You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
So one policy the Hungarian or polish governments you agree are hard right that is not a tory policy?
Tories are xenophobic at best and outright racist generally and scapegoat immigrants. Thats hard right.
They create " the enemy within" straight out of tbe hard right playbook
They deliberatly impoverish the poor, the sick and the disabled. Guess what?
For 32 years of my voting life i have lived in Sunaks constituency, my vote for Labour has been meaningless. I would have to move to make a difference. In practical terms democracy is a myth for many people.
Same for many people, even those tories in Labour strongholds I imagine. Any vote I make that is not Tory is meaningless and has been since I moved here in 2001.
Brexit was caused due to a fair and open vote, it was democratic and if i remember, both the hard left and hard right wanted it, with the unions in favour of exiting the EU as well.
I've said it before, but in reality we see very little change between parties taking over government, folk live off paper headlines, when the reality is just completely different, the likes of immigration is up, even after Brexit, most of what the tories have done this term is just waste money to try and look like they're doing stuff, our political system has protected us against some of the daftest stuff that could have damaged us more, it's not perfect, but it does a job until there is a better system in place.
"I’ve said it before, but in reality we see very little change between parties taking over government"
That's actually not true for anyone with a brain and some memory. Which may exclude many voters, of course.
That’s actually not true for anyone with a brain and some memory. Which may exclude many voters, of course.
The 14 years of the tories have been dominated by Brexit and Covid, and then of course international matters, when they've tried to get controversial votes through, the Lords, or courts have managed to stop them most of the time, the country is pretty much the same as it was in 2010 to most people, with the same issues affecting them.
I think a lot of people forget that behind 300-350 MPs for a party, there are hundreds of permanents secretaries, thousands of civil servant staffers, and tens of thousands of departmental civil servants all working away at managing the government, add in the two houses, the courts, etc and it's not an easy thing to get wide changing policy through all the hoops, if it was i dare say the NHS would have PLC at the end of it now!
I have always lived in safe constituencies. My vote has been irrelevant.
Hate to break this to you, but even under PR your vote is one in tens of millions. Your voice is largely irrelevant in any voting system for a country of this scale. If relevance is what you and others crave, then get involved in politics at the lowest level and make a difference to your local community. I live in an ultra marginal and I can assure you it brings little comfort. I still feel complete isolation and separation from govt and the decisions that are made on my* behalf even though my vote is much more influential than yours.
*as if!. Hardly anything govts of any colour do is in the interests of working people like myself.
Thats hard right.
The current Tories may be 'hard' right by comparison to the norm in the UK (although I'd say that's debateable). But you can compare and contrast the regimes by using Freedom House which gives everyone a score based on how free the country is.
United Kingdom score is 91/100
So you can keep on insisting that the Tories are more or less the same thing as these semi-autocratic regimes, but the folks who's job it is to literally judge these things, disagrees with you.
Your voice is largely irrelevant in any voting system for a country of this scale.
Of course voting is a collective thing. The point is for everyone’s vote to be worth the same, and for representation to match votes cast. We are so far from that in UK wide elections.
The point is for everyone’s vote to be worth the same, and for representation to match votes cast.
Why are we obsessing about the relative influence of individual votes when what we should be worrying about is the influence and power of the wealthy which is exercised outside the voting system? Compared to the influence a corporate lobbyist or billionaire exercises over ministers, MPs and senior civil servants, your vote is completely irrelevant. You think billionaires worry about whether their vote is useful?
Im not sure it can ever be fixed. It's all based on corruption.
I long predicted that our system of government would be eventually be run by millionaires and billionaires for their own benefit and those who support them. It's probably over 20 years since i first came to this conclusion.
And thats where we are now.
"the country is pretty much the same as it was in 2010 to most people, with the same issues affecting them."
Nonsense. Last I looked about 20% of the population is on an NHS waiting list. Housing has been problematic for a long time of course, but if you don't think it's markedly worse for many more people than it was back then, you have a short memory indeed. I could go on. This is pretty much the first time in history that children are going to be worse off than their parents, and it's not due to external events, it's deliberate policy choices to impoverish the future.
Brexit was caused due to a fair and open vote, it was democratic
Well aside from the fact that as a non binding referendum it was run under different rules from what it magically morphed into. As such spending restrictions were limited and also the ability to promise all things to all people was available to the brexiteers. Something which wouldnt have been available under a binding referendum where we would have known what we are getting.
with the unions in favour of exiting the EU as well.
Some unions were but a minority.
the likes of immigration is up, even after Brexit,
Not "even" after brexit but at least for illegal migration due to it since previous agreements vanished.
