who survive to take their pension.
My father took early retirement at 56. He was the only one still alive from the 1946 apprentice intake.
He did have the stats from the union as to how few shipwrights lived to 60 and take their pension - it was very, very few. All those that did survived benefitted from those that contributed, but were never able to benefit...
ETA - just remembered the ubnion stats he had when deliberating about early retirement. Every year below 60 that you retired, added 4 to your expected lifespan. All those who worked to 60 were dead within a few years
"He did have the stats from the union as to how few shipwrights lived to 60 and take their pension - it was very, very few. All those that did survived benefitted from those that contributed, but were never able to benefit..."
Was there no "widows pension" back then? I'm sure that the norm is when the 'husband' dies first, the widow gain some of the pension rights. Now obviously women died younger then too, but I don't think you have painted the full picture.
Don't know the details - but widows certainly didn't get the full pension
ETA - My point was, for the pre- "baby-boomer" generation, more was being paid in than was being taken out.
ETA 2. Come to think of it, not sure that widows got anything. Pretty sure my father paid in the the Oddfellows to cover dependents???
I got the bus to town for my demo, got a mince pie and a lovely purple Unison tabard from my local rep to cover my un-designer second-hand fleece jacket, bought a coffee from an independent coffee kiosk and texted my wife on my £22 a month not-an-iphone. And I wasn't even costing the taxpayer/saving the taxpayer my exorbitant salary (delete as to which you think is more true) by being on strike: work have rostered me to do all my hours on nights over the next two weekends.
Seriously, that's my day so far. What do I win?
unfitgeezer you are on to a loser here mate in so many ways.
1) Your logic is massively flawed because having an Iphone and a Starbucks is not an indication of comparative wealth in the UK.
2) This place is packed with public sector workers so you are going to get seriously shouted down. Who else would have enough time to waste on the internet talkign rubbish (apart from rich gits)..
[/i] Your logic is massively flawed because having an Iphone and a Starbucks is not an indication of comparative wealth in the UK.
true...i was being silly