For legal migration we get into the different promises to different people. The "save our curry houses" and similar campaigns from the brexiteers did claim by reducing EU migration it would enable more migration from India/****stan etc. Unusually for the brexiteers its sort of been kept to but is of course something very different from what was being promised to other groups.
So you can keep on insisting that the Tories are more or less the same thing as these semi-autocratic regimes, but the folks who’s job it is to literally judge these things, disagrees with you.
They arent.
You are confusing a party being "hard right" with a country being "free".
A ruling party can be hard right but not succeed in undermining democracy sufficiently to damage the latter. For example in the UK several attempts to damage our levels of freedom have been defeated in court.
Hard to figure out what the question really is- the OP asks the question of how to bring the policies of the two main parties closer together, the second post says if we rid ourselves of the Cons then things will be right, the third advocates a flavour of MMP as the solution...
NZ has had MMP since 1996 to force better representation of voting percentages in Parliament. In that time there has only been one single party majority- Ardern's 2020 government, which was pretty unsuccessful, and resulted in a record swing to the right in last years elections. There's now a centre right (Tory) majority part with two right wing (economically libertarian, socially conservative, populist) 'kingmaker ' parties. This coalition (which took 90 odd days to form a government) spent its first 100 days dismantling many of the flagship policies of the previous government.
So, yeah, representation matches votes cast, but it's still the same old shit show. Proportional representation is not necessarily better than FPTP, and may even exaggerate the influence of extremist parties.
"For example in the UK several attempts to damage our levels of freedom have been defeated in court."
And yet our freedom to protest and strike have been substantially curtailed. Our freedom to go and make a better life for ourselves outside the country has been taken away. It hasn't happened yet but there's a large faction within the tories who wish to take away our human rights.
Why are we obsessing about the relative influence of individual votes when what we should be worrying about is the influence and power of the wealthy which is exercised outside the voting system?
If you don't see how a two party swinging system helps the wealthy to maintain a hold on parliament, and government, then I can't help you there.
As it happens though, I was talking about how our voting system and our demographics means that older people have such a strong grip on our democracy. Your answer was to deny people the vote. My suggestions were to widen the pool of voters and, more importantly, to make the votes of younger voters genuinely count, rather than so many being worthless because of where they happen to choose (or have no choice) to live. My suggestion is to strengthen democracy, yours is to further degrade it. A watered down example of the democracy versus authoritarian argument I suppose.
This is pretty much the first time in history that children are going to be worse off than their parents.
That's an interesting claim. I wonder if its *really* true. Worse off is a very broad term. Certainly my son is the age I was when I left uni, and he will be better off than I was. I have wealthier friends who's children will be even better off as Mummy and Daddy funded university for them and the flat they bought will be sold to create a deposit (the same was true of wealthier friends when I went to uni in the 90s). Undoubtedly there are poorer people who are served less well, but it was the same in the 90s too. And that is measuring wealth on a purely financial scale. Our children today have better bikes, computers, phones, etc which mean that even if they believe they have less cash, their quality of life *may* not be worse. Now, don't get me wrong, I am pretty sure social mobility is no better and possibly worse than it was - which for politicians claiming to be the party of aspiration is a catastrophic failure... ...unless of course social mobility amongst your own voters has improved!
I wonder if its *really* true.
Housing, that's all one needs to consider for a positive answer. The size of income for affordability is beyond most minimum wage earners.
Final salary pensions.
Both you and I appear to be at the upper end of the income scale, my children are towards the other end. Without my/our help my two will not be able to afford a house close to their workplace and their pensions are going to be rubbish compared to mine.
Scrap postal voting, it's wide open to abuse.
It's a godsend for people working shifts, or with more than one job. Also used by young people who have to keep moving their rented accommodation in different areas of the country because of the intermittent and casual work that's become so normal for new entrants to the workplace... they can keep voting in the constituency the grew up in while they're having to live the nomadic life.
"The current Tories may be ‘hard’ right "
Seems to be a complete reality distortion field. The Tory vote has collapsed because the party that currently calls itself Conservative is anything but. High tax, incompetent with public finances, country visibly going down the tube, increasingly Draconian thought crime legislation. To call the party that has set record immigration levels to three times that of the Blair/Brown regime xenophobic is a little bit unbalanced. The Cons will lose because con voters have had enough of the lies, broken manifesto promises, imposed joke PM Sunak and monumental incompetence.
You are confusing a party being “hard right” with a country being “free”.
Yeah you're right, but it's a good enough proxy IMO.
Scrap postal voting, it’s wide open to abuse.
And turning up at a polling station is not? There seems to be little evidence of actual voter fraud that if you are trying to fix the system - you are looking in the wrong place.
Im not sure it can ever be fixed. It’s all based on corruption.
I long predicted that our system of government would be eventually be run by millionaires and billionaires for their own benefit and those who support them. It’s probably over 20 years since i first came to this conclusion.
And thats where we are now.
I think it has been like that for a very long time and all that has changed is 24hr news and social media makes it harder to hide coupled with it being done in a much less discrete way.
And yet our freedom to protest
Has it really? What evidence to support this is there? I would agree its harder to strike than it used to be
Housing, that’s all one needs to consider for a positive answer. The size of income for affordability is beyond most minimum wage earners.
- It depends to some extent on their aspirations for where they live.
- Houses like the one I grew up in sell for £110-120K; the one my children grew up in is about 3x that.
- The first house I (we) bought was on a similar mortgage:income ratio to two new graduates buying the house I grew up in would be today.
- My kids probably won't be earning minimum wage when they first buy a property, just as I wasn't. When I was on crap earnings I was sharing flats and scraping by, just as my parents had done before me! My parents were not in any financial position to help me out, but we potentially might be in a position to help our kids out. So whilst the gov might not be responsible for that redistribution they would still end up "better off" than we were.
Final salary pensions.
- I don't have a FS pension
- My parents don't have a FS pension
- I didn't have a pension at all until I was in my 30's, my kids will have something as soon as earning (it will be a shite pension but starting early is important even with a shite pension)
- My kids can probably expect to inherit something before they reach retirement age (as indeed might I). Your legitimate observation about house prices also means that inheritances are growing significantly - albeit life expectancy* growing means they may not happen so soon.
Both you and I appear to be at the upper end of the income scale, my children are towards the other end.
- I'll buy into the "upper end" of the scale description. I don't expect my children to be on minimum wage when they leave education. Did you earn as much as your parents when you started working?
Without my/our help my two will not be able to afford a house close to their workplace and their pensions are going to be rubbish compared to mine.
- The starting assumption seems to be that people should own a house. Even when I was growing up that was not the default position - its a legacy of thatcher. So saying first generation to be less well off than their parents might be ignoring all those pre-thatcher generations? Of course right to buy has left a legacy of problems for generations to come... but it seems odd that the generations that benefitted are now grumbling that they might have to give the next generation a leg up.
- I don't know where mine will end up living/working. Certainly, if you want to live somewhere really nice this could be an issue - but I think those are aspirations that WE impart on our kids. When you look at the geography of where people live in the UK (and probably elsewhere) employers either move to areas where there is cheap labour or need to solve the access to housing (mines, mills etc did this by building - modern day by paying more).
- There's always been a balance between where you want to live / how much it costs / what you earn.
- I'm not sure the pension imbalance is as simple as a generational one.
"Certainly my son is the age I was when I left uni, and he will be better off than I was."
Of course there will be some families where this is the case. However broadly speaking it will not be. Generous final salary pensions are dead, as is stable career progression and affordable housing for the most part.
We're just going through father-in-law's affairs, as he has dementia and is in a care home. He was a mid-ranking professional, nothing particularly important, and his parents weren't rich so he never had any leg up at the start, was the first in his family to go to uni. Retired early in his 50s, his single salary supported a stay-at-home wife with 2 kids who went through uni. And he's worth over a million quid. Tell a teacher or uni lecturer or similar in their 30s that they are going to have saved up a million quid by the time they pop their clogs and they'd think you were off your tits on meth. He didn't even get particularly lucky on the housing bubble, it's mostly savings not property!
My flat was 2.5 times my earnings when bought. Now worth ten times the salary for the same job. Rental was 30% of salary now would be 60 %.
Two new graduates could not affird the house poly mentions if they are in public service
@edhornby add ban donations to political parties, ban fund raising for political parties
Introduce public funding for all parties and I think you have a winner
Two new graduates could not affird the house poly mentions if they are in public service
TJ are you saying 2 new graduates couldn’t afford a 120K house? Let’s say they have a 10% deposit - so a 110K mortgage.
Nurses / Teachers straight out of uni - £25K ish? . So a couple would be on £50k. I believe that for good credit risks lenders will offer 4.5x join income - so they’d have no issue getting a mortgage.
Of course there will be some families where this is the case. However broadly speaking it will not be. Generous final salary pensions are dead, as is stable career progression and affordable housing for the most part.
ok, well if those are your definitions I’m also less well off than my forebears having no final salary pension, and timing for housing market that was not ideal, etc. I think every 1980s miner would also like a chat about the stable career progression they had… don’t get me wrong a lot of boomers have done a great job of being fat and lucky and screwing the world for those that follow, and they’ll probably shaft us again - but I’m not convinced todays children are automatically worse off than their parents and this is a new thing; even if we assume that I am some sort of outlier. That is in no way an attempt to say the government have done a good job on these issues.
Edhornby and Gordinmor - I could get behind most of those! I’d not actually abolish HOL - I think it has shown itself to be sensible steadying force when HOC goes off the rails. Personally I’d have a much smaller house, perhaps 2-300 people. I wouldn’t bother electing them - the public are just going to appoint the same sort of nutters on poorly argued manifestos and the colour of their tie. I think you could “earn” a seat in the HOL by having been an MP and perhaps even some jobs like Judge or senior civil servants - people who are used to scrutinising law and policy. Points for various roles (pm would score more than a minister, minister more than a back bencher, etc) and time in office - so the Ken Clarke, Tony Benn, etc would still have potential to end up there. You’d end up with a council of wisdom - ideally with eligibility requiring people to leave their party behind, but certainly no whipping.
Older generations yes, current generation no, i.e. a 25 year old who has kids will not be better off that their children as both in same boat whereas a 60 year old with a 30 year old is not.
And blaming older generations is not really on as a LOT of us did not vote for Thatcher and we had no say in what housing was doing, what happened to pensions and so on. We were just born at the right time, buying somewhere to live and getting whatever pension was the norm.
And blaming older generations is not really on
Hmmm, sorry but Boomers (as a generation) still have much to answer for, they came to Political power when ? Early 90's- ish? just two things; climate change denial (the facts were known, even Thatcher recognised the danger) and the fantasy of "trickle down" economics have done more harm then pretty much anything else you care to look at, and both of those things are on their watch. It's hard not to see them as a group of folks who're 'generally' anti-science and economically illiterate. They're going to leave the place much worse then they were handed it. It'll be left the Gen X and millennials to recover from that and that's going to be 50-60 years of graft - if we last that long.
The kids are having to clear up the mess left by their parent's party.
Older generations yes, current generation no, i.e. a 25 year old who has kids will not be better off that their children as both in same boat whereas a 60 year old with a 30 year old is not.
A notable number of (anecdotal stuff incoming) of my generation and social grouping are effectively ****ed in terms of being better off than their parents, or even in terms of avoiding retiring into poverty. As would I if I had children, which growing up is not a choice I thought I'd end up making.
Their mortgages are taking them to retirement age and pensions can only be the absolute minimum whilst they are paying the costs of raising families.
Someone mentioned stable career progression up thread, was this ever really a thing? I've never been in a workplace where pay structures were not a pyramid, which by default limits progression. You cant have everyone at the base of that pyramid moved up, and by default the pay I've seen in organisations is 'banded' so long service and ability in role only returns so much.
Where do two graduates that are 40k in debt suddenly find 11k for a house deposit and the desire to live in an area that has 100k houses?
@poly I agree about the need for a second house but it's population needs to come from A much wider base than the one you describe so yes to educationalists poverty campaigners artists trade unionists and many more
It’s hard not to see them as a group of folks who’re ‘generally’ anti-science and economically illiterate.
You forgot their enormous sense of entitlement and vanity. I've lost count of the number of times someone in that generation (including my own parents and in-laws) has told me something along the lines of 'things were no different in our day, we worked hard and pulled our socks up and got on with it rather than having everything handed to us on a plate'. I'm not denying they worked hard, but the rest of it is bollocks because actually they were handed everything on a plate. Free education, stable secure jobs and wages linked to productivity, generous pensions and retirement, a liberal safety net and functioning health services, and then later a massive free handout to the tune of hundreds of thousands in the form of property price inflation. They think they got all these things because of their graft, but they didn't. They got them because of the political climate at the time which was largely a reaction to the cold war. And then when that was coming to a close they voted tory in their own financial interests rather than passing on that benign political environment to their kids. We've been left a shit-show, and they still expect us to pay for their triple-locked pensions!
"And blaming older generations"
I'm not particularly talking about blame older generations, I mostly blame people voting tory, they tend to be older, but not exclusively. I happen to know a lovely community of older people here who mostly wouldn't dream of it. They've still benefited from the policies however and some of them may be a bit complacent about it, they believe they "earnt" it but don't necessarily accept that this was effectively thrust upon them and some rebalancing is required (eg taxation).
"Someone mentioned stable career progression up thread, was this ever really a thing?"
My parents' generation, yes (I'm 55). It was very clearly dying out for me (and was a significant factor in provoking my move abroad), but still somewhat achievable in my niche. It has only got worse since.
Even with a pyramid there still used to be reasonable salary increases with seniority. There was also a big expansion in their era so the promotion bottleneck was much much looser.
Of course I only know my own niche (academia/research).
So if todays young people were handed the same things on a plate (free education, cheaper houses, better pensions) etc,. what do you think they would do - would they reject it all on the basis that is may not be as good for people in 40 years time?
I benefitted from things completely out of my control, what do you suggest I should have been doing when just buying a house, juts getting a work pension and so on?
It's not any individual's fault.
But, there's a responsibility not to squander societies future assets, and the political classes from the 1980 and 1990s have very much done that at the expense of their children and grandchildren. Politicians have aimed their policies at the largest group, and that is Boomers: Growing up, in their work places, and now in their retirement. This is a group of folks who've had their every whim catered to. I think the biggest impact for me is the gap between the (revolutionary) things they say, and the narcissistic way they behave, in that I think they came to believe that prosperity was the natural order of things for them and their children, and cannot seem to be persuaded that ultimately they've benefitted from that narrow era of almost unheard of post-war settlement and growth.
Worth remembering that the victims of 1980s mass unemployment will soon be coming through retirement. I'm already there and I did not land a job until 27. That scarring had a cost.
However there is a but, a big but: grant at university, as soon as I got a job I was straight into the housing market even though interest rates were high and wage low, during the short wait I had access to affordable renting, mobility was easier, you could easily "get on your bike" and freedom of movement gave me that job. If we ever get that degree of unemployment again, recovery will be much, much harder.
I think people who’ve benefited need to accept that some rebalancing is required, this means taxes and benefits targeting those who have the most and those who need the most.
Eg, earned income is taxed more punitively than unearned income, generally speaking. And huge tax-free inheritance windfalls perpetuate inequality. Houses need to be built over the objections of reactionary nimbys. Freedom of movement needs to be prioritised over the objections of jingoistic xenophobes.
But, there’s a responsibility not to squander societies future assets, and the political classes from the 1980 and 1990s have very much done that at the expense of their children and grandchildren.
I don't believe people knew that at the time. I certainly didn't as I could not see 40 years into the future.
I just did things like went to work (and got pension), bought house that was only 3 times salary and so on which was just what people did. To expect me not to do that because of stuff 40 years away is a bit unrealistic isn't it.
And what if whatever people are doing now, including younger generation, is at the expense of their grandchildren. Are they even thinking about it?
"And what if whatever people are doing now, including younger generation, is at the expense of their grandchildren. Are they even thinking about it?"
Mebbes aye mebbes naw ?
Should they be?
Are people even able to predict what will be the situation in thirty years time?
Should'nt people be able to take a decision that alters the effect of a decision taken many years earlier?
I don’t believe people knew that at the time. I certainly didn’t as I could not see 40 years into the future.
No but they do now (or should do!). This is the narcissism nickc is talking about. They (speaking generally of course) think everything they have is deserved, and they should continue to have all that stuff without having to pay anything back. House prices are a classic example, the boomer generation profited by hundreds of thousands each from something that they didn't contribute to at all, and yet now they won't accept tax on that unearned wealth either in the form of wealth taxes or inheritance tax. Same goes for pensions, they expect the younger generations to continue paying their final salary and index-linked state pensions while younger people have to swallow the reality of retiring later and having much less valuable pensions.
As a good anecdotal example, the 5live phonein earlier this week was talking about pension and tax changes coming into effect. A standard full-state pension is something like 9% better off thanks to the triple lock, and yet a retired caller on the show was complaining that she was going to have to pay income tax on a tiny proportion of it because the raise has taken her over the threshold for paying tax.
To expect me not to do that because of stuff 40 years away is a bit unrealistic isn’t it.
Again; it's not your fault. I cannot say that enough. The fault does lie though at the feet of politicians who should know those things, and who're paid to know those things. We haven't built enough houses, that's a policy decision to appease a generation of folks whose wealth (or more accurately their own assessment of their wealth) is inextricably tied to thier house value* We've robbed councils of council-taxation becasue of policy choices not to revalue those same properties for exactly the same reason. We've not allowed councils to build for the same reason, when Boomer's parents are dying off their houses are falling to ownership by Boomers and are being rented out, because being a private landlord or getting a mortgage for one is piss-easy. It's a set of polices designed to appeal to homeowners, and overwhelmingly in the UK now those people are Boomers, and those policies alone (that are there becasue of political decisions) are having a massive impact on future generations being householders. Politicians should've done something about this years ago, but won't becasue the largest voting block won't stand for it.
* I know that they want to pass on that house value to their children, and they do that from the best motives, but unearned and hoarded wealth is killing our societal equilibrium at a rate that's unprecedented.
For the hard of understanding – when I talk about children being worse off than their parents, I meant on a generational, statistical basis and not that every child will be worse off than their own parents.
@the_captain - yes I realise that; what I'm questioning is if it is true even at statistical level. I think it may be true for some demographics but the examples of house prices, final salary pensions etc are very much a "middle class concern". If you are at the council house, struggling to feed your kids end of the scale - I'm not saying its better now than it was but I'm questioning if its actually worse. We didn't have food banks in the 70/80s so perhaps it was better, but there was a lot of unemployment, 3 day weeks, etc. Rose tinted specs? I wonder if those who are sure their kids will be the first generation to be worse off, missed the generations around coal, steel, and other heavy industry who were just dumped in the 80s? The grand children of those generations are doing better than their forebears.
Where do two graduates that are 40k in debt suddenly find 11k for a house deposit and the desire to live in an area that has 100k houses?
40k in debt presumably = student loans? So not normal debt (although I loath them). The need to find a deposit has almost always existed - except for a short period near the millenium when banks lost the plot. I don't want to sound like a "they can afford £4 for a coffee" type, but people afford weddings, foreign holidays, nice cars, fancy phones etc - if you want a deposit for a house you used to make sacrifices to achieve that. Where did you get the deposit for your first house? The second half of your question was exactly the point I was making - IF you are willing to compromise on the house/location there are houses around (that sort of money gets you a 3 bed "four in a block" on the south side of Glasgow - its not Nottinghill, but there's much worse around). Sometimes people here remember life through their own aspirational middle class blinkers.
House prices are a classic example, the boomer generation profited by hundreds of thousands each from something that they didn’t contribute to at all, and yet now they won’t accept tax on that unearned wealth either in the form of wealth taxes or inheritance tax.
I am with you on inheritance tax and I would go for 100% inheritance tax. In reality that would drive behaviours but so be it.
Not with you on a wealth tax. My mum is someone who benefitted from housing prices but she has no money other than state pension so taxing her while alive is not exactly fair as again housing prices just happened to her (on a house she bought in 1962 and still lives in).
Same goes for pensions, they expect the younger generations to continue paying their final salary and index-linked state pensions while younger people have to swallow the reality of retiring later and having much less valuable pensions.
How are the younger generations paying for peoples final salary pension schemes? They are company pensions and nothing to do with anyone outside of that company with regards to paying for.
The young could have an even better state pension that the old have but we don't know as that is 40 years away and choices over retiring earlier can be made but the young would have to pay for that now just as others will have to pay more for them to retire earlier when they reach that age.
and they should continue to have all that stuff without having to pay anything back.
This in a nutshell, There needs to be hundreds of thousands of new homes - like the ones that were built in the post-war boom that the Boomers bought cheaply! But it'll hit the value of Boomers unearned wealth, so it won't happen. We have to be in this together, or not at all, we can't have just one generation nodding their heads and then voting for the party that'll promise to make them richer just like back in the day, those days have gone, and they're not coming back if this one generation continue to behave like they're the only group that matter.
How are the younger generations paying for peoples final salary pension schemes?
Are you aware that the largest single shareholder of Thames Water is a Canadian pension scheme? So, water was sold off, its bought by shareholder investment companies who have a responsibility to their shareholders - pension schemes mostly, to extract as much value from the investments as possible. Thames Water is now bust becasue the money that should've gone to making it better has gone to pay final salary schemes, Your children will cop the cost of re-nationalising the water and doing that work instead in the form of an increased tax burden .
How are the younger generations paying for peoples final salary pension schemes?
The pensioners of today are paid from the contributions collected from today's workers. That's how large pension schemes work and why pension defecits are such a massive problem. Same goes for state pensions on the whole although obviously those are funded from general govt expenditure. The result is the same though, older people getting more, younger people getting much less.
The trouble with making economic and other decisions that effect society in the longer term on a political basis is that any politician is likely to be guided by the proximity of an election. If we take some key roles out of the electoral process and put in an unelect.... nah let's not.
So lets try something else along with PR what about a directly elected Chancellor and Health Secretary on a 7 year term yet ultimately responsible to the PM who is elected in the normal way for the normal 5 years.
I don’t want to sound like a “they can afford £4 for a coffee” type, but people afford weddings, foreign holidays, nice cars, fancy phones etc
I'm not sure that sweeping generalisation is helpful. Amongst my peers the scenario you picture here is unusual. The majority cant afford any of the things on your list.
The majority cant afford any of the things on your list.
There's a much bigger problem than people being able to afford weddings and nice cars..
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/02/the-britons-who-want-children-but-feel-they-cant
The pensioners of today are paid from the contributions collected from today’s workers.
No they are not. I have a very small final salary pension from my employer where I worked from 1988-1994. The company no longer exists but the pension fund is maintained and nobody is paying contributions into it.
My pension for the company I worked for from 94 to now has all been paid by me and the company and nobody outside of that is paying contributions into it.
You seem to be confusing state pensions with private company pensions.
No they are not. I have a very small final salary pension from my employer where I worked from 1988-1994. The company no longer exists but the pension fund is maintained and nobody is paying contributions into it.
Pension funds are generally protected from companies being liquidated or going into administration. Defined benefits schemes are protected by the govt Pension Protection Fund, or they take out separate insurance to ensure liabilities can be met. If however the company is still in business then pensioners are paid from the contributions (and return on investments) to the fund.
Yes I know. My question was "How are the younger generations paying for peoples final salary pension schemes?" which you have failed to answer. Nick had a go on your behalf but was clearly stretching to link pension investments in water company which is not the same.
What younger people are paying for is the state pension of those current claiming a pension just as they are paying any other benefits people are receiving. When they retire that younger generation will be paying it for them as I say that could be better or worse than now as it is 40 years away. Who knows the younger generation may vote for a party that provides higher state pension benefits at a higher cost to themselves being the current workforce
They are also paying for civil servants pensions the cost of which has gone up up significantly since 2008 whilst we have had negative real interest rates, this should stabilize now we have a realistic rate.
[img] 
?itok=AV_nmSW0[/img]
Many pensioners has lost out badly as well as there cash savings have been whittled away by the lack of a real interest rate.
What younger people are paying for
Pedancy aside are you denying that younger people are worse off than older people in terms of pensions? Why is that? Was it because the older generation never paid enough in to cover their future benefits? Who pays for the shortfall? Certainly not the pensioners because they refuse to accept any reduction in their pensions.
The worst provided generation for pensions is Generation X, younger generations started saving for their pension much earlier.
"The need to find a deposit has almost always existed"
10% of 45kin the 90s was far easier to afford than 10% of 275k that my house is worth today.
My neighbour rents at 200£ a month more than my mortgage, he's given up living a miserable life unable to save as fast as deposits are going up and has decided he's going on holiday... Presumably he should just continue to have been richer younger and be more miserable now.
Also I think graduates become graduates so they don't end up living in south Glasgow because they have just a minimal amount of aspiration.
I’d implement a system whereby any politician who doesn’t answer a simple and direct question is summarily executed. That would leave us with no politicians in short order and we could start from scratch. Can’t count the number of times I’ve been listening to radio 4 whilst driving to work and shouting “just answer the ****ing question”
I'm much more moderate, a flogging would suffice
Houses like the one I grew up in sell for £110-120K; the one my children grew up in is about 3x that.
I took that as you were talking about a 360000 house ie an average house in the uk.
Therr is not a single house within 100 miles of Edinburgh at 120000 i dont think . Nor across great swathes of the uk.
So one policy the Hungarian or polish governments you agree are hard right that is not a tory policy?
One tinsy wafer thin policy? Just one?
Or do you acceot our tory government is pretty much the same as tbe polish and Hungarian ones you accept as hard right?
Housing would be a good start to fixing things as it is one of the biggest problems for a lot of people.
If houses were still as relatively cheap as there were 30 years ago the vast majority would be better off as lower mortgages and lower rent. Who benefits from high house prices other than investors and people inheriting them?
Fixing it could cause chaos with massive negative equity and the whole market may crash and the wider implications could be massive.
Why not start by putting in place an immediate rent cap and fixing it for next 10 years. Rent would in real terms then be coming down and the associated houses would slowly come down too.
They are also paying for civil servants pensions the cost of which has gone up up significantly since 2008
Oh, didn't realise all those civil servants were still on final salary pensions, pretty good benefit to working for civil service.
Therr is not a single house within 100 miles of Edinburgh at 120000 i dont think . Nor across great swathes of the uk.
There are perfectly 'livable' properties in that price limit much closer than 100 miles, if you reset it to where I live, not far off 100 metres. Not houses maybe, but I'd certainly be comfortable in them and you could manage a small family. A fair distance from any sort of aspirational location mind you.
But even at that price point, my multiple friends whose circumstances I freely admit are distorting my overall picture, couldn't afford it as they are maxed out on rent/childcare costs. Theres no room for even 100k property deposits or anything beyond mandatory pension contributions. They're just about surviving but that's it.
Housing would be a good start to fixing things as it is one of the biggest problems for a lot of people.
This is true. I am lucky enough to earn a good living with a salary just shy of £50k. Mrs F only works part time/cover on minimum wage over a few hours. In the next couple of years we will need to move to a three bed house. This simply isn’t possible for us due to house prices. It is a huge concern and something that causes sleepless nights. Once Funk Jr is a bit older and can no longer share a bedroom with his sister I think either him or me and Mrs F will have to use the living room as a bedroom too.
If we’re in this position how the hell are young folk in lower paid jobs supposed to afford ridiculously expensive rents or mortgages. There’s a new build estate around the corner from us and I honestly can’t fathom how people afford to live there and have new cars on their drives.
There is always constant talk of sacrifice and not eating avocados or something equally as trite. The reality is that when home ownership or renting is so far beyond people’s means they just say **** it and buy a coffee or book a holiday. Even saving and living like a monk won’t help and just lead to a miserable existence.
Really pie monster? A place to bring up a family? Ex council flat in a rough estate maybe orperhaos in one of yhe birder towns
Certainly no houses which is what was referred to. Mabe just about at that lomit in the borders for a flat.
Therr is no doubt that in my lifetime property has increased in cost much more than wages have gone up by multiple factors and none of the property i or my parents have owned would i now be affordable for either me or them doing the public service jobs we did
I don't know what a "birder" town is. But Im assuming yeh, defo not an aspirational destination. Also, houses in that bracket, certainly all look like ex-council, but not in any locations I'd choose to live. (I'm looking at Fife btw)
Wait, is that "border"? That makes more sense.
Therr is no doubt that in my lifetime property has increased in cost much more than wages have gone up by multiple factors and none of the property i or my parents have owned would i now be affordable for either me or them doing the public service jobs we did
Completely agree with you here btw. Theres only one reason the house I'm in has been affordable, and that reason is the affordability of housing in my parents generation and the knock on "inherited" benefits that brings.
I took that as you were talking about a 360000 house ie an average house in the uk.
Therr is not a single house within 100 miles of Edinburgh at 120000 i dont think . Nor across great swathes of the uk.
tj, I gave a specific example of the “house” I grew up in at 110-120k. Now we might have a semantic argument about whether Glasgow “four in a blocks” aka cottage flats are actually houses but 3 beds, garden, and your own front door. definitely within 100 miles of Edinburgh, cycling distance to Glasgow city centre, good public transport. G44 postcode if you want to factcheck me - my recollection is you grew up not that far away. But there is similar housing around lots of central Scotland - usually places which are less popular to live (ex mining villages in Falkirk council area, Ayrshire, Lanarkshire) but it exists, and the reason it becomes unpopular is because it becomes “ghetto-ised” when people with “decent” jobs don’t want to live there so a self fulfilling prophecy. It’s always been the case that property prices were not simply about the bricks and mortar cost and people pay more to live in desirable areas, on live somewhere less desirable to afford a bigger house.
The property price problem and the artificial wealth created in our parents generation are only a “problem” if they live too long to pass on the wealth when it’s useful; is a society where people live longer worse - it does have economic upsides for young people like childcare etc even if you only measure on monetary scales? Of course it’s also a problem for those whose forebears didn’t jump on the property owning bandwagon - but that group have aways been shat on in the U.K. so I’m not sure they are worse off than their parents.
funkmaster - how much equity do you have? Something to think about - sell up, move somewhere shit with tiny mortgage and get mortgage free asap. There’s nothing quite as liberating as not having debt hanging over you. We are all suckers to the banks for falling into the borrow more trap.
Nick had a go on your behalf but was clearly stretching to link pension investments in water company which is not the same.
Where do you think pension schemes get the money to pay your pension from if not investing the contributions? Honest question?
“The property price problem and the artificial wealth created in our parents generation are only a “problem” if they live too long to pass on the wealth when it’s useful;“
No it’s a huge problem regardless of how soon they die, because of the inequality. Imagine a world where you could only ever hope to own a house if your parents owned one. Inheritance is already a major source of inequality and it’s only going to get worse